(영문) 서울고등법원 2012.1.20. 선고 2011누4567 판결

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The defendant shall revoke the disposition of business suspension from May 1, 2010 to June 15, 2010 against the plaintiff on March 29, 2010.

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

(a) Conclusion of entrusted supervision services contracts;

1) On April 27, 2006, the Defendant entered into a service contract with C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “C”) and D (hereinafter referred to as “D”) on the three-stage development project (hereinafter referred to as “instant development project”).

2) The development project of this case is a project consisting of a phase of "D construction project," which started from December 1, 2003 and progress step by step, and is a project consisting of "six institutions/systems," including "development of 13 business units such as import management (80 functions)" and "E" (hereinafter "E") development of connection functions such as "the connection functions" (hereinafter "the connection functions of this case"), and "15 connected functions development with 15 business units."

3) In particular, the instant connected function development project is a project that develops the function of automatic transmission of contract information stored in E in order to eliminate such inconvenience, because it is difficult for the accounting officer to re-enter the contract information stored in E for the registration of the disbursement officer, etc., because the local government entered into a contract through E before D is developed, because the contract information is stored only in E in the case of entering into the contract.

4) On June 16, 2006, the Plaintiff entered into a consignment supervision service contract (hereinafter “instant supervision service contract”) with the former National Computerization Agency (former National Computerization Agency), which is an organization exclusively in charge of electronic government support projects, from June 19, 2006 to December 26, 2006, with the supervision period from June 19, 2006.

B. Preparation and submission of the Plaintiff’s supervision report and written confirmation of the supervision result

1) After conducting final supervision from November 27, 2006 to December 8, 2006, the Plaintiff prepared and submitted a final supervision report to the Defendant on December 14, 2006 (hereinafter “instant supervision report”).

The Plaintiff confirmed that the link program between D and E is not installed, and stated in the instant supervision report that the link program should be installed and the link test should be implemented.

2) On December 21, 2006, C conducted a virtual link test between D and E, and on December 21, 2006, C prepared and submitted to the Plaintiff a detailed statement of the results of the final supervision measures, including the details of “the implementation of the connection test and the preparation of the results of the connection test” (hereinafter “detailed statement of the results of the supervision measures of this case”).

3) On December 22, 2006, the Plaintiff confirmed the details of the above measures, and completed the supervision on the Defendant and C with a written confirmation of the measures taken as a result of the supervision (hereinafter “written confirmation of the instant supervision”). The Plaintiff stated that all corrective measures were taken regarding the corrective measures according to the supervision report, including the fact that the implementation of the linkage test with the institution/system subject to the linkage should be completed, and that the results of the inspection of the current status of the test of the information linkage test (the part of the Public Procurement Service Office) were completed in relation to the physical linkage test in the development environment, the logical connection test in the development environment, and the transmission test with the institution/system subject to the linkage.

4) On December 26, 2006, C filed an application with the Defendant for the completion inspection of the instant development project along with a written confirmation of measures taken as a result of the instant supervision, and on December 28, 2006, C installed a linkage program between D and E with the Public Procurement Service.

5) Accordingly, the Defendant completed the development project of this case on January 9, 2007, as it was developed according to the content of the project.

(c)Audit Board.

1) From January 1, 2008 to December 16, 2008, the D Uniforms, the local government, from January 1, 2008 to December 16, 2008, has to input more than 169,39,390 items in total for construction, goods, and services contracts for the registration of activities incurring expenditure, etc. into D, and thus, it resulted in waste of administrative power until the above function is developed on April 22, 2009.

2) The Board of Audit and Inspection, around December 2008, shall conduct an audit of the entire D Construction Project, and around May 2009, sent a written request for disposition of audit results to the defendant. Among them, the part against the plaintiff is as follows.

- C prepared a detailed statement of the results of the instant supervision measures and submitted it to the Plaintiff on December 21, 2006, as well as not only did the link program were not installed but also carried out only virtual linkage test with D and E, and the actual connection test was conducted.

