2012 Ghana 24630 Damages (ar)

A Stock Company

BankB of the representative director

C

Representative Director Park Do-D

Law Firm Governing Province, Attorney Lee Jae-won

Attorney Lee Ho-chul, Lee Ho-chul, Park fixed, and Construction

April 25, 2013

May 23, 2013

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 44,100,000 with interest of KRW 20% per annum from the day following the delivery of a copy of the instant complaint to the day of complete payment.

1. Basic facts

A. On June 2012, the Defendant notified five companies including the Plaintiff, G Compensation Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “G Compensation”), H Compensation Co., Ltd., H Compensation Co., Ltd., joint stock companies, and J Appraisal Co., Ltd. to participate in designated competitive tendering (hereinafter “instant tendering”). In this case, the Defendant notified that “the basic service amount is KRW 4,100,000, and the lowest bid price is above the lowest bid price below the estimated bid price.”

B. On July 3, 2012, the Defendant conducted the instant bid, and among the above five enterprises, the Plaintiff and G Compensation only participated in the instant bid. The bid amount was KRW 41,50,000 (94.1%) and the G Compensation was KRW 34,595,00 (78.4%). As a result of the instant bid, the Defendant decided to take measures according to the results of attorney-at-law’s advice and self-deliberation and notified the Plaintiff.

D. On July 23, 2012, the Defendant decided to re-tender the Plaintiff, etc., and notified the date of re-tender. On July 23, 2012, the Defendant, upon having conducted re-tenders, decided as the final successful bidder the H Compensation Co., Ltd. (which participated in KRW 38,800,000 in the participation of three companies (the Plaintiff did not participate). [Grounds for recognition] The Defendant did not dispute any dispute, the entries in the evidence A, Nos. 1, 2, and Nos. 1 through 4, and the entire pleadings, and the judgment on

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff did not have any collusion in relation to the bid of this case. Despite the fact that the plaintiff was determined as the successful bidder as the result of the bid of this case, the defendant suffered losses to the plaintiff due to the tort of re-tender. Thus, the defendant shall compensate the plaintiff

B. Determination

In addition to the general legal principles that a bid invitation is a kind of incentive for subscription, and that a bid participation in the bidding constitutes an offer (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 78Da317, Apr. 11, 1978), it is assumed that a bid bidder does not conclude a contract within the prescribed time limit only on the bidding date, considering that the following circumstances recognized by the above facts and evidence, namely, the site site for land expropriation services attached to the ○○ Hobubu District, e.g., if a bid bidder fails to conclude a contract within the prescribed time limit, the bid price cannot be deemed to have been determined as a successful bidder, or that the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have concluded a contract, or that the bid bidder cannot be determined as a successful bidder even if the bid price was determined as a successful bidder, the bid price cannot be determined as a successful bidder, and that the bid price cannot be determined as a successful bidder more than the estimated price, and that the bid price cannot be determined as a successful bidder more than the average bid price after the bidding, as a result, there is no possibility that the Plaintiff failed to comply with the bid.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim against the defendant is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Kim Gung-han