1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The Defendant’s disposition restricting participation in bidding for three months against the Plaintiff on July 6, 2017.

1. The reasoning of the judgment by the court concerning the background of the disposition, the Plaintiff’s assertion, relevant statutes, and facts of recognition is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, in addition to the parts added below, and thus, it shall be cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420

The following shall be added to the fourth three pages of the judgment of the first instance:

C. The parties to the supply contract of this case are the parties to the supply contract of this case and the defendant and the above association allocated the supply volume to the members of the association including the plaintiff. Thus, the plaintiff, not the parties to the contract, cannot be deemed to have committed an "unfair act in performing the contract".

2. Determination

A. According to the following circumstances, the Plaintiff’s assertion of the above facts of recognition, its evidence, Eul’s evidence Nos. 5 and 11, and the purport of this court’s substantial facts and the entire pleading, following the following circumstances:

6. 14.Irrecons and the instant case

6.23.There are doubtful doubts as to whether or not they have purchased and supplied them from B without directly producing them.

① On April 17, 2017, the Plaintiff

6. 14.Irrecons and the instant case

6. The 23. 23. The plaintiff explained that the plaintiff purchased and supplied the container from another company, and the plaintiff purchased each of the above container from B and delivered it on May 12, 2017.

6. 14.M.M.D. at the construction site C, the instant case

6. 23. 26 metric tons of AMM were submitted again at the D construction site, and the remaining four tons were supplied at the E construction site.

② In fact-finding surveys on the current status of production and supply of asphalt conducted by the Defendant, the fact that the quantity of production recorded in the production record does not coincide with the quantity of shipment recorded in the shipment record was discovered.

B At the first time, the plaintiff explained that he was supplied after being provided with the container from the plaintiff, but the plaintiff was from the prior notification and the submission procedure of opinion on the punishment of the improper businessman.