A. Whether a person listed in each subparagraph of Article 89(1) of the former Decree on the Promotion of Budget and Accounts (amended by Presidential Decree No. 12866, Jan. 29, 1989) constitutes an improper businessman whose qualification to participate in bidding is limited under Article 62(1) of the Local Finance Act (affirmative)

(b) The case holding that where construction work is delayed for one month or 17 days after the date of completion of the contract, it constitutes "when the contract is not performed without justifiable grounds" under Article 89 (1) 6 of the Enforcement Decree of the former Budget and Accounts Act;

A. In light of Article 62(1) of the Local Finance Act and Article 71(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 13156, Nov. 6, 1990), a person listed in each subparagraph of Article 89(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Budget and Accounts Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 12866, Jan. 29, 1989) falls under a person who is likely to undermine the fair competition or the proper performance of contracts under Article 62(1) of the Local Finance Act, or who is deemed inappropriate to participate in a tender.

(b) The case holding that where construction work is delayed for one month or 17 days compared to the agreed completion date, it constitutes “when the contract is not performed without justifiable grounds” under Article 89(1)6 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Budget and Accounts Act.

Article 62(1) of the Local Finance Act; Article 71(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Finance Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 13156, Nov. 6, 1990); Article 89(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Budget and Accounts Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 12866, Jan. 29, 1989)

A. Supreme Court Decision 83Nu127 delivered on July 12, 1983 (Gong1983, 1285)

Attorney Park Tae-chul et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Attorney Kim Dong-dong, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 90Gu4930 delivered on November 28, 1990

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

According to Article 62(1) of the Local Finance Act and Article 71(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 13156 of Nov. 6, 1990), the head of the local government shall restrict the bidder's participation in the bidding for a specified period of not less than six months and not more than three years if there is a person falling under each subparagraph of Article 89(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Budget and Accounts Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 12866 of Dec. 29, 1989), and Article 89(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Budget and Accounts Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 13156 of Nov. 6, 199), if there is a person falling under any of subparagraphs 1 through 11 of Article 62 of the same Act and Article 71(1) of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 12866 of Dec. 29, 199).

In the case of this case, even if the plaintiff is the applicant, the construction work of this case was completed on October 11, 1989, where the plaintiff delayed one month more than the agreed completion date of construction work of this case, and it was completed on August 28 of the same year which delayed 17 days more than the agreed completion date of construction work of this case. Thus, this constitutes "when the contract of this case is not performed without any justifiable reason" under Article 89 (1) 6 of the former Budget Enforcement Decree, and therefore, the decision of the court below that supported the defendant's disposition that restricts the plaintiff's bid qualification and rejected the plaintiff's assertion is just and the decision of the court below that rejected the plaintiff's assertion can not change the conclusion because the joint guarantor completed the remaining construction work or the plaintiff company paid compensation for delay. Thus, the decision of the court below is justified and there is no error of law that misleads the interpretation of Acts and subordinate statutes or applied the law.

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, Article 68-2 (1) of the Rules on the Restrictions on the Restrictions on the Restrictions on the Restrictions on the Restrictions on the Restrictions on the Restrictions on the Restrictions on the Qualifications of the improper businessman is stipulated in the attached Table in Article 68-2 (1) of the Rules on the Restrictions on the Restrictions on the Restrictions on the Restrictions on the Restrictions on the Restrictions on the Qualifications of the improper businessman, while Article 68-2 (4) of the same Rules provides that the restriction period of the Restrictions on the Restrictions on the Restrictions on the Restrictions on the Restrictions on the Participation in the Qualifications of the improper Businessman may be mitigated for a period of at least six months if the disqualification is insignificant or there are other special reasons to consider the circumstances. However, in light of the circumstances and degree of the Restrictions on the Restrictions

3. Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed, and all costs of appeal shall be assessed against the plaintiff who has lost. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Sang-won (Presiding Justice)