(영문) 서울행정법원 2016.12.16 2016구합68540

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 서울행정법원 2016.12.16 2016구합68540

직접생산확인 취소처분 취소 청구의 소

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On February 6, 2012, the Plaintiff obtained the confirmation of direct production of each item of closed-circuit television system, computer (software development), and premises broadcasting device from the Defendant, and renewed it. On June 9, 2015, the Plaintiff obtained the confirmation of direct production on the said item on June 8, 2017.

B. The Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Public Procurement Service on November 17, 2014 on the “establishment of CCTV for the opening school and extension school (including value-added tax)” (hereinafter “instant contract”) of KRW 1,679,653,320 of the total contract amount with the Public Procurement Service (including value-added tax) in March 2015, within the jurisdiction of the Office of Education of Sejong Special Self-Governing City (hereinafter “Seoul Special Self-Governing City Office of Education”), and supplied the relevant goods on September 2015.

C. On June 29, 2016, the Defendant received a request from the Sejong City Office of Education to revoke the confirmation of direct production and to review and process the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff supplied and installed the products that were not directly produced by the Plaintiff.

As a result of the investigation into the implementation of direct production with the Plaintiff, the Defendant concluded a purchase contract with the Hartn Scream (hereinafter “Haart loan”) and concluded that the Plaintiff produced and supplied the products en bloc at the office, and issued a disposition of revocation of direct production verification to the Plaintiff on June 24, 2016.

hereinafter referred to as "disposition of this case"

(ii) [based on recognition] unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 3, 5 to 9, and 11 (if any, with a serial number);

hereinafter the same shall apply.

written evidence Nos. 1 to 7 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. To make entries in the attached statutes concerned;

3. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff asserted that the plaintiff supplied the original actual contents camera produced by the plaintiff and also manufactured and supplied the remainder of the products in accordance with the specifications of the business instruction.

유사 판례

-서울행정법원 2014.11.14 2014구합663

-서울행정법원 2016.09.23 2015구합9988

-서울행정법원 2015.11.06 2014구합18077

-서울고등법원 2015.09.11 2014누72356

-서울행정법원 2017.09.01 2017구합57141