2. The Defendant’s corrective order in the attached Form No. 2014-287, which was issued by the plenary session resolution on December 12, 2014, and the part of the order to pay penalty surcharges under paragraph (2), shall be revoked.

3. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

4. One half of the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder shall be borne by the Defendant.

A. The plaintiff and state 1) Status of Austria

(2) A business entity engaged in manufacturing, selling, and repairing ozone facilities necessary for purifying water quality, such as the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s water purification plant, the sewage treatment plant, and the wastewater plant, and constitutes a business entity prescribed by Article 2 subparag. 1 of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act (hereinafter “Fair Trade Act”).

(b) Outline of the market for ozone injecting equipment;

1) Since it is necessary to install an ozone in a water purification facility, etc. requires technical capacity and requires a large amount of cost, there was no significant demand for it not later than 2007. However, since around 2007, there have been many civil petitions to remove smelling tap water and there has been a growing national interest in clean water, the increase in the location of introducing a water purification facility using ozone in lieu of salt that was previously used, and the demand for the ozone injecting equipment has increased.

2) The ozone injecting equipment consists of ① the storage and combustion of liquid oxygen, supply equipment, ② the ozone injector and power supply equipment, ③ the ozone injector and injector equipment, ④ valves and pipes equipment related to the ozone injector equipment, ⑤ electricity, control, measuring equipment, etc.

3) The domestic ozone injecting facility market is divided into the government-funded construction project bid market ordered by the Public Procurement Service, etc. and the government-funded construction project bid market ordered by the private construction companies that perform installation works, such as high-level water-purification facilities, etc.

4) The manufacture and installation of the ozone injecting equipment requires not only the manufacture technology of the ozone in place, but also the technical know-how for the capacity and operation of the ozone injecting equipment, and it is known that three companies, such as Austria, the Plaintiff, and Pacific, are leading the market in Korea (3). From 2007 to 2013, the contract amount and share of the three companies related to the tender for the ozone injecting equipment are as follows.

In the table (unit: KRW 457 211 3333 2008 570 53 53 53 53 53209 89 79 - 23. 21- - 21- 63 2010 - 2010 4529 4524 2011 2011 to 20130 70 256 256 247 257586 468888568,56 168885, in total, 2011 to 2013 524 2011 to 2013 130 50 7050 256 256 256 247 196

C. The plaintiff and Oralia's bid collusion details

1) From February 208 to April 201, 201, the Plaintiff and Oralian agreed to the successful bidder for each bid in a way that Nonparty 1 and Nonparty 2, the representative director of Oralian and Nonparty 2, exchange opinions directly or through telephone, prepare a written agreement, etc., while the Plaintiff and Oralian agreed to the successful bidder for each bid in advance by the method of preparing a written agreement. Between 1 to 2 days before the date of the actual bid, Nonparty 3 and the Plaintiff’s non-party 4 decided the bid price by mutual agreement so that the successful bidder determined in advance under the direction of the relevant tender from the above representative director and the Plaintiff’s non-party 4 directors under the direction of the relevant tender.

2) Bidding details subject to the instant collaborative act are as follows.

(2) 1: 20, 20, 30, 20, 20, 30, 20, 20, 20, 30, 20, 30, 40, 20, 20, 20, 30, 40, 20, 20, 20, 20, 20, 30, 20, 20, 30, 40, 20, 20, 20, 30, 40, 20, 200, 20, 30, 50, 20, 20, 20, 20, 20, 30, 20, 30, 206, 30, 200, 30,00,00,00,00,00

Note 4) Estimated amount

Note 5) Tender participants

D. The defendant's disposition

1) On December 12, 2014, the Defendant issued a corrective order and a penalty surcharge payment order to the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff’s aforementioned act constitutes an unfair collaborative act prohibited under Article 19(1)8 of the Fair Trade Act, as prescribed by Article 2014-287 of the plenary session’s resolution.

2) The Defendant imposed a penalty surcharge on the Plaintiff in accordance with Articles 22 and 55-3 of the Fair Trade Act, Article 61 and attached Table 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Fair Trade Act, and public notice on detailed standards for imposition of penalty surcharges (amended by Defendant Notice No. 2010-9, Oct. 20, 2010). The specific calculation details are as follows.

(a) Related sales: 36,192,973,00 won [in cases where a business operator who is scheduled to award a contract under an agreement makes a recommendation for a bid at the Gangseo-do Amar Water Treatment Center, the estimated price (excluding value-added tax) shall be applied, and in cases of the rest of 13, it shall be the aggregate of the following amounts:

(B) Base rate: 10 percent (any significant violation).

