1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited in this case is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the court below stated the reasons for the judgment concerning this case or where the plaintiff added the judgment on the argument that was made in the trial of the court of first instance. Thus, it shall be cited as it is by Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act

2. The 2nd 7-13 line of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be added to the following parts.

B. The Korea Won concrete industrial cooperative (hereinafter “the cooperative of this case”) is a non-profit organization consisting of 47 small and medium enterprises that produce concrete products, such as telegraph, fume, phc file, etc. The members of the cooperative that produce phc file are 17 companies, including the Plaintiff (the Plaintiff, Sung cancer, Seosan, Seosan, Seogjin Industry, Seogjin Industry, Sungwon, Pamam Industry, Pamam Industry Development Co., Ltd., New Ampi Industry Development Co., Ltd., Ltd., order file file file companies, prote file companies, prote file companies, prote industry, Geumsan Co., Ltd., Ltd., Geumsan Industries, Samsung Industries, Samsung C&M, Samsungyang, Inc., Ltd., Ltd., Ltd., and the individual companies are specified in the name of the corporation excluding "stock company," and "limited company, etc.").

The following shall be added between the three-party 18 and nine-party 19 of the grounds of the judgment of the first instance:

E. However, the case of bid for which the Defendant has the authority to dispose of the instant disposition among the instant dispositions to the Defendant is the first instance trial. Of the cases of bid indicated in attached Table 1 of the bid details awarded by the Plaintiff due to the instant collusion, the case where the procuring entity was a local government before the enforcement of the Act on Contracts to Which a Local Government is a Party (hereinafter “Revised Local Contract Act”) as amended by Act No. 12000, Aug. 6, 2013, was a local government tender, ② the procuring entity is a public agency, ③ the public agency is not the Defendant.