The Plaintiff did not test the connection function of this case and completed the development with knowledge that the development was not completed. As a result of the supervision of this case, the Plaintiff prepared a written confirmation of measures to be taken differently from the fact and submitted it to the Defendant on December 22, 2006

Therefore, the defendant would like to prepare measures to punish the plaintiff pursuant to Article 16 (1) 7 of the former Act on the Efficient Introduction and Operation, etc. of Information System (amended by Act No. 10012, Feb. 4, 2010; hereinafter referred to as the "former Information System Act").

D. The defendant's business suspension against the plaintiff

On March 29, 2010 pursuant to Article 16(1)7 and (2) of the former Information System Act and Article 6(1) [Attachment Table 2] of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act, the Defendant issued a disposition to suspend business operations for 1.5 months (the period from May 1, 2010 to June 15, 2010) to the Plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as the “instant disposition”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 2-1, 2, Gap evidence 3, Gap evidence 4, Eul evidence 5, Eul evidence 6, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) As a result of the supervision of the instant case, the confirmation of the measure is not a supervisory report.

If a supervision corporation prepares a false supervision report, the "supervision report" under Articles 16 (1) 7 and 13 (2) of the former Information System Act that provides for the disposition of business suspension, etc. is not included in the "supervision report" under Article 16 (1) 7 and Article 13 (2) of the same Act, and thus, the disposition of this case on the premise that the confirmation of the measures taken as a result of

2) The allegation that the instant supervision results did not falsely prepare a written confirmation of the measure

The scope of business of C related to the development of the connection function of this case does not include the development of data/conform programs to be performed by the Public Procurement Service. In order to test the development of the connection function of this case in the actual operating environment, the said program must be developed. The Public Procurement Service did not develop the said program even at the time of the completion of the confirmation of the measure as a result of the supervision of this case. Accordingly, C, after installing the connection program developed by the Public Procurement Service to the Public Procurement Service, created a virtual environment as if the contract conclusion information of sampling was stored in the connected transmission/transmission table of the Public Procurement Service, and there was no choice but to verify it by the virtual connection test method, i.e., the method of testing whether the pertinent information is received and received through the connection server of the Public Procurement Service where the connection program is installed, and the supervision plan of this case was prepared and submitted by the Plaintiff at the time of the supervision service contract of this case, the connection function of this case was not recorded in the actual operation environment test of the Plaintiff in the report of the supervision of this case.

At the time of the connection test, the Plaintiff told C that “the person in charge of the Government Procurement Service and the person in charge of the National Information Society agreed to install the connection program at the end of December, 2006,” and responded to the same content from the person in charge of the Defendant. Accordingly, the Plaintiff confirmed that the data were received and received appropriately as a result of the test by organizing a test environment similar to the actual environment, and confirmed that the data were received and received appropriately as a result of the test. In the connection system with the Board of Audit and Inspection, which uses the linkage method like E, it confirmed that D and the connection data were received and received appropriately, and on the end of December 2006, it was determined from an expert point of view that the connection program is installed with the Public Information Society, and prepared a written confirmation of the measure of supervision of this case after making verbal explanation to the Defendant and the person in charge of the National Information Society. In fact, C installed the connection program on December 28, 2006, and there was no problem at the time of the linkage test. Therefore, it cannot be viewed that the Plaintiff prepared a false confirmation of supervision result.

(iii) deviation from and abuse of discretionary power;

The entire scope of the instant development project is a project that develops approximately 750 functions and 15 linked functions. Among them, supervision on one function is merely problematic. In addition, supervision on one function differently from the content of the written confirmation of the measure taken as a result of supervision of the instant case was not problematic. The connection function of the instant case was planned and established as a single direction-receiving function (the Government Procurement Service ? local government) on 15 connected items. After the completion of all Plaintiff’s supervision services, the connection function of the instant case was changed to the form in which both direction-receiving function (the Government Procurement Service ? local government) on January 1, 2008 and changed to the form in which both direction-receiving function (the Government Procurement Service ? local government) on January 1, 2008. Even if there are parts different from the facts in the written confirmation of the measure taken as a result of supervision of the instant case, the instant disposition is excessive in light of the degree of the Plaintiff’s violation.

