logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대법원 2015.12.10 2014두7435
입찰참가자격제한처분취소
Text

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

Reasons

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. citing the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, it is reasonable to view the offering of this case as a case where the offering of this case constitutes a bribe to a relevant public official in relation to the bid, successful bid, or the conclusion and performance of a contract on the entrusted project. (2) The proviso of Article 76 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act to which the State is a Party (amended by Presidential Decree No. 2282, Jul. 21, 2010; hereinafter “Enforcement Decree of the State Contract Act”) does not apply to the offering of this case conducted before the establishment of the above provision, and it is difficult to view that there is a justifiable reason to the extent that the Plaintiff could not be negligent in the Plaintiff’s failure to perform his/her duty of care required for the appointment and supervision of employees B who performed the offering of this case. (3) Even if considering the various circumstances asserted by the Plaintiff, the disposition of this case was excessively harsh to the Plaintiff, thereby abusing discretion or abusing discretionary power.

All of the plaintiff's arguments are rejected as it is deemed difficult to regard it as a violation of the principle of proportionality.

Examining the record in light of the relevant legal principles, the lower court’s aforementioned determination is justifiable. In so doing, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence, grounds for exemption from the restriction on participation in a tendering procedure, exceeding the proviso of Article 76(1) of the Enforcement Decree

2. Meanwhile, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the statement of reasons for disposition and incomplete hearing.

(b).

arrow