○ Provided, That the 5% imposition rate reduced by 1/2 of the imposition base rate shall apply to the bid construction for which the plaintiff failed to receive a successful bid.

C) Coordination by an element of the actor

○ 10% of the adjusted penalty surcharge shall be increased by 10% by recognizing the fact that senior executives participated in the collaborative act.

○ 20% of the primary adjusted penalty surcharge shall be mitigated in consideration of the circumstances in which the Plaintiff cooperates in the investigation.

○ The first adjustment penalty surcharge shall be reduced by 20% in consideration of the fact that the Plaintiff made a voluntary correction, such as the Plaintiff’s preferential cancellation of the instant agreement and the efforts to restore market order through competition after the reversal of the agreement.

(d) Final charges: KRW 1,735,000,000 (tackers less than KRW 1,735,000);

3) Meanwhile, the Plaintiff filed an application for reduction or exemption with the Defendant on February 15, 2013, which was after the Defendant’s investigation into the instant collaborative act commenced. On December 12, 2014, the Defendant rendered a decision to dismiss the Plaintiff’s application for reduction or exemption on the ground that the Plaintiff was not eligible for reduction or exemption, under Article 22-2(1)2 of the Fair Trade Act and Article 35(1)3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Fair Trade Act, even if the Plaintiff is a first-class investigator for investigation, or a second-class voluntary reporter or a second-class investigator for investigation under Article 35(1)6(a) of the Enforcement Decree of the said Act, even if the Plaintiff is a second-class voluntary reporter or a second-class investigator for investigation under Article 35(1)6(a) of the said Enforcement Decree.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 5, 6, Eul evidence Nos. 2 through 18 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the part requesting revocation of an application for reduction or exemption among the lawsuits in this case is legitimate

A. According to Articles 21 and 22 of the Fair Trade Act, when there is an act of violating a provision prohibiting unfair collaborative acts, the Defendant may order the relevant enterpriser to take corrective measures or impose a penalty surcharge. According to Article 22-2(1) of the Fair Trade Act, Article 35(1) and (3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Fair Trade Act, where a person who filed a report prior to the commencement of an investigation or cooperates after the commencement of an investigation into an unfair collaborative act satisfies certain requirements, the penalty surcharge and corrective measures may be mitigated or exempted. The Defendant, upon a request from a voluntary reporter or a person who cooperates in an investigation, may separately deliberate or separately decide on the relevant case so that his/her identity may not be disclosed. Moreover, Article 35(4) of the Enforcement Decree of the Fair Trade Act provides that the Defendant shall deliberate and decide on the reduction or exemption of a penalty surcharge and corrective measures, etc. against the former voluntary reporter (amended by Presidential Decree No. 2014-19, Jan. 2, 2015; hereinafter referred to as “the reduction or exemption”).

B. Comprehensively taking account of the above provisions, the Defendant’s dismissal disposition against an application for reduction or exemption, such as penalty surcharge by voluntary report by an enterpriser in relation to an unfair collaborative act, is ultimately conducted as a single procedure to determine whether to reduce or exempt a penalty surcharge by filing a voluntary report. However, the Defendant merely makes a separate decision on the application for reduction or exemption by an enterpriser so that the identity of the voluntary reporter is not disclosed. However, even if the Defendant’s dismissal disposition against an application for reduction or exemption by an enterpriser, if the Defendant separately issued a corrective order or a penalty surcharge payment order against the enterpriser’s violation at that time, such separate decision cannot be deemed as a separate disposition. However, even if the Defendant’s rejection disposition against the application for reduction or exemption is revoked, the effect of the final decision ordering the enterpriser to take corrective order or to impose a penalty surcharge, which was already issued by the enterpriser, cannot be denied solely on the ground that such rejection disposition is unlawful, separate from the revocation disposition against the application for reduction or exemption application, and thus, the Defendant’s dismissal order and revocation order of the final decision should be sought separately from the procedure.

According to these circumstances and judgments, in a case where there is a final decision on the corrective measures or the imposition of penalty surcharge even though a rejection of an application for reduction or exemption due to voluntary report, etc., it would be the most effective and appropriate means to seek revocation by directly disputing the illegality of the final decision by the relevant business operator. In this case, it is reasonable to deem that there is no benefit of lawsuit seeking revocation of an application for reduction or exemption.

C. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s lawsuit seeking revocation of the application for reduction or exemption is unlawful, since the Plaintiff has no interest in filing a lawsuit seeking revocation of the application for reduction or exemption.

