The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

A. In the context of “agreement that unfairly limits competition” prohibited by Article 19(1) of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act (hereinafter “Fair Trade Act”), the essence of “agreement” lies in the communication among two or more enterprisers. This includes not only explicit agreement but also implied agreement (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Du19298, Nov. 14, 2013).

(1) Based on its adopted evidence, the lower court: (a) promoted a long-term report-III (Batch-I) project that can be independently designed in the Republic of Korea; and (b) held a public bid on February 12, 2009 and a long-term report-III small and medium-III system (hereinafter “instant small and medium-III system”) project; and (c) held a public bid to select three large companies (the comprehensive system; (d) and the pilot company (the tugboat arrangement system; hereinafter “the tugboat arrangement system”); and (e) conducted a public bid to select three companies (the 0th anniversary of the date of the instant small and medium-sized system; 20th anniversary of the date of the instant bidding; and (e) conducted a public bid to select three companies (the 0th anniversary of the date of the instant public tender; 20th anniversary of the date of the instant public tender; and (e) conducted a public tender agreement to separate the bid from the Plaintiff and the 3rd public tender system (the bid order system).