1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The reasons for the court's explanation concerning this case are as follows: Gap evidence No. 27 (A's statement certificate) is not sufficient to recognize that "the plaintiff is not negligent in performing his/her duty to prevent misconduct" as additional evidence submitted by the court of the first instance, and the plaintiff does not add the following judgments as to the matters alleged by re-emphasizing in the trial, and thus, it is identical to the reasons for the judgment of the court of the first instance. Thus, it is cited as it is in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Additional matters to be determined

A. On the grounds delineated below the plaintiff's assertion, the defendant's disposition of this case is erroneous in deviation from and abuse of discretionary power.

1) A violation of the principle of proportionality) The Plaintiff is unable to participate in not only the Defendant’s tender due to the instant disposition, but also all public bids ordered by other local governments, etc., pursuant to the provisions of the Act on Contracts to Which a Local Government Is a Party (hereinafter “Local Contract Act”). Thus, this is in fact harsh compared to the business suspension disposition against the Plaintiff.

B) The Plaintiff, entirely dependent on the bidding of the public construction project, suffered serious scarcitys that could not entirely engage in the construction project, and became a serious threat to the existence of the company itself, even if the instant disposition was not taken, the impact on the public interest is insignificant. On the other hand, if the employees of the Plaintiff company were to lose their jobs due to restructuring of the Plaintiff company, the latter is more likely to have the impact on the livelihood of the employees and their family members when compared and balancing the instant disposition. Thus, the instant disposition goes against the principle of proportionality.

2) The instant violation in violation of the principle of equality is practically the same as the Dongyang Construction Industry (hereinafter “Dongyang Construction Industry”).

x...