3. Whether the instant corrective order and the penalty surcharge payment order are lawful

A. As to whether the status of the first voluntary reporter is recognized or not

1) Summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion

Article 35(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Fair Trade Act provides that a person who has filed a voluntary report shall have discontinued an unfair collaborative act in order to obtain reduction or exemption as a person who has filed a voluntary report, not only if the collaborative act was interrupted at the time of the voluntary report, but also if the voluntary reporter has committed an active act to discontinue the collaborative act first. However, in the case of Austria recognized as a person who has filed a first voluntary report, it is only a person who has discontinued the collaborative act passive due to the external factors, such as the cancellation of the Plaintiff’s agreement. Therefore, it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff satisfied the requirements for the voluntary reporter, and the Plaintiff has the status of the first voluntary reporter (Article 35(1)1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Fair Trade Act) or the first voluntary reporter (Article 35(1)2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Fair Trade Act). The instant corrective order and

2) Determination

A) Article 22-2(1) of the Fair Trade Act provides that a person who voluntarily reports an unfair collaborative act or cooperates in an investigation by means of providing evidence, etc. shall be eligible to reduce or exempt corrective measures or penalty surcharges. Article 35(1)1 and 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Fair Trade Act provides that a person who voluntarily provided evidence necessary to prove an unfair collaborative act shall be the first person who voluntarily provided evidence necessary to establish the unfair collaborative act; (2) a person who voluntarily submitted or cooperates in an investigation without obtaining information on the unfair collaborative act or without obtaining sufficient evidence necessary to substantiate the unfair collaborative act; (3) a person who has submitted all facts related to the unfair collaborative act and submitted relevant materials, etc.; and (4) a person who has committed an unfair collaborative act shall be subject to the first voluntary report or who has suspended the investigation to be recognized as the first person who has voluntarily reported or is the first person who has filed the unfair collaborative act.

B) In full view of the following circumstances and judgments revealed by the facts and evidence adopted earlier based on the contents and purport of the aforementioned relevant provisions, the Plaintiff’s assertion is not acceptable, as it is difficult to deem that the Plaintiff satisfied the requirements of the first voluntary reporter or the first voluntary investigator.

(1) Article 22-2(1) of the Fair Trade Act and Article 35(1)1 and 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Fair Trade Act provide that “The first person who alone provided necessary evidence shall be the one who voluntarily provided the evidence” with respect to the provision of evidence as the requirement of the first voluntary reporter or the first voluntary investigator, and do not stipulate that the interruption of the collaborative act should have been actively interrupted. Article 6(1) of the Public Notice of Reduction and Exemption provides that “The existence of the unfair collaborative act among the requirements under each subparagraph of Article 35(1) of the Enforcement Decree shall be determined depending on whether the agreement on the collaborative act is no longer continued,” and Article 35(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Fair Trade Act provides that “The collaborative act shall be immediately suspended after the application for reduction and exemption.” Accordingly, it is inappropriate to interpret that the interruption of the unfair collaborative act, which serves as the requirement for the application for reduction and exemption, means a case where the collaborative act has been actively suspended, as alleged by the plaintiff.

Article 35 (1) 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Rotterdam includes “the suspension of the unfair collaborative act” as the requirements of the second voluntary reporter or the second voluntary investigator. The meaning of the above requirements under the relevant provisions should be the same as that of the first voluntary reporter or the first voluntary investigator. However, if the above requirements are interpreted to mean the case where the first voluntary reporter or the first voluntary investigator has actively suspended the collaborative act, as alleged by the Plaintiff, the remaining enterprisers except the first voluntary reporter or the second voluntary investigator who participated in the unfair collaborative act are unable to meet the above requirements, so it would substantially prevent the length of the second voluntary reporter or the second voluntary investigator who is recognized as the first voluntary investigator.

