바카라사이트 먹튀

1. Case summary

The client is an entity engaging in manufacturing meat processed products. It became unable to perform part of the contract under which it would supply products to the military due to the total destruction of its factory by fire. The Public Procure Service gave the client a prior notice of imposing penalties on the part of contract not performed by the client and limiting its qualification for bid participation (the “Sanction”) pursuant to the 바카라사이트 먹튀 on Contracts to which the State is a Party (the “바카라사이트 먹튀”).


2. Our role

We actively expressed the opinion that the failure to perform part of the contract due to the destruction of the factory in a fire does not constitute the failure to perform the contract “without a justifiable reason” under the 바카라사이트 먹튀. In particular, we convinced the court that the client was not attributable to the fire, substantiating that the client has not been subject to any sanctions, such as being fined for negligence due to insufficient firefighting facilities or violation of fire safety standards, and that it has always fulfilled its duty of care for fire prevention. We also emphasized that the necessity of sanctions was not so great as it was difficult to see that the client’s partial nonperformance of the contract, which was caused by fire, disturbed “national contractual order.”

Deliberation result of the Public Procure Service (“PPS”): PPS resolved not to impose the Sanction.

The PPS resolved not to impose the Sanction of penalties and limiting qualification for bid participation on the client. This case suggests that nonperformance of a contract executed with the government due to fire could constitute a “justifiable reason” for sanctions under the 바카라사이트 먹튀. In particular, this case is meaningful in that it is important to aggressively substantiate that fire is not caused by the person subject to allegation.


ㅁ Attorneys in charge: Baek Gwang-Hyeon and Kim Ji-su