beta
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. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 1, 2, and 3
A. Article 27(1) of the former Act on Contracts to Which the State Is a Party (amended by Act No. 14038, Mar. 2, 2016; hereinafter “State Contract Act”) provides that the head of each central government agency shall restrict the qualification to participate in a tender within the extent of two years to a person who is deemed likely to undermine the fair enforcement of competition or the proper implementation of contracts, or inappropriate to participate in a tender (hereinafter “unfair businessman”), as prescribed by Presidential Decree.
Article 76(1)1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Act on Contracts to Which the State is a Party based on delegation (amended by Presidential Decree No. 27475, Sep. 2, 2016; hereinafter “Enforcement Decree of the State Contract Act”) provides that where the other party to the contract constitutes “a person who has conducted fraudulent or improper acts or has committed wrongful acts in the course of performing the contract,” the other party to the contract should immediately be restricted from participating in bidding for a period of not less than one month but not more than two years pursuant to Article 27(1) of the State Contracts Act.
B. The lower court held that the Plaintiff, a partner company, bears the duty of direct production pursuant to the instant supply contract against the Defendant. The Plaintiff’s supply of the asphalt products produced by G, a non-product produced by the Plaintiff, constitutes a contractual breach, and the Plaintiff failed to perform its duty to maintain and repair the production facilities for the direct production of the asphalt products, and the Plaintiff’s failure to maintain and repair the products was 15 times or more over six months, and thus, it cannot be deemed that there exists a justifiable reason for the Plaintiff’s breach of the Plaintiff’s contractual duty.