The purpose and purpose of the system of reduction and exemption, including voluntary reporters, prescribed by the Fair Trade Act, are to strengthen trust among participating enterprisers by voluntarily reporting on, or cooperating with, an unfair collaborative act and to discontinue or prevent an unfair collaborative act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Du987, Feb. 12, 2015). If it is interpreted that an enterpriser who has actively ceased the collaborative act, as alleged by the Plaintiff, satisfies the requirements such as voluntary reporters, etc., first of all, it would be difficult for the other enterprisers who are not only the enterpriser having the collaborative act, but also the other enterprisers who have the collaborative act, to have the incentive to voluntarily report or cooperate in investigation. For example, if there is a business operator who has voluntarily ceased the collaborative act and for whom a long time voluntary report or cooperation in investigation is delayed, interpretation, as alleged by the Plaintiff, might be benefiting from voluntary report or cooperation in investigation, thereby undermining the purpose and purpose of the system of reduction and exemption and exemption, which

In order for the plaintiff to be eligible for reduction and exemption, "the defendant has failed to obtain information on the illegal cartel conduct or to secure sufficient evidence necessary to substantiate that the illegal cartel conduct is an unfair cartel conduct." However, the plaintiff filed a voluntary report or an application for reduction and exemption on February 15, 2013, which was nine months after the date when the plaintiff filed a voluntary report of Austria, and the defendant had been sufficiently secured the evidence necessary to prove the illegal cartel conduct of this case by completing an investigation into the representative director, Nonparty 1 and Nonparty 3 on the basis of the materials already submitted by Austria, and the defendant had already secured the evidence necessary to prove the illegal cartel conduct of this case. Thus, even if the plaintiff submitted some additional materials while filing a voluntary report, it is difficult to deem that the plaintiff satisfied the above requirements solely on such circumstances.

(v) while recognizing the Lao as the first voluntary reporter, the Defendant’s measures that did not recognize the status of the first voluntary reporter and did not reduce or exempt corrective measures and penalty surcharges against the Plaintiff are results from the operation of the reduction or exemption system, such as voluntary reporters based on the relevant provisions, and even if considering the circumstances of the Plaintiff, who first proposed the instant collaborative act and received the largest benefit due to the collaborative act, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant’s measures lose concrete validity.

B. As to whether the prescription period for partial collaborative acts has expired

1) Summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion

The instant collaborative act cannot be deemed as a series of acts conducted in order to achieve the same purpose based on a single intent by the Plaintiff. From February 2, 2008 to April 201, when the instant collaborative act was committed, it is difficult to deem that the continuity of the instant collaborative act is recognized since there exist a majority of bidders bidding bidding bidding without collusion with the Plaintiff. Therefore, the instant collaborative act cannot be deemed as a single collaborative act, and it shall be deemed that the instant collaborative act constitutes a separate collaborative act according to each agreement. Accordingly, the instant collaborative act shall not be deemed as a single collaborative act, and it shall be deemed that the instant collaborative act constitutes a separate collaborative act pursuant to the respective agreement. Accordingly, the period of extinctive prescription against the six bidding bidding conducted before December 2009, when the five-year period of the instant disposition was issued. As such, the instant order to pay the penalty surcharge imposed on this part is unlawful.

2) Determination

A) In cases where enterprisers have reached an agreement on the basic principles of unfair collaborative acts and have reached several agreements in the process of implementing such agreement, and even if they have reached several agreements over a long time without the agreement on such basic principles, if each agreement was implemented for the same purpose on the basis of a single intent and has been continuously implemented without being cut off, it is reasonable to see that such a series of agreements as a whole have been partially changed in the specific contents or members of each agreement, barring special circumstances (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2007Du3756, Sep. 25, 2008; 2008Du16179, Jan. 30, 2009).

B) According to the evidence adopted earlier, the specific circumstances, etc. of each of the instant agreements are as follows.

(i) The Agreement on January 31, 2008

On January 31, 2008, each representative director of the Plaintiff and Obania agreed to receive each successful bid in the tender for the supply and installation of the ozone facilities at the construction site at the construction site at the construction site at the Sing-si in the Sing-si where the Plaintiff would be ordered to receive the construction at the Hanban-si on or around February 2008 (hereinafter referred to as “large-si sewerage”). On April 2008, Obania agreed to receive each successful bid in the tender for the supply and installation of the irrigation facilities at the construction site at the construction site at the construction site at the construction site at the Hanban-si-si (hereinafter referred to as “the tender at the construction site at the construction site at the construction site at the construction site at the construction site at the construction site at the construction site at the construction site at the construction site at the construction site at the construction site at the construction site at the construction site at the construction site at the construction site at the construction site at the construction site at the construction site at the construction site at the construction site at the construction site at the construction site at the construction site at the construction site at the construction site at the construction site at the construction site. The Plaintiff agreed to ensure each agreement between the Plaintiff and the construction site.

