1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff and the Taelim Sae and well-being Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Talim well-being”) produce and sell prescence.

B. The Fair Trade Commission conducted an investigation into the suspicion that companies, including the Plaintiff, engaged in the Defendant’s implied purchase bid, engaged in unfair collaborative acts during the process of their participation.

공정거래위원회는 ‘원고와 태림에프웰이 피고가 2013년부터 2015년에 걸쳐 매년 발주해 온 생선묵(튀김어묵, 떡볶이용 어묵) 구매 입찰(이하 ‘이 사건 입찰’이라 한다)에서 사전에 지역별 낙찰예정자, 형식적 입찰참여자 및 투찰가격을 합의하여 투찰하고 낙찰받은 사실‘을 확인하고, 2017. 4. 3. 원고에게 독점규제 및 공정거래에 관한 법률(이하 ‘공정거래법’이라 한다) 제19조 제1항 제3호, 제8호의 ‘부당한 공동행위’를 이유로 시정명령과 과징금 납부명령을 하였다.

C. On April 26, 2017, the Defendant rendered a disposition to restrict the participation in the tendering procedure for six months pursuant to Article 27(1)2 of the Act on Contracts to Which the State is a Party (hereinafter “State Contract Act”) and the Enforcement Rule of the same Act, on the ground that the Plaintiff committed an act in collusion with the flag sab and the Plaintiff in the instant tendering procedure.

(hereinafter “Disposition in this case”). 【No dispute exists, entry of Gap 1 and 3 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The details of the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes are as shown in attached statutes;

3. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion ① The Plaintiff’s act of collusion with the Taelim Hye well-being (hereinafter “instant collaborative act”) derived from the institutional and structural problems of the instant bidding procedure, and it does not unfairly restrict competition, and thus does not constitute an unfair collaborative act under the Fair Trade Act.

② Even if the instant collaborative act constitutes an unfair collaborative act, Article 27 of the State Contracts Act.