안전한 바카라사이트

1. Overview of the case

Company A, represented by 안전한 바카라사이트, signed a supply contract with the Republic of Korea Air Force to supply broadcasting equipment and attempted to deliver the equipment to the Air Force. However, the Air Force refused to accept the broadcasting equipment, claiming that the broadcasting equipment was a combined type device that combines the main unit and the extension unit to function as a single device, and that the combined device did not meet the specifications.

​
Company A filed a lawsuit against the Air Force to force the Air Force to accept the broadcasting equipment. However, the first instance court ruled in favor of the defendant, emphasizing the specificity of the military organization and stating that the combined type device did not meet the requirements of the Air Force because the one-piece type device was smaller, lighter, and easier to operate.

​

​2. Judgment of the high court and our assistance

​
The high court canceled the first judgment and ordered the Air Force to accept the broadcasting equipment. The main reason was that the one-piece type was not a specification explicitly required in the original tender announcement, and the combined type also met the requirements of the Air Force. The Air Force abandoned its appeal, and the case was finally entered. Company A was able to successfully deliver the product from a crisis situation where it was forced to scrap all the products worth 1 billion won.

​
At the appeal hearing, we emphasized that the equipment in this case was general broadcasting equipment, which is different from weapons and communication equipment in which volume and weight are important, and presented a comparison of various types of bid announcements. By emphasizing that not all equipment used by the military needs to be lightweight and miniaturized, nor does it require strict specifications, we argued that if the Air Force was in dire need of satisfaction of strict requirements, it should have clearly requested it in the tender, which was accepted by the appellate court.

​

​3. Implications of the ruling for companies participating in the government procurement market

​
The government procurement market is a very large market, estimated to reach 196 trillion won in 2022, and as a result, many disputes arise. One of the most common types of disputes in government procurement contracts is when, as in this case, the government uses its superior position to demand something that was not originally requested through the tender announcement, and companies that receive such a request often reluctantly accept it to avoid deteriorating their relationship with the government. This ruling is said to be a meaningful ruling that puts a brake on the government's behavior.

​

​□ Attorney in charge: Kim Do-hyung, Kim Mi-yeon and Nam Jun-ho