Shell 209. 3. Agreement

On April 3, 2009, the Plaintiff and Oralian representative director agreed to receive each successful bid in the bid for the construction for the re-construction and the construction for the high-level treatment facilities (hereinafter referred to as the “Yaneungpo 1 and 2 purification site bid”) that is scheduled to place an order for modern construction on or around April 3, 2009, and in the bid for the manufacture and purchase of the high-class 3 purification facilities (hereinafter referred to as the “three fixed-class bid”) that the Plaintiff will place an order by the Public Procurement Service on or around June 2009. As a result of the bid, Oralian was awarded each successful bid in the 1 and 2 fixed-class bid for the Youngpo 1 and 2 fixed-class bid for the Youngpo 3 fixed-water purification site.

Article 209.9. Agreement 2009

On September 2009, each representative director of the Plaintiff and Oralian agreed to receive each successful bid from the tender for the facility modernization and the high-water purification facilities construction (hereinafter referred to as the “construction for the Gu water purification center”) of the Gu water purification center (hereinafter referred to as the “Gu water purification facilities tender”) which the Plaintiff ordered construction through telephone liaison, etc., and the bid for the facilities modernization and the high-water purification facilities construction ordered by Oralian Samsung C&T (hereinafter referred to as the “satise shop tender”). As a result of the bid, the Plaintiff received each successful bid from the bid for the Gu water purification center.

xx. Agreement on December 18, 2009

On December 18, 2009, in consideration of the bid expected to place an order in the future, the Plaintiff and Oralian representative director agreed that the Plaintiff will receive each successful bid from the tender for the construction of the ozone equipment at the Sungnam Water Treatment Facility, the Gangnam Water Purification Facility, the Gangnam Water Purification Facility, the High Village Water Purification Facility, the High Calopic Sewage Treatment Facility, the High Calopic Sewage Treatment Facility, and the High Calopic Sewage Treatment Facility. As a result of the bid, the Plaintiff was awarded each successful bid from the tender for the Construction of the Sewage Treatment Facility.

(v) the agreement on January 201;

On January 12, 2011, the Plaintiff and the each representative director of the Oralian agreed to receive a successful bid from the bid to install the ozone facilities (hereinafter referred to as the “Sesansan River Bid bid”) among the construction works for the construction works for the Oral Sea Water Treatment Facility (hereinafter referred to as the “Sesan river”) to be ordered by the Plaintiff on January 12, 201. As a result of the bid, the Plaintiff was awarded a successful bid in the tender for the Seosan Ballast River.

⑹ 2011. 3. 29. 합의

Each representative director of the Plaintiff and Oralian agreed to be awarded a successful bid in the Gangnam Water Treatment Station, the high-quality sewage treatment plant, and the bidding in the agreement on December 18, 2009, including the construction project expected to place an order in the future and the construction project agreed on December 18, 2009. The Plaintiff agreed to be awarded a successful bid in the bidding in the Gangnam Water Treatment Station, the high-quality sewage treatment plant, and the local sewage treatment plant. After the agreement as above, the Plaintiff participated in the bidding as agreed in advance before March 31, 201, but the bid failed to participate in the agreement of this case as the condition of participation in the bidding was mitigated, and the Plaintiff was dismissed unilaterally after the agreement was reached by the Plaintiff on April 201.

⑺ 한편 이 사건 공동행위 기간 중에는 원고 또는 오조니아가 참여한 입찰로서 공동행위와 관련이 없는 입찰 내역도 다수 발견되는데, 그 구체적 내역은 아래와 같다(갑 제11호증 참조).

A person shall be appointed.

C) Comprehensively taking account of the facts acknowledged earlier and the developments leading up to the conclusion of each of the instant agreements and the written agreement and the form, etc., based on the relevant legal principles, it is difficult to view that only the materials submitted in light of the following circumstances and judgment, as a whole, to carry out the same purpose on the basis of a single intent, and as a whole, constitutes a single unfair collaborative act. Accordingly, the part Nos. 1 and 6 of the table mentioned in Article 1-C (2) as mentioned above among the collaborative acts in the instant case is apparent from the completion date of the individual collaborative act to the time of the instant disposition, and thus, the statute of limitations has been completed. Accordingly, the order to pay a penalty surcharge in the instant case is unlawful on the basis of fact-finding error, which serves as the basis for the exercise of discretion to impose a penalty

(1) In the instant case, there is no basic agreement on the entire collaborative act between the Plaintiff and Oralian. According to the written resolution, the Defendant did not determine the collaborative act as one collaborative act on the premise that the basic agreement was concluded at the time of the disposition. The instant collaborative act was conducted by each representative director of the Plaintiff and Oralian, upon agreement, by selecting an adequate target bid that may help the interests of each company at each time of agreement. Upon agreement on January 3, 2008, the Plaintiff and Oralian selected a bid, and entered into an agreement on April 3, 2009 on the condition that one will be awarded a successful tender, and the second agreement was concluded on April 3, 2009 with a considerable period of time. According to the statement made by the Plaintiff and Oralian representative director and the working person, each of the two agreements were not prescribed in the principle or method of collusion as to the entire collaborative act, and each of the two agreements should be acknowledged, even if considering the specific method and method of individual consultation, each of the parties agreed to the agreement.

