beta
Text
1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;
2. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.
3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Details of the disposition;
A. The Defendant publicly announced the bid to the effect that “B construction will be executed concurrently by designing and constructing the B design” through the C Public Procurement Service (hereinafter “instant bid”).
B. On February 14, 2011, the Plaintiff and Daelim Industry Co., Ltd., Hyundai Construction Co., Ltd., and Co., Ltd., Ltd. (hereinafter “Co., Ltd.”), respectively, (hereinafter “Co., Ltd.”), shall organize a separate joint supply and demand company on February 14, 201, and the bid bid ratio to the notified amount was 94.33% for the Plaintiff Co., Ltd., 94.44% for the Daelim Industry Co., Ltd., Hyundai Co., Ltd., 94.39% for Hyundai Co., Ltd., Ltd., and Co., Ltd, at 94.275% for Hyundai Co., Ltd., Ltd, shall participate in the bidding (hereinafter “instant agreement”), and on March 3, 2011, the bid of this case was selected as a successful bidder on April 25,
C. On February 25, 2013, the Fair Trade Commission issued a corrective order and a penalty surcharge payment order to the Plaintiff on the ground that the agreement in this case constitutes an unfair collaborative act on the grounds that “the act of determining a bid rate or a bid price in a tender under Article 19(1)8 of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act (hereinafter “Fair Trade Act”) constitutes an act of determining a bid rate or a bid price” (hereinafter “instant penalty surcharge disposition”), and notified the Defendant on March 4, 2013.
The Defendant against the Plaintiff on October 30, 2013 pursuant to Article 92 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Act on Contracts to Which a Local Government Is a Party (amended by Presidential Decree No. 23134, Sept. 15, 201; hereinafter “former Enforcement Decree of the Local Contracts Act”) and Article 76 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Public Administration and Security No. 348, Mar. 15, 2013; hereinafter “former Enforcement Rule of the Local Contracts Act”) on the ground that “the Plaintiff made a bid collusion with respect to the instant tender (pre-tenders)” (hereinafter “former Enforcement Rule of the Local Contracts Act”).