초록 열기/닫기 버튼
입찰참가자격제한 조치는 형식적으로는 계약의 당사자인 국가 등이 단순히 일정 기간 동안 자신이 장차 체결하려는 계약에서 부정당업자를 배제하는 소극적 조치이지만, 실질적으로는 이미 발생한 부정당행위에 대한 재제라는 적극적 조치의 성격을 지니고 있다. 대법원 판례는 입찰참가자격제한 조치의 법적 성격에 대하여 법령에 근거한 국가기관, 지방자치단체 및 공기업․준정부기관 등의 경우 행정처분이지만, 행정규칙 등에 근거한 기타공공기관 등의 경우 사법상 통지행위에 불과하다는 입장이다. 그런데 조달사업에 관한 법률에 따라 조달청장이 수요기관(국가, 지방자치단체, 공공기관, 지방공기업 등)의 요청 등에 의하여 조달계약하는 경우, 즉 요청조달계약에서 입찰참가자격제한 조치와 관련된 권한자와 적용법률 등에 대한 규정이 없기 때문에 많은 분쟁과 논란이 있다. 대상 판결(대판 2017. 6. 29. 2014두14389)은 공공기관의 운영에 관한 법률의 적용을 받는 기타공공기관의 조달요청에 따라 행한 요청조달계약의 경우 ‘제3자를 위한 사법상 계약의 성격을 지닌 조달계약에 국가를 당사자로 하는 계약에 관한 법률이 적용되지만, 공법 성격을 지닌 입찰참가자격제한 조치에 대해 조달청장이 권한을 행사하기 위해 별도의 권한 위임․위탁 규정이 필요한데, 규정이 없기 때문에 조달청장의 권한 행사가 위법하고, 기타공공기관이 공공기관의 운영에 관한 법률에 따라 통지행위에 해당되는 입찰참가자격제한 조치를 해야 한다’고 판시하였다. 대상판결과 달리 지방자치단체를 당사자로 하는 계약에 관한 법률의 적용을 받는 지방자치단체에 의한 요청조달계약의 경우에는 지방자치단체를 당사자로 하는 계약에 관한 법률 제7조 제2항 등에 따라 조달계약에 동법이 적용되고, 입찰참가자격제한 조치 권한도 지방자치단체장에 귀속되지만, 제31조 제1항에 따라 조달청장도 동법에 따라 입찰참가자격제한 처분을 할 수 있다. 공공기관의 운영에 관한 법률의 적용을 받는 공기업․준정부기관에 의한 요청조달계약의 경우 제3자를 위한 사법상 계약의 성격을 지닌 조달계약에 국가를 당사자로 하는 계약에 관한 법률이 적용되고, 입찰참가자격제한 조치 권한도 권한 위임․위탁 규정에 따라 조달청장에게 귀속되지만, 이 때 처분의 요건 절차, 효과 등은 공공기관의 운영에 관한 법률이 적용된다. 이와 같은 해석은 입찰참가자격제한 조치가 법령의 근거에 따라 행정처분 또는 사법상 통지행위로 구별될 수 있는 사안에 확장 적용될 수 있는데, 예컨대 지방공기업법에 의한 지방공사․지방공단에 의한 요청조달계약의 경우 공기업․준정부기관의 경우와 동일한 해석이 가능하다. 대상판결은 요청조달계약에서 발생되는 조달계약의 법적 성격과 적용 법령 및 입찰참가자격제한 조치의 권한자와 근거 법령 등을 명확히 판시하였다는 점에서 의의가 있다.
