1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

[Claim]

1. The grounds for admitting the judgment of the court of first instance are as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following modifications, and thus, they are cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act

2. Defendant 1’s 3-party 1’s 3-party 1’s 3-party 1’s 3-party 1’s 3-party 1’s “former Act on the Promotion of Purchase of Small and Medium Enterprise Products and the Development of Market Support (amended by Act No. 13866, Jan. 27, 2016; hereinafter “former Act on the Promotion of Development of Market Support”) shall be disposed of on the basis of the statutes that were enforced at the time of the commission of the violation, in the case of the so-called restrictive administrative disposition imposing sanctions against it based on the former Act on the Promotion of Purchase of Small and Medium Enterprise Products and the Development of Market Support Act (amended by Act No. 11690, Mar. 23, 2013; hereinafter “former

(See Supreme Court Decision 86Nu63 Decided January 20, 1987, etc.). In full view of the following facts, the meaning of “unfair conduct, such as collusion,” prescribed in Article 8(3)3 of the former Act on Support of Development of Agricultural and Fishing Villages (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 86Nu63, Jan. 20, 1987) is reasonable to interpret that “an act of a small and medium enterprise owner’s participation in a competitive tendering procedure, such as collusion, is designed to secure markets for small and medium enterprises within a certain scope, thereby ensuring the enhancement of competitiveness.” Thus, whether a small and medium enterprise owner is eligible to participate in a competitive tendering procedure is also a critical element related to the failure of the project.