B. Relevant legislation

The entries in the attached Table-related statutes are as follows.

C. Determination

1) Whether a confirmation of measures taken as a result of the instant supervision is included in the supervision report

A) Article 2 Subparag. 3 of the former Information System Act defines that “Supervision” shall be conducted by an independent person from the interests of a supervising entity and a supervisor to comprehensively inspect and improve the matters relating to the construction of an information system from a third party perspective in order to improve the efficiency of information systems and ensure the safety thereof. Article 11(6) of the former Information System Act delegates the scope of duties of a supervising entity to Presidential Decree. Each subparagraph of Article 12(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Information System Act provides that “The confirmation and notification of the results of supervisory measures” shall be conducted by a supervising entity in accordance with the procedures for performing the duties provided for in paragraph (1).

In addition, according to Article 12(4) of the former Information System Supervision Standards established pursuant to Article 11(4) of the former Information System Act, an ordering agency and a supervisor shall take necessary measures based on the supervision report and the review of a plan for measures, and shall notify the supervising corporation of the details of the measures to request confirmation.

In addition, Article 16 (1) 7 of the former Information System Act provides that where a supervisory corporation prepares a false supervision report, it shall order the suspension of business. The purport of the provision is that an ordering agency that has no expertise in the information system should be ordered to professionally monitor and supervise a service company, which is an expert and a third party, since there is no way to verify the fact that the information system has not been built in accordance with its business contents. The supervisory corporation shall prepare a false supervision report

It is not only impossible to carry out the Myeon information system building project properly, but also it is intended to prevent damage, such as waste of administrative power.

In light of the aforementioned purport of having a supervisory corporation prepare a supervision report by the former Information System Act and the purpose of having the supervisory corporation prepare a supervision report, it is reasonable to view that the confirmation of measures taken by the supervisory corporation as one of the supervisory activities is also included in the “supervision report that the supervisory corporation should not prepare falsely pursuant to Article 13(2) of the former Information System Act, in full view of the fact that the confirmation of measures taken by the ordering corporation as a result of supervision is an important document that determines whether the ordering corporation properly completed the information system construction

B) In addition, according to Gap evidence No. 1's statement, it is possible to confirm the result of the supervision service to be performed by the plaintiff under the supervision service contract of this case. Thus, the confirmation of the measure of the supervision of this case prepared by the plaintiff constitutes "supervision report" under Article 13 (2) of the former Information System Act.

C) Therefore, we cannot accept the Plaintiff’s assertion that the confirmation of measures taken as a result of the instant supervision does not fall under the supervision report stipulated in Article 13(2) of the former Information System Act.

2) Whether the Plaintiff prepared a false confirmation of the measure as a result of the instant supervision

A) Facts of recognition

(1) According to the detailed inspection table of supervision plans formulated and submitted by the Plaintiff at the time of the instant supervision service agreement, the items to be inspected for the implementation of information linkage test are whether the test environment has been prepared by reflecting the actual operational environment, and in detail, ‘the establishment of the test environment and the reflection of the actual operational environment' and ‘the securing of test data'.

(2) On April 2006, the time when the Defendant entered into a contract with C, the Defendant agreed to develop the connection function of this case in the direction of both directions, but on September 2006, on the ground that the project cost exceeds the project cost, and on September 2006, it decided 15 days including a written request for the construction contract, as contract information to be provided in D from 2006, 11.23, and E.

(3) Examining the process of transmitting contract information to E according to the development of the connection function of this case, if contract information to be linked to E’s business table is created, data life / reflected program of the Public Procurement Service is stored in the connected transmission table table of the Public Procurement Service, and the above information is regularly transmitted to the defendant’s connected server through the connection program installed in the connection server of the Public Procurement Service. The received information is stored in the connection table, and is transferred to D business table for the data life/compet.

A person shall be appointed.

