Whether the provision of money to the relevant public officials in connection with the construction without the direction of the company's funds and the representative director can be deemed as constituting a ground for the restriction on participation in the construction (affirmative)

If a construction company provides money to a public official concerned on the pretext of changing convenience in relation to the construction project for which on-site supervision was received, it appears to be for the above company, and even if the mine was not made by the company's funds or the representative director's instruction, such act of trust constitutes a case where an employee of the above company, who is the party to the construction contract, is a party to the construction contract under Article 58-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Finance Act and Article 89 (1) 9 of the Enforcement Decree of the Budget

Article 52-4 of the Local Finance Act, Article 58-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Finance Act, Article 89(1)9 of the Enforcement Decree of the Budget and Accounts Act

Supreme Court Decision 83Nu574 Delivered on April 24, 1984

Samho Construction Co., Ltd., Counsel Lee Sung-hoon and Lee Sang-soo

The Gangwon-do Governor

Seoul High Court Decision 84Gu342 delivered on February 4, 1985

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

Article 52-4 of the Local Finance Act, Article 58-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and Article 89 (1) 9 of the Enforcement Decree of the Budget and Accounts Act, if the other party to a contract, his agent, or other employees have committed a reliance on the conclusion or performance of a contract, the qualification to participate in the contract shall be restricted for a specified period of not less than six months but not more than three years, and the public officials concerned are subject to restriction on the right to participate in the contract for a certain period of time as determined by the court below. As determined by the court below, if the non-party, who is the on-site supervisor of the plaintiff company, offered money to the public officials concerned on the pretext of changing convenience in relation to the construction project received by the non-party who is the on-site supervisor of the plaintiff company, as determined by the court below, it seems that the above reliance act constitutes a case where the employee of the plaintiff company, who is the other party to the contract of construction contract, has been trusted to the relevant public officials in relation to the implementation of the contract (see the above Article 8374).

In the same purport, the judgment below is just and the above act of mineing is likely to harm the proper implementation of the contract under Article 58-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Finance Act. Thus, since the plaintiff completed the supply and demand construction work completely and completed the completion inspection, the conclusion can not change. Therefore, the judgment below's erroneous interpretation of the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes as stated in the theory of lawsuit and its application cannot be justified. Thus, the argument is without merit.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of the appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Jeong Jong-tae (Presiding Justice)

Justices Park Jong-tae is during the overseas business trip, and thus it is impossible to sign and seal. Justice Lee Jong-soo