1. The Defendant’s disposition of dismissal of unjust enterprisers against the Plaintiff on July 21, 2016 is revoked.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

Details of the disposition

The Plaintiff was engaged in the business of building and operating the information system, and supplied, installing, and maintaining software and server equipment to B (hereinafter “B”) located in Daejeon.

A public official of Grade B, from March 4, 2012 to July 15, 2013, C was indicted for having received entertainment equivalent to 556,300 won in total through 11 times, such as screen golf costs, and settlement of accounts on credit for the main purpose that he/she received various kinds of convenience related to receiving business orders from D who perform the duties of receiving orders from the Plaintiff as the head of the Plaintiff’s business from March 4, 2012 to July 15, 2013.

On July 15, 2015, the court of the first instance sentenced C not guilty of the facts charged of accepting a bribe related to D on the ground that entertainment received by C from D cannot be deemed a bribe related to his/her duties (the Daejeon District Court Decision 2014Gohap550), but the appellate court rendered a judgment of conviction on the facts charged on December 28, 2015 (the Daejeon High Court Decision 2015No410) on the ground that entertainment received from D constituted a bribe related to the duties of C, and thereafter the said judgment became final and conclusive.

On July 21, 2016, the Defendant issued a disposition to restrict participation in bidding for the period from July 29, 2016 to September 5, 2016, based on Article 27(1) of the former Act on Contracts to Which the State Is a Party (Amended by Act No. 14038, Mar. 2, 2016; hereinafter “State Contract Act”); Article 76(1)10 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Act on Contracts to Which the State Is a Party (Amended by Presidential Decree No. 24728, Sep. 17, 2013; hereinafter “Enforcement Decree of the State Contract Act”).

(hereinafter “instant disposition”). On the other hand, the Defendant offered a bid to the Public Procurement Service.