1. All appeals filed by the Defendant and the Intervenor are dismissed.

2. The portion resulting from the participation in the appeal costs.

1. The grounds cited in the judgment of the court of first instance, which the defendant and the intervenor alleged in the trial while appealed, are not significantly different from those alleged in the court of first instance.

In full view of evidence and the purport of the entire arguments submitted in the first instance court and the trial court, the fact-finding of the first instance court is justifiable unless the grounds for the second and fifth grounds for the disciplinary action are acknowledged as follows.

Meanwhile, examining the grounds for the 6th and the 2nd and 5th which were not recognized by the first instance court, it cannot be deemed that the 6th and the 5th and the 5th which were not recognized by the first instance court, the 5th and the 6th and the 5th and the 5th of which

Therefore, the reasoning of this court concerning this case is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the dismissal of some contents as follows. Thus, this court shall accept it in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The dismissal of the judgment of the court of first instance is in line with the following subparagraphs, 18, 7, 19, and 14.

B) Comprehensively taking into account the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence and evidence as seen earlier related to the grounds for the second disciplinary action, evidence Nos. 60, Eul-B’s evidence Nos. 12, 54, and 73 and the purport of the entire pleadings, E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “E”).

A. Even if the Plaintiff’s member is not a member, the part of the Intervenor’s “after ordering document work to be different from the authoritative interpretation of the government that the restriction on participation of unjust enterprisers in bidding on an individual-friendly basis is justified, and then preparing and delivering false official documents to the E representative without obtaining approval from the Chairperson cannot be deemed as grounds for disciplinary action against the Intervenor due to lack of evidence to acknowledge this.

① The president filed a criminal charge against the Intervenor by forging private documents. The details of the criminal charge are as follows: “The Intervenor’s Secretary-General of the Korea Specialized Construction Association B of Korea Specialized Construction Association at the request of Te Specialized Construction Association B of April 15, 2014.”