All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the ground of appeal against the plaintiff B

A. Article 39(2) of the Act on the Management of Public Institutions (hereinafter “Public Institutions Operation Act”) provides that “a person, a corporation, or an organization, etc. deemed obviously likely to undermine fair competition or appropriate implementation of contracts,” subject to restriction on participation in bidding is limited to those who participated in the relevant wrongful act.”

On the other hand, Article 15(4) of the former Rules on Contract Affairs of Public Corporations and Quasi-Governmental Institutions (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Strategy and Finance No. 360, Sept. 17, 2013) (hereinafter “instant Rule”) provides that a person subject to restriction on participation in bidding may be subject to restriction on participation in bidding even if he/she is a juristic person or an organization, such person or organization, so that he/she can be subject to restriction on participation in bidding solely on the ground that he/she is in the status of representative of a juristic person, etc. regardless of whether he

However, delegation to Ministerial Ordinance under Article 39(3) of the Act on the Management of Public Institutions is merely “necessary matters concerning the standards, etc. for restricting participation in bidding”, and it cannot be deemed as delegation to the disposition subject to restriction on participation in bidding in bidding in the language and text of the provision.

Therefore, it is difficult to recognize external effect as exceeding the limit of delegated legislation, since the provision of this case provides for the extension of the object of disposition as above without delegation of superior laws and regulations.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2016Du52378 Decided June 15, 2017). B.

The court below did not recognize the external effect of the provision of this case. Thus, the above provision of this case against Plaintiff B, the representative of Plaintiff A (hereinafter “Plaintiff”).