The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the ground of appeal No. 3, the lower court determined that the Plaintiff’s instant disposition was mitigated under Article 76(4) of the Enforcement Rule of the Act on Contracts to Which the State is a Party (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Strategy and Finance No. 352, Jun. 19, 2013; hereinafter “Enforcement Rule of the State Contract Act”), based on the following circumstances: (a) where the Plaintiff’s employee of the Telecom Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “The Comcom”) prior to the merger committed the act of giving a bribe, which was the cause of the instant disposition, and (b) it was highly probable that the Plaintiff’s participation in the bidding was restricted to the Plaintiff’s other business division beyond the compcom, and thus, the Plaintiff’s strict proportional relationship with the offense is not maintained; and (c) where the company prior to the merger was merged with the surviving company after the merger on the ground of the offense committed by the company prior to the merger, in principle, the circumstance that the former company was merged constitutes a cause for mitigation under Article

(1) However, Article 76(4) of the Enforcement Rule of the State Contracts Act provides that “where the head of each central government agency restricts participation in bidding of unjust enterprisers, the period of restriction on qualification may be mitigated within the limit of 1/2 of the period prescribed in the corresponding subparagraph of attached Table 2, taking into account the motive, content, frequency, etc. of the relevant violation,” and does not specify the grounds for mitigation. Provided, however, it is merely an example of “the motive, content, and frequency of the relevant violation” as an element that can reduce the period of restriction on qualification, and ② a disposition restricting participation in bidding of a company which continues to exist after the merger on the grounds of a violation committed by the company prior to the merger is not limited to