Administrative Appeals Commission Announced, “Restriction on Public Procurement Bidding Against Bribery-Providing Companies is a Justified Sanction”

- The Central Administrative Appeals Commission (CAAC) dismisses all administrative appeals filed by five companies that provided bribes to officials of a public Institution, seeking cancellation of “Sanctions against Inappropriate Business Entities”

- Administrative appeals related to corruption must be adjudicated with strict standards

(May 6, 2026, ACRC)

An administrative appeal ruling has affirmed the legitimacy of the “sanctions on inappropriate business entities” ^* imposed by a public institution, which restricts participation in public procurement contract bidding for companies found to have provided bribes to its officials.

* Sanction on an Inappropriate Business Entity: A system that imposes sanctions—including restrictions on participation in public procurement contract bidding—on persons who have engaged in contract fraud, bid-rigging, bribery, substandard contract performance, and similar misconduct.

The Central Administrative Appeals Commission (CAAC, Chairperson Cho So Young), operating under the Anti-Corruption and Civil Rights Commission (ACRC, Chairperson Jung Il Yeon), has dismissed the administrative appeals filed by five companies seeking cancellation of the sanctions against them. The five companies had each been sanctioned pursuant to applicable laws and regulations for having provided bribes to officials of a public institution.

The five companies that filed the administrative appeals are firms engaged in marine-related research and information services. Their provision of bribes to officials of the public institution was detected by investigative authorities and confirmed by final court rulings, resulting in each company receiving a bidding qualification restriction for a period of either three or six months.

< Amounts of Bribery Provided and Duration of Bidding Participation Restriction >

Each of the five companies filed an administrative appeal with the CAAC on different grounds, arguing respectively that: the provision of money or valuables was unrelated to any business solicitation and was made for social or customary purposes; the companies themselves never directed their employees to provide bribes at the corporate level; and the sanctions were excessive in that the amount of bribery from different years were aggregated without distinction by year.

Based on the outcomes of police investigations and court rulings, the CAAC comprehensively considered the following and determined that the sanctions against inappropriate business entities imposed on the five companies are neither unlawful nor unjust: facts recognized as criminal in a finalized criminal judgement constitute significant evidentiary material in administrative proceedings, and absent special circumstances, facts contrary to those established in the related criminal case cannot be recognized (Supreme Court Decision 2021Da243430 delivered on October 14, 2021). Since the petitioners provided bribes to public officials, resulting in the finalization of sentences—including terms of imprisonment—against the recipient officials, the petitioners qualify as “persons who have provided bribes” under applicable laws and regulations; the petitioners’ violations stem from bribery—a criminal act constituting one of the various grounds for bidding disqualification under the Act on Contracts to which the State is a Party—which is of no minor severity and is a subject of public condemnation; and the Table 2 of the Enforcement Rule on the Act on Contract to which the State is a Party prescribes different restriction periods based on the amount of bribery provided, and the sanctions imposed in this case are fully consistent with those standards.

Chairperson Cho So Young of the CAAC stated, “In this case, each of the sanctioned companies filed administrative appeals citing business difficulties. However, the Commission takes a strict stance with regard to corruption that undermines the order of fair bidding and contracting.” She added, “Going forward, the CAAC will continue to adjudicate administrative appeals related to corruption with full rigor, in order to protect the public interest.”