(4) C’s scope of the instant connected function development project: (a) the purpose of the instant connected function development project is to develop the function of transferring information to the connected table for system connection, the connected table for storage of information to D’s business table; and (b) to install the said connection program in the connected server between the Defendant and the Public Procurement Service; and (c) the data created information to be transmitted from E to D and provided in the said connected program, and the data created and installed at the Public Procurement Service. At this time, the Public Procurement Service developed the data created and installed for connection between the digital budget and budget system and E; and (d) the data created and reflected program was developed for connection between the digital budget and budget system and E. For the instant connected function development project, the Public Procurement Service developed and installed new data created and reflect program by modifying the connection items, receipt points, and reflect program among the existing data

(5) The Plaintiff performed the final supervision from November 27, 2006 to December 8, 2006, and even until that time, C (Defendant) and the Public Procurement Service did not consult about the items of data, data form, etc. of information on the contract to be sent from E to D, and the Public Procurement Service did not develop new data creation/conformation programs for the instant connected function development project at the Public Procurement Service. Furthermore, the Plaintiff confirmed that C did not completely implement the physical/cism test in the development environment with E (Public Procurement Service) in relation to the instant connected function development project, and the transmission/transmission test with the institution/system subject to the connection.1) In addition, considering that the Plaintiff should complete the data transmission/transmission test using the unit screen for each unit of business by the institution/system subject to the connection, it was difficult to achieve the research rate related to the information connection.2)

(6) In the direction of improvement of the supervision report of this case, the Plaintiff must (i) accurately manage the progress status of testing related to the transmission and reception of information connection with the institution/system subject to linkage, and (ii) complete the testing within the project period as far as possible with the institution/system subject to linkage. In addition, where it is inevitably difficult to complete the testing within the project period due to external factors, the connection testing plan (draft) shall be formulated within the project period after consultation between the institution/system subject to linkage and the development institution, and the connection testing should be conducted within the project period as the testing environment is prepared for the operation/maintenance period; and (iii) secure and manage the results of the connection testing and related data by the institution/system subject to linkage subject to linkage.

(7) On December 21, 2006, C submitted a detailed statement of the results of the supervision measures of this case to the Plaintiff. On December 20, 2006, C of the supervision report of this case, all of the direction of improvement presented by the Plaintiff stated in the supervision report of this case that “The implementation of the connection test and the preparation of the results of the connection test after consultation with the relevant target institution,” but at this time, the connection program was not installed at the Public Procurement Service, and the Public Procurement Service did not reflect the data productivity/program for the connection project of this case, and C’s person in charge was transferred to another system work at the end of the year and agreed to install the connection program at the next week.” In addition, the Defendant F, a working person, was aware of the aforementioned circumstances, but did not report to the supervisor and other superior.

(8) On December 22, 2006, the Plaintiff submitted a written confirmation of the instant supervision results to the Defendant, and the instant written confirmation of the instant supervision results stated “(the results of the instant supervision must complete the test with the linked agency/system, and the confirmation of the results of the test, minutes, etc.)” as corrective measures. (5) On the other hand, the Plaintiff indicated “O” to the effect that physical linkage test in the development environment with the Public Procurement Service, logical linkage test in the development environment, the associated agency/system, and the transmission and reception test are completed. (6) On the other hand, in the written confirmation of the supervision results of the instant supervision, the confirmation of the instant supervision results had to indicate “-” if it is necessary to proceed in the future due to the reasons/policy change of the connected target institution.

(9) On December 28, 2006, C installed a linkage program with the Public Procurement Service. A quasi-public inspection was conducted on January 9, 2007. At this time, the Defendant and the Public Procurement Service did not consult on the items, form, etc. of the contract information to be sent from E to D, and the Public Procurement Service did not develop the data life/competence program.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 10, Eul evidence 19-1, 2, Eul evidence 20, Eul evidence 3, Eul evidence 4-1, 3, Eul evidence 5, Eul evidence 6, Eul evidence 7, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

B) Interpretation of the confirmation of the measure as a result of the instant supervision

(1) A supervisor of an information system, such as the Plaintiff, shall conduct supervision in accordance with the supervision plan, prepare a supervision report as a result thereof, verify whether the problems pointed out in the supervision report have been properly corrected, and then submit a written confirmation of measures taken by the supervision results to the ordering agency. Accordingly, the confirmation of measures taken by the supervision results should be interpreted by comprehensively considering the supervision plan, supervision report, and the confirmation of measures taken by the supervision results.

