1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Details of the disposition

The Plaintiff is a company running the relevant construction business, such as electricity, telecommunications, fire-fighting, new and renewable energy, and the Defendant is a corporation established under the Korea Electric Power Corporation Act and designated as a market-oriented public corporation under the Act on the Management of Public Institutions (hereinafter referred to as the "Public Institutions Operation Act").

On November 14, 2017, the Plaintiff participated in the tender for processing and distribution facilities of Pyeongtaek Housing Site in the year 17 (hereinafter “instant tender”) and was selected as a successful bidder on December 7, 2017, and entered into a service contract between the Defendant and the Defendant with the term of contract from December 13, 2017 to April 3, 2018 (hereinafter “instant contract”) with the contract amount of KRW 83,356,458 (hereinafter “instant contract”).

After undergoing the hearing, on February 21, 2018, the Defendant submitted a false certificate of performance of qualification examination to the Defendant at the time of the instant bid on the grounds that the Plaintiff submitted a false certificate of performance of qualification examination to the Defendant, Article 39(2) of the Act on the Management of Public Institutions, Article 15 of the Rules on Contracts to Public Corporations and Quasi-Governmental Institutions (hereinafter “Rules on Contracts Affairs”), and the Act on Contracts to Which the State

(1) Article 76(1)1 (a) of the Enforcement Decree of the State Contracts Act, Article 76 [Attachment 2] of the Enforcement Rule of the State Contracts

2. Based on subparagraph 9 (a) of individual standards, the Plaintiff was subject to the disposition of restricting the participation of unjust enterprisers for one year from March 3, 2018 to March 2, 2019 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 4, and the overall purport of the pleading, and Article 76 [Attachment 2] of the Enforcement Rule of the State Contracts Act alleged by the plaintiff as to whether the disposition in this case is legitimate

1. According to general standards (c), considering the motive, content, frequency, etc. of the violation

2. The limitation period of qualification for participation in bidding under individual standards may be mitigated by up to 1/2. The employee of the plaintiff submitted a false certificate of qualification examination to the defendant without the representative director's approval.