1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

3. The total costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On April 24, 2014, the Defendant rendered a disposition restricting participation in bidding on the ground that the Plaintiff Co., Ltd. was “a person who was awarded a successful bid by leading the bid.” Article 27 of the former Act on Contracts to Which the State was a Party (amended by Act No. 11547, Dec. 18, 2012; hereinafter “State Contract Act”); Article 76(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Act on Contracts to which the State was a Party (amended by Presidential Decree No. 2282, Jul. 21, 2010; hereinafter “Enforcement Decree of the State Contract Act”); Article 76(1) and [Attachment 2] of the Enforcement Rule of the Act on Contracts to which the State was a Party (hereinafter “Enforcement Rule of the State Contract Act”); Article 578(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the State Contracts Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 2010, Oct. 10, 207; 2015).

(hereinafter “each disposition of this case”). (b)

The plaintiffs filed a lawsuit with the Seoul Administrative Court for the revocation of the instant disposition, and filed an application for suspension of execution (2014 A. 10274). On April 30, 2014, the plaintiffs received the decision that "the instant disposition shall suspend its effect until the judgment of the court of first instance is rendered." On July 9, 2015, the above court rendered a judgment that "the instant disposition was rendered by the defendant, not only by the Incheon City Mayor, the subject of legitimate disposition, but also by the deviation and abuse of discretionary power, which is illegal, not by considering the preceding disposition." 2) The defendant filed an appeal against the judgment of the court of first instance, and the plaintiffs also suspended the execution.