In addition, as seen earlier, it is intended for an information system supervisor to prepare and submit a written confirmation of the measures to be taken on behalf of the ordering agency to ensure that the information system supervisor can easily verify whether the information system ordered by the ordering agency that has no expertise in the information system has been properly established. Therefore, it shall be interpreted in consideration of the contents of the information system ordered by the ordering agency based on the basis of the ordering agency that has no expertise in the information system. In this case, it is general that the computerized working person has no status and authority to determine the intent of the ordering agency. Therefore, even if the computerized working person of the ordering agency is aware of the circumstances, it is reasonable to view that the situation in which the person in a position to make

Therefore, the confirmation of the measures taken as a result of the instant supervision shall be interpreted based on the Defendant’s responsible manager, who is the ordering authority, in full view of the supervision plan submitted by the Plaintiff, the supervision report of this case, the detailed statement of the results of supervision measures

(2) In full view of the above facts and the following circumstances recognized by the above evidence, it is interpreted that the Plaintiff’s statement that the Plaintiff completed the test of linkage with the institution/system subject to the linkage as a result of the supervision of the instant case was that “the Plaintiff did not consult with the Public Procurement Service, which is the institution subject to the linkage, at the time of the preparation of the supervision report, and the items, form, etc. of the data and form of the data to be received by D were not determined at the time of the conclusion of the supervision report, and that it was not possible for the Public Procurement Service to conduct the linkage test because it did not develop the data productivity/system. The consultation with the Public Procurement Service was completed, and the data items, form, etc. were determined after the consultation with the Public Procurement Service, and the data content/form was determined at the Public Procurement Service, and the test was completed in the test environment that properly reflects the actual operational environment.”

(A) At the time of the Plaintiff’s preparation of the instant supervision report, the Plaintiff did not consult between C and the Public Procurement Service on the data items, data forms, etc. of the contract information to be sent to E, and the Public Procurement Service did not develop the data life/conformation program, and accordingly the connection test was not conducted. In light of these facts, the Plaintiff’s “where it is inevitably difficult to complete the connection test with the institution/system subject to the connection within the project due to external factors” as stated in the improvement clause of the supervision report, is interpreted to mean the case where the consultation between C and the Public Procurement Service on the data items, data forms, etc. is not reached or the Public Procurement Service does not develop the data life/conformation/program within the project period.

(B) In the supervision report of this case, the plaintiff first suggested the improvement direction, the "the completion of the test of connection with the institution/system subject to the internal linkage within the project period", the second, the second, where it is difficult to complete the test of connection with the institution/system subject to the linkage within the project period due to external factors, the connecting test plan was formulated within the project period after consultation between the institution in charge and the development institution, and the connecting test was conducted within the project period as the testing environment is prepared for the operation/maintenance period. And C also stated as a result of the supervision of this case, that consultation with the Public Procurement Service, which is the institution subject to the linkage, was completed.

Therefore, even though the Plaintiff, as a result of the instant supervision, agreed to indicate “the need to proceed in the future due to the change of the reason/policy of the institution subject to linkage,” it is interpreted that the Plaintiff’s marking “O” in the instant supervision, which refers to the completion of the connected agency/system and the transmission/transmission test items, has been resolved all external factors as seen in the instant supervision, and accordingly, the test environment was created to properly reflect the actual operational environment, and the link test with the Public Procurement Service E has been completed.

