beta
Text
1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;
2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
Details of the disposition
The reason why the court's explanation on this part is as follows: "The plaintiff or C was awarded a successful bid in the bidding price without substantial competition in the case (2015du50061) at the present Supreme Court (2015du5061) after the appeal by the Fair Trade Commission," and the Supreme Court of Korea has limited the opportunity for competition by participating in the procedure such as retender after the bidding, etc., but the other business operators are ultimately subject to restrictions on the opportunity to participate in the procedure such as price quantity, quality, and other transaction terms. Accordingly, the court below's decision in favor of the plaintiff was reversed and remanded to the Seoul High Court (2016Nu41226) at the same time on the ground that the competition in the process of bidding was restricted." Thus, it is identical to the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance as stated in Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 (2) of the Civil Procedure Act.
Article 76(1) [Attachment 2]9 of the Enforcement Rule of the State Contracts Act, which provides that the period of restriction on qualification shall be increased compared with “a person who led to the unity” as the person who did not have any reason for the Plaintiff’s assertion as to the lawfulness of the instant disposition, and the Defendant was subject to the instant disposition on the premise that the Plaintiff was “a person who led to the unity.”
However, in order to deem the Plaintiff’s collusion as the subject of independent free will separate from the Plaintiff, and without the intention of collusion, the Plaintiff and C are practically a single business entity and thus cannot be viewed as “a person who has no intention of initial collusion.” As such, the Plaintiff cannot be deemed as “a person who has no intention of initial collusion,” the Plaintiff cannot be deemed as “a person who has no intention of initial collusion.”
Article 27 of the State Contracts Act, which is the basis for the instant disposition.