(a) Whether a disposition restricting the qualifications for participation in competitive bidding is taken against the company which subcontracted construction to a person without a construction business license;

B. Criteria for determining whether to revoke administrative acts

A. The fact that the Plaintiff Company subcontracted part of the construction work received by the head of the Gu under the jurisdiction of the Defendant (Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor) to the Nonparty without a construction business license constitutes Article 89(1)8 of the Enforcement Decree of the Budget and Accounts Act, and thus, the Defendant’s disposition that limits the Plaintiff’s participation in general competitive bidding for six

B. When an administrative act is established, a new legal order can be established, and, in particular, an administrative act that causes a benefit to the other party, such as permission, license, authorization, patent, etc., infringes upon the people's vested right when it is revoked. Thus, even if the grounds for revocation exist, the exercise of the right to revoke shall be determined by comparing the reasons for the public interest and the disadvantage suffered by the parties.

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

B. Supreme Court Decision 4292Nu92 Decided March 13, 1961, 72Nu232 Decided June 26, 1973, Supreme Court Decision 76Nu30 Decided July 12, 197

Shinyang Construction Co., Ltd., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellee-appellant

[Defendant-Appellee] Defendant 1 and 3 others

Daegu High Court Decision 82Gu127 delivered on February 22, 1983

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. As to the ground of appeal No. 1, Article 52-4 of the Local Finance Act provides that, pursuant to Article 52-4 of the Local Finance Act, Article 58-2 and Article 58-4 of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Finance Act, which was enacted accordingly, shall restrict the participation in bidding without delay by setting a period of not less than 6 months but not more than 3 years if there is a person falling under each subparagraph of Article 89 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Budget and Accounts Act, the Mayor of Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Metropolitan City and Metropolitan City, and Do governor shall restrict the participation in bidding without delay. Thus, the court below's decision that supported the defendant's disposition that restricts the participation in general competitive bidding by entering into a subcontract to the non-party who did not obtain a construction license under the Construction Business Act on the ground that it falls under Article 89 (1) 8 of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Finance and Accounts Act.

According to Gap evidence Nos. 1, 89 of the above Enforcement Decree of the Budget and Accounts Act, when the defendant notifies the plaintiff of the disposition in this case, it is identical to the theory of lawsuit that it points out the plaintiff's improper act of violation of Article 52-4 of the Local Finance Act and Article 58-2 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the above Act provides the legal fiction of violation of each subparagraph of Article 89 (1) of the above Enforcement Decree of the Budget and Accounts Act. Thus, the defendant's disposition in this case is without merit only as a sanction under the Budget and Accounts Act. Accordingly, in this regard, the defendant's disposition in this case is without merit. Thus, it cannot be viewed that there is a violation of the rules of evidence, such as the theory of lawsuit by the court below, which recognized the plaintiff as being in accordance with Article 52-4 of the Local Finance Act and Article 58-2 (1) 8 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and there is no error of law of incomplete reasoning or lack of reason.

2. As to the second ground for appeal:

(1) According to the provisions of each subparagraph of Article 89(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Budget and Accounts Act, (1) a person who has intentionally or unreasonably agreed on a bid price in advance between bidders in competitive bidding for a person who has intentionally committed an unlawful act concerning construction or manufacture or the nature and quantity of goods, (2) a person who has obstructed a bidder's participation, or a person who has interfered with the conclusion or performance of the contract at least three consecutive times with a written request for participation, or a written consent for participation, and (3) a person who has interfered with the successful bidder's performance of his duties without justifiable reason, (5) a successful bidder who has failed to execute the contract without justifiable reason, (7) a person who has forged or altered documents concerning the qualifications for participation, etc. at general competition or other documents concerning the contract (8) a person who has made a subcontract without the Government approval, or revised the terms and conditions of a subcontract approved by the Government, and thus, (9) a person who has submitted to the public official concerned in relation to the conclusion or implementation of the contract, which directly caused the qualification of the plaintiff's tender or other person under each subparagraph 5 of the above Local Finance Act.

3. As to ground of appeal No. 3

Upon the establishment of a new legal order, in particular, an administrative act that causes a benefit to the other party, such as permission, license, authorization, patent, etc., upon cancellation, infringes upon the right of vested interests of the public. Thus, even if there exists a ground for cancellation, the exercise of the right of revocation shall be determined by comparing the reasons for the public interest and the disadvantage the party concerned. Therefore, the court below, in such a purport, ordered the construction work to the plaintiff under the jurisdiction of the plaintiff under the condition that the plaintiff would pay money equivalent to 19.4% of the total construction amount to the non-party who is not licensed for construction business after receiving the construction work from the head of the Dong-dong office, and ordered the above construction work to the plaintiff, and the non-party caused water such as giving a bribe to the construction-related employees of the Dong-dong office for criminal prosecution, and the construction-related employees of the Dong-dong office did not know that the non-party was being constructed under the subcontract with this construction work, and thus, it cannot be seen that the above disposition of acceptance of bribe under the Local Finance Act and the purport of Article 18.

4. Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed, and the costs of the appeal shall be assessed against the losing party and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Lee Chang-chul (Presiding Justice)