(C) Of course, it is not included in C’s excessive scope of business concerning the development of the connection function of this case in the development of data creating/competing programs that process contract information from E to the Public Procurement Service (hereinafter referred to as “the Data Production/competing Program”). Therefore, whether the Data Production/competing Programs are properly installed is not included in the scope of the Plaintiff’s supervision services. Moreover, the supervision plan prepared by the Plaintiff is linked test in a test environment that reflects the actual operating environment, not the actual operating environment, but rather the actual operating environment. In light of these facts, the “a connected institution/system and the transmission/transmission test” indicated as completion of the instant supervision plan as a result of the instant supervision is interpreted as a test test in the test environment that reflects the actual operating environment.

However, the development of the connection function of this case is to develop the function of sending the information stored in the connection server to D through the connection program developed by C through the connection program developed by C and then to the connection server. Accordingly, it is essential for C and the Public Procurement Service to first determine the data items, form, etc. of contract information to be sent by E to D through consultation, and to develop the data creation/conform program by the Public Procurement Service.

Therefore, it is reasonable to view that it is difficult for the Public Procurement Service and the Public Procurement Service to establish a test environment that reflects the actual operating environment, without consulting on the items of data, form of data, etc., and that it is difficult for the Public Procurement Service and the Public Procurement Service to establish a test environment in which the actual operating environment is reflected. In full view of the circumstances as seen in the foregoing (b) above, the completion of the test in the test environment should be on the premise that the Defendant and the Public Procurement Service consulted on the items of data, form of data, etc. of information to be entered into a contract that the Defendant and the Public Procurement Service will send to D, and accordingly, it should be deemed that the Public Procurement Service and

(D) At the time when the F, a person in charge of the Defendant’s computer, submitted a written confirmation of the instant supervision, the consultation between C and the Public Procurement Service was not achieved, and the Public Procurement Service was aware of the fact that it was unable to complete the development of the data life/competing program. However, the F appears to have not been in a position and authority to decide the Defendant’s intention as a computer manager, and did not report the said fact to the supervisor, etc., taking into account the foregoing circumstances, the F did not interpret the written confirmation of the measures taken as a result of the instant supervision.

C) Whether it is false or false

(1) However, as seen in the above facts, as of December 22, 2006, at the time when the supervision report of this case was submitted, as of December 22, 2006, the time when the supervision report of this case was submitted, there was no agreement between C and the Public Procurement Service on the data items, data forms, etc. of the contract information to be sent to D, and even if the Public Procurement Service was unable to create a test environment reflecting the actual operating environment because it was unable to complete the development of the data creation/compancing program, consultation between C and the Public Procurement Service has been completed, and on the premise that there was a test environment reflecting the actual operating environment by the Public Procurement Service’s completion of the development of the data creation/compancing program, it is false that the Plaintiff completed the link test with the institution/system subject to connection and completed all the linked institutions/systems and the transmission/transmission test.

(2) (A) As to this, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff’s written test results presented by C by the person in charge of the instant supervision and written a written confirmation of the measures to be taken as a result of the instant supervision, on the grounds that the test results, which reflects the actual operational environment, completed all the transmission and reception tests with E by the Public Procurement Service, an institution/system subject to linkage, is not false.

However, the Plaintiff did not submit a written confirmation of the measures taken as a result of the supervision of the instant case (the Plaintiff came to trial on November 21, 2006, and upon which C tested the linked function of the instant case, withdrawn the assertion that the evidence No. 22-1, No. 2, No. 23 was prepared, and the evidence No. 16 asserted that C was a document submitted by the Defendant on December 26, 2006, when applying for a completion inspection).

In addition, as seen earlier, in order to create a test environment reflecting the actual operational environment, consultation is conducted between C and the Public Procurement Service on the data items, data forms, etc. of information to be sent to E to D, and the Public Procurement Service completes the creation of data / program and the development of the program. The Plaintiff was well aware of such circumstances even at the time when the Plaintiff submitted a written confirmation of the instant supervision results, and the Plaintiff was well aware of such circumstances (see, e.g., the written statement (see, e., evidence 10) of G (see, e., evidence 10). It is difficult to deem that the Plaintiff confirmed the transmission and reception tests conducted in the test environment reflecting the actual operational environment and written confirmation of the results of the instant supervision measures.

Therefore, we cannot accept the plaintiff's above argument.

