A court ruling has upheld the decision to restrict the participation of a call center operator in public bidding after it was found to have inflated the number of counselors and excessively received service fees from the government.
According to the legal community on the 30th, the Seoul Administrative Court Administrative Division 11 ruled against the plaintiff in a lawsuit filed by call center operator company A against the Public Procurement Service head, seeking to cancel the restriction on bidding participation.
Company A had a consignment contract with the Public Procurement Service from 2017 to 2021, handling consultation tasks such as cash receipts and electronic tax invoices. The contract stipulated that A must maintain a vacancy rate of 5% or less in its workforce each month, and if the vacancy rate exceeded 5%, the service fee would be reduced.
However, it was revealed that A falsely reported the number of workers despite having fewer employees than contracted, resulting in excessive receipt of service fees. Over five years, retirees, trainees before official employment, and employees on parental leave were recorded as active workers, leading to an overpayment of approximately 1.5 billion KRW. Consequently, the Public Procurement Service restricted A's bidding participation for one year starting December 2022.
A filed a lawsuit challenging the qualification restriction, requesting its cancellation. In court, A argued that "considering that there was no request or verification to strictly comply with the 'monthly' vacancy rate of 5% when paying the service fee, there was an implicit agreement not to apply the 'monthly vacancy rate 5% compliance' clause." Furthermore, A claimed that "employees on parental leave are considered regular workers under the Labor Standards Act, and periods when regular employees did not perform consultation duties due to leave should also be reflected in the consultation days."
However, the court stated, "According to the contract, A must maintain the vacancy rate at 5% or less each month, and if exceeded, the service fee must be reduced according to certain standards," adding, "A has the obligation to diligently verify the number of counselors deployed and report this to relevant authorities to ensure the service fee is properly calculated," rejecting A's claims.
Additionally, the court pointed out, "Although A did not pay salaries to employees on parental leave, managers instructed 'Those on leave, please log in,' and employees on parental leave logged into the consultation system as if they were working," and noted, "In light of this, it appears that A was aware that employees on parental leave should not be included as consultation personnel in principle and thus counted as vacancies."
© The Asia Business Daily(www.asiae.co.kr). All rights reserved.