It is difficult to deem that the execution of each agreement among the instant collaborative acts was conducted without interruption on the basis of a single intent as alleged by the Defendant. In light of the circumstances, etc., such as the 29 biddings related to the ozone injecting equipment implemented during the instant collaborative act, 14 biddings were conducted only during the instant collaborative act period, and the remaining 15 biddings or private contracts were conducted based on the business capabilities, etc. of each company. The Defendant asserted to the effect that, other than 14 biddings subject to the instant collaborative act, the 15 biddings and the Plaintiff were bids that did not have the effectiveness or character of collusion. However, according to the preparatory documents of April 18, 2016, the Defendant stated that “in the event of 15 biddings, the Defendant did not have any data other than those provided by evidence No. 11 submitted by the Plaintiff during the instant lawsuit,” it is reasonable to deem that each of the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s directors agreed to have continued to have reached an agreement on the construction works without any agreement with the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff.

4. Conclusion

In the lawsuit of this case, the part concerning the claim to revoke the application for reduction or exemption is unlawful and thus, it is dismissed. Since the order to pay the penalty surcharge of this case is unlawful, it is revoked. The remaining claims of the plaintiff are dismissed

[Attachment]

Judges Lee Dong-won (Presiding Judge)

Note 1) The Lao Korea Co., Ltd. shall reduce the same and omit the indication of “stock company” in the name of another company for convenience.

Note 2) On May 2001, Vaco was established, and thereafter, Baco was merged with Athrewe Korea, and Athrebrewe Korea changed its trade name to the Plaintiff on November 201.

3) The existing restrictions on participation in the tender were mitigated since 2011, only to the business operator who has the actual record of supplying the ozone facilities at a water purification plant.

Note 4) An amount including value-added tax, and an amount excluding value-added tax for each bid cannot be confirmed. However, the indication “-” is a part for which the Defendant failed to verify the bid price.

Note 5) The company described in subsection (a) is a successful bidder.

(6) In consideration of the equity among other cases already handled by the Defendant, the Defendant also applied the penalty surcharge notice prior to the amendment by the Defendant’s Notice No. 2013-2 on June 5, 2013, which was not favorable to the Plaintiff.

Note 7) The basic penalty surcharge calculated by multiplying the relevant sales by the base rate for imposition refers to the penalty surcharge calculated by the adjustment by the elements of the act of the violating enterpriser. In the case of the Plaintiff, the basic penalty surcharge is the primary adjustment penalty surcharge, because there was no adjustment by the elements of the act.

8) On May 21, 2012, the Defendant recognized the Plaintiff’s voluntary report as the first voluntary report on the instant collaborative act.

9) The order for the Changwon's bid was revoked, and the bid was again agreed upon on March 29, 201 with respect to the local sewage treatment plants, Gangnam Water Treatment plants, Gangnam Water Treatment Plants, and Yangyang Water Treatment Plants for which the bid did not proceed.

Note 10) This part of the agreement was not implemented by the parties who ordered the construction without conducting competitive bidding and by entering into a negotiated contract with the Plaintiff.

(11) The Plaintiff’s representative director Nonparty 2 stated that, in the Defendant’s investigation process, only two bidding bids agreed, “in the case of a bid for an ozone injecting facility, it may be known whether the basic design and the working design should be completed.”

Note 12) In the case of an agreement on April 4 and 9, 2009, it is reasonable to deem that the collaborative act was terminated by the implementation of individual agreements, unless there is any evidence to deem that it was anticipated that it would continue to reach a subsequent agreement at the time of the above agreement in light of the fact, circumstances, etc.

Note 13) In this case, in order to determine whether each agreement constitutes a single collaborative act, it is necessary to verify the existence of 15 bidding or contract details that did not take place during the same period, and to examine the essential difference between the 14 bidding that was the subject of the collaborative act and the 14 bidding that was the subject of the collaborative act. There is no evidence to deem that the Defendant had undergone such prior review on the record.