(B) In addition, the Plaintiff confirmed that the connected data with D were received and sent properly in the connection system with the Board of Audit and Inspection, etc. using the connection method such as E, and asserted that if the connection program is installed in the Public Procurement Service at the end of December 2006, it may be connected without problem, from an professional point of view, the Plaintiff made a written confirmation of the measures taken as a result of the instant supervision after making a verbal explanation to the Defendant and the person in charge of the National Information Society, and made no problems thereafter, the Plaintiff did not make a false written confirmation of the measures taken as a result of the instant supervision.

However, as seen earlier, the confirmation of the measure of this case should be interpreted on the basis of the person responsible for the agency awarding the contract without expertise in the information system. If the plaintiff is anticipated to have no particular problem, not on the premise of the presumption, but on the confirmation of the measure of this case, it should be explicitly indicated on the confirmation of the measure of this case. However, the defendant's responsible person, the ordering agency, can make accurate judgment. ② If the supervision report of this case does not conduct the connection test on external factors for which the connection program is not installed in the Public Procurement Service E as alleged by the plaintiff, the connection test plan should be established within the business period after consultation between the supervising agency and the developing agency, and the connection test should be conducted within the testing period as the testing environment is prepared during the operation/maintenance period. It is reasonable to see that the plaintiff, as the result of the supervision of this case, did not make an indication "--to" as the result of the supervision of this case, and as the result, it is reasonable to see that the plaintiff did not present the confirmation that it means 20 or 20-O."

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion cannot be accepted.

D) Sub-committee

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff did not prepare a false certificate of measure as a result of the instant supervision cannot be accepted.

3) Whether the discretionary authority is deviates or abused

In full view of the purport of Gap evidence 19-1 and 2 as a whole, the defendant failed to properly operate the connecting function of this case on January 9, 2007 by changing the connecting method between D and E from a short direction to both directions. As a result, the fact that D cannot normally open on January 1, 2008, which is an integrated unification, and eventually was wasted with enormous administrative power. According to the above facts, it cannot be readily concluded that the connecting function of this case was not properly operated, or that it was wasted with enormous administrative power because D was not properly opened, due to the problem of the connecting function of this case developed by Eul entirely.

However, Article 16(1)7 and (2) of the former Information System Act and Article 6(1) [Attachment 2] of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act provide that the period of suspension of business shall be three months if a false supervision report is prepared. According to the "general standards of 1.0 of the above attached Table", the administrative disposition authority may impose an excessive or unfavorable measure within the scope of 1/2 of the criteria for suspension of business in consideration of the motive, content, frequency, degree of violation, etc. of the act of violation. Considering that the defendant reduced 1/2 of the criteria for suspension of business in consideration of the above various circumstances of the plaintiff, and that the development project of this case is a development project for which the development project of this case can cause enormous damage to the plaintiff. The development project of this case is completed on the basis of the plaintiff's confirmation of confirmation of the supervisory results of this case, but it seems that the defendant's excessive measure of this case did not go beyond the scope of the scope of the measure of this case and its related administrative function.

Therefore, we cannot accept the Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant disposition was an unlawful act of deviation from or abuse of discretionary power.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case shall be dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just in its conclusion, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the plaintiff.

Judges

The presiding judge, the judge and the Gangwon-gu

Judges Jeon Soo-jin

Judges fixed-age

Note tin

1) The final supervision report 114 table of the upper end;

2) Final consideration reports 114 pages.

(iii) the final supervision report 116 pages;

4) A statement of the result of the final supervision measure 14 pages.

5) [1] Certificates of Measures Taken as a result of supervision three pages.

6) [Attachment 3] The 13th page as a result of the inspection of the current status of the intelligence connection test.

7) Gap evidence 10 No. 10 No. 1-2: Systems development in informatization projects is essential for cooperation with the connected information provision institution (the connected information provision institution), and consultation on the items and methods of connection between the connected information provision institution and the connected information provision institution. In particular, the connected information provision institution should create the information to be transmitted and provide the connection program on its own development and installation, but it is possible to connect information.