1. On January 29, 2019, the disposition that the Defendant rendered against the Plaintiffs on January 29, 2019 imposing restrictions on qualification for participation of unjust enterprisers in bidding shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On May 14, 2018, the Fair Trade Commission agreed in advance that the Plaintiff Company A (hereinafter “Plaintiff Company”)’s participation in each bidding in 2009, 2011, 2012, and 2013 of the order issued by the Plaintiff Company C, and that the act constitutes an “unfair collaborative act” under Article 19(1)8 of the former Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act (amended by Act No. 14813, Apr. 18, 2017; hereinafter “Fair Trade Act”)’s act constitutes an “unfair collaborative act” under Article 2018-141 of the former Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act. Accordingly, the Fair Trade Commission ordered the Plaintiff Company to take corrective measures to prohibit the foregoing act under Article 2018-141, and to pay a penalty surcharge of KRW 933,00,000,000.

B. On January 29, 2019, the Defendant rendered a disposition of restricting the qualification for participation in bidding (hereinafter “instant bidding”) for two years (2 years (from March 4, 2019 to March 3, 202) to the Plaintiffs on the grounds that “The State Contracts Act applicable to each bidding collusion under the Act on Contracts to Which the State is a Party (hereinafter “State Contracts Act”) was implemented by the Plaintiff Company after 2012, but the content of the State Contracts Act applicable to determining the issues of the instant case is not significantly different. The Defendant also appears to have issued the instant disposition based on the current Act and subordinate statutes (see subparagraph 1 of this Article). This also applies to the Enforcement Decree of the State Contracts Act and the Enforcement Rule of the State Contracts Act. This also applies to Article 27(1)2 of the Enforcement Decree of the State Contracts Act and Article 76 [Attachment 2] subparagraph 2 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act.”

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiffs' assertion that the plaintiff company participated in the bidding ordered by C institution and received the successful bid.