1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the plaintiff in the trial does not differ significantly from the argument in the court of first instance, and the judgment of the court of first instance rejecting the plaintiff's assertion even if the evidence submitted in the trial was examined again, is recognized as legitimate.

Therefore, the court's explanation on this case is consistent with the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance except for a partial change of the judgment of the court of first instance as follows. Thus, this Court cites it as it is by Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure

C. Foods

(a) add the following between the 3rd and 4 pages, add the "(a)" to "(b)" and the "10(b)" to "C", respectively:

A) The former Act on Contracts to Which the State is a Party (amended by Act No. 14038, Mar. 2, 2016; hereinafter “former State Contracts Act”).

Article 27 of the former Enforcement Decree of the State Contracts Act provides that the qualification to participate in a tender may be restricted only when there is “the risk of undermining fair competition or appropriate implementation of contracts.” Thus, the qualification to participate in a tender may not be restricted on the sole basis of the existence of the requirements under each subparagraph of Article 76(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the State Contracts Act, and further, it should be acknowledged that there is a concern that fair enforcement of competition or appropriate implementation of contracts may be impeded. In light of the status of D, etc., the point of time and circumstances of golf contact, etc., it is difficult

“”

B. The former Act on Contracts to Which the State is a Party (amended by Act No. 14038, Mar. 2, 2016; hereinafter “former State Contracts Act”) stipulated the term “former State Contracts Act” in Articles 10 and 15.

(c) between 10 pages 17 and 18 add the following:

(1) Article 27(1) of the former State Contracts Act provides that the head of each central government agency shall execute fair competition.