‘Restriction on Qualification for Participation of Inappropriate Business Entities in Tendering Procedures’ is formally negative sanctions that inappropriate business entities are excluded from Public procurement contract as party to a contract within a fixed period, and in substance postive sanctions that parties to a contract are punished for inappropriate business. According to Supreme court precedents, ‘Restriction on Qualification for Participation of Inappropriate Business Entities in Tendering Procedures’ is administrative disposition that State agencies, local governments and Public corporations․Quasi-governmental institutions decide on laws and administrative regulations but notice act of private law that non-classified public institutions decide on administrative rules. In cases Of the Requested-Public procurement contract, Public procurement contract made by The Administrator of the Public Procurement Service to which The head of each end-user institution(the state, local governments, Public Institutions, local public enterprises etc.) requests for entering into a contract under GOVERNMENT PROCUREMENT ACT, there are a lot of lawsuits and debates about the legitimate arbiters and the applied laws on ‘Restriction on Qualification for Participation of Inappropriate Business Entities in Tendering Procedures’ According to the Objected Supreme Court's Decision (29 June 2017) 2014두14389, in cases of Public procurement contract Requested by non-classified public institutions under ACT ON THE MANAGEMENT OF PUBLIC INSTITUTIONS, Requested-Public procurement contract applied to private law is contract for the benefit of a third person under ACT ON CONTRACTS TO WHICH THE STATE IS A PARTY, but The Administrator of the Public Procurement Service isn’t the legitimate arbiters of ‘Restriction on Qualification for Participation of Inappropriate Business Entities in Tendering Procedures’ applied to public law because of no Articles on delegation or entrustment of authority. So non-classified public institutions must exert authority under ACT ON THE MANAGEMENT OF PUBLIC INSTITUTIONS on ‘Restriction on Qualification for Participation of Inappropriate Business Entities in Tendering Procedures’ that performs notice act of private law to function legally. And in the cases different from former objected cases of Public procurement contract Requested by local governments under ACT ON CONTRACTS TO WHICH A LOCAL GOVERNMENT IS A PARTY, Requested-Public procurement contract is contract of local governments under ACT ON CONTRACTS TO WHICH A LOCAL GOVERNMENT, the head of local goverments is the legitimate arbiters of ‘Restriction on Qualification for Participation of Inappropriate Business Entities in Tendering Procedures’ under the same law. But The Administrator of the Public Procurement Service can exert the same authority because of ACT ON CONTRACTS TO WHICH A LOCAL GOVERNMENT Article 31 (1). Lastly in the cases of Public procurement contract Requested by Public corporations․Quasi-governmental institutions under ACT ON THE MANAGEMENT OF PUBLIC INSTITUTIONS, Requested-Public procurement contract is contract for the benefit of a third person under ACT ON CONTRACTS TO WHICH THE STATE IS A PARTY, The Administrator of the Public Procurement Service is the legitimate arbiters of ‘Restriction on Qualification for Participation of Inappropriate Business Entities in Tendering Procedures’ law because of Articles on delegation or entrustment of authority. But the requirement and procedures of administrative regulations must be applied to ACT ON THE MANAGEMENT OF PUBLIC INSTITUTIONS. Such as this legal interpretation on ‘Restriction on Qualification for Participation of Inappropriate Business Entities in Tendering Procedures’ of which the legal characteristics are changed by laws․administrative regulations or administrative rules to administrative disposition or notice act of private law shall be expansively applied to similar cases. For example, the cases of Public procurement contract Requested by local government-invested public corporations․local government public corporations under LOCAL PUBLIC ENTERPRISES ACT can be solved follow the cases of Public procurement contract Requested by Public corporations․Quasi-governmental institutions. To conclude, the Objected Supreme Court's Decision has a legal significance and is much helpful to clarify the legal characteristics and the applied laws of Requested-Public procurement contract, the legitimate arbiters and the applied laws on ‘Restriction on Qualification for Participation of Inappropriate Business Entities in Tendering Procedures’.
키워드열기/닫기 버튼
Restriction on Qualification for Participation of Inappropriate Business Entities in Tendering Procedures, inappropriate business entities, inappropriate business, Public procurement contract, Requested-Public procurement contract, Public Institutions, Public corporations, Quasi-governmental institutions, non-classified public institutions, notice act of private law, distinction between public law and private law, ACT ON CONTRACTS TO WHICH THE STATE IS A PARTY, ACT ON CONTRACTS TO WHICH A LOCAL GOVERNMENT IS A PARTY, ACT ON THE MANAGEMENT OF PUBLIC INSTITUTIONS, GOVERNMENT PROCUREMENT ACT
