Representative Director 000

Attorney ○-○, et al.

Representative ○○○○

Law Firm 000

[Defendant-Appellee]

25. Claim for revocation of the part exceeding KRW 103,00,000, and penalty surcharges specified in attached Table 2

The request for the cancellation of an order shall be dismissed, respectively.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. Litigation costs shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The second corrective order and the second penalty surcharge payment order, and the Defendant’s resolution at the plenary session on April 30, 2012

Each order for the payment of penalty surcharges listed in attached Form 2 issued to the plaintiff in 2012 - 060 shall be revoked.

A. The plaintiff's status

Plaintiff, B, and C (hereinafter “B”) Co., Ltd., Ltd., and C “B”;

U.S.A. ○, Non-○ Industries, Co., Ltd. 3, Co., Ltd., Ma○○○○

Co., Ltd., Co., Ltd., ○○○○○○○ Co., Ltd., YO○○○, Co., Ltd., Ltd.;

Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'O', 'O', 'O', 'Ma', 'O', 'O', 'O', 'O', 'care', 'care', 'care', 'care', 'O', 'care', 'O', and 's wind';

‘Cooperative ○’. These 13 companies are ‘the instant business operators’, and the company is divided or merged.

If sick or trade name is changed, it shall be expressed in the current trade name) is a fertilizer manufacturer or seller.

section 2 subparagraph 1 of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Fair Trade Act")

applicable to a business entity.

As of 2009, the size of the domestic fertilizer market is the National Agricultural Cooperative Federation (hereinafter referred to as the "Agricultural Cooperative Federation").

C)all sale of chemical fertilizers, original fertilizers, other fertilizers, and sale through an intermediate agency, through which sales through an agency are conducted.

approximately 18,37.9 billion won is estimated to be approximately 18,37.9 billion won, and the top eight enterprises, such as plaintiffs, B, and Pung, in the entire market.

It has an over-point market structure that occupies more than 90%.

B. The defendant's disposition

The defendant, the plaintiff et al., from November 1, 1994 to June 14, 2010, shall cooperate with the National Agricultural Cooperative Federation and the production of tobacco from the plaintiff et al.

In the tender of chemical fertilizers conducted each year by the National Federation of Cooperatives (hereinafter referred to as the "National Federation of Cooperatives") 1 by item in the tender of chemical fertilizers

to allocate the successful bid volume and to agree on the bid price in advance (the entry of chemical fertilizers ordered by the NACF)

(2) A project operator who has been selected as a successful bidder and has been partly excluded from the tender, shall be awarded a successful tender.

A business operator who does not participate in a tendering procedure shall be supplied to the workers, and the manufacture completion of the allocated quantity shall be made.

Article 19 of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act (Tender for Chemical Fertilizer Project by the Youngs Association) agreement to supply the required raw materials.

On April 30, 2012, on the ground that it conducted an unfair collaborative act referred to in paragraph (1) 1 and 3; the resolution of the plenary session is adopted;

each corrective order and penalty surcharge payment order listed in the separate sheet No. 2012 - No. 058 against the Plaintiffs (hereinafter referred to as “instant order”).

'The Disposition of this case' was made.

After that, the defendant filed a voluntary report with the second order after the commencement of the investigation by the defendant and cooperates in the investigation.

As such, all of April 30, 2012 on the ground that it falls under Article 22-2 (1) 2 of the Fair Trade Act.

The decision of the meeting was 2012 - 060 to reduce the penalty surcharge stated in attached Table 2 against the Plaintiff.

[Ground for Recognition] In the absence of dispute, each entry in Gap evidence 1-1 and 2

2. Of the instant lawsuit’s order to pay penalty surcharge of KRW 50, 206, 000, 000 as indicated in Attached Table 1 List 2

25. Claim for revocation of the part exceeding KRW 103,00,000, and penalty surcharges specified in attached Table 2

Whether the claim for cancellation of the order is legitimate

In imposing penalty surcharges, the administrative agency shall impose penalty surcharges upon a person liable for payment and then impose it.

Where the amount of a penalty surcharge is reduced on account of defects in the amount of the penalty surcharge, the reduction disposition shall be the penalty surcharge reduced.

only the legal effect of this section, and the initial disposition and the separate independent penalty

The substance of the tax disposition, not the initial tax disposition, changes in the substance of the tax disposition, thereby making a part of the penalty

Since it is a disposition that leads to a favorable result for the person liable to pay the cancellation, the initial imposition

The disposition of imposition on a reduced portion by the reduction is not effective. Accordingly, the disposition of imposition on the reduced portion by the reduction is taken.

A claim is unlawful as against the already extinguished part of the lawsuit, as there is no benefit of the lawsuit (Supreme Court)

See Supreme Court Decision 2006Du4226 Decided February 15, 2008 (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Du4226, Feb. 15, 2008). In such cases, subject

The remaining part of the disposition is not revoked by the reduction disposition, and the reduction disposition is a substitute for an appeal litigation.

It is not different (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Du3957 delivered on February 15, 2008).

In light of the above legal principles, the order of penalty surcharge payment in the lawsuit of this case is revoked ex officio.

Lawsuits on the remainder of 25, 103, 000, and 000 won in excess of the remaining part

As such, there is no interest in the lawsuit seeking cancellation, and the reduction of the penalty surcharge also is the initial imposition.

It is nothing more than a change of a penalty surcharge but not an independent penalty surcharge payment order, which is an object of appeal litigation.

As such, the name of the penalty surcharge of KRW 50,206,00,000 among the lawsuits in this case shall be the name of the penalty surcharge of KRW 50,200,000 in attached Table 1.

Part of the claim for the cancellation of the part exceeding KRW 25, 103, 00,00 among the Ordinances and the section in the attached Table 2

"The part of the claim for the cancellation of the gold payment order is unlawful."

3. Facts of recognition

(a) The opening of the fertilizer industry and kinds of fertilizers;

a fertilizer is a kind of fertilizer produced with a single ingredient among three elements of the fertilizer (Quality, sium, knium) depending on its principal ingredient;

The composite fertilizer containing at least two ingredients and the fertilizer ingredients made by simply mixing them without any chemical change;

BB (B) The collaborative act of this case is classified into Bulk Bluring fertilizer, customized fertilizer, etc.

1. Complex fertilizer which contains all three elements of fertilizer and which is the subject of production;

As a result, there are various mixing of fertilizers, but 21 - 17 - 17 - 21 - 17 - 17 fertilizers, the representative of which is a non-identical fertilizer.

'Military', ② one of the nitrogen (N) fertilizers which facilitate the growth of the roots and leaves of plants, and which facilitates the growth of such plants.

릴 요소와 그래뉼 요소가 있는 ' 요소비료군 ' , ③ 비료의 3요소 중 질소 ( N ) 와 칼륨 ( K ) 만

be used mainly for cultivating bean (8-8 - 9) as one of the 'NK Fertilizer Group', and 4 the bean fertilizer, which is used mainly for cultivating bean.

5) Not less than two kinds of chemistrys, among nitrogen, human, and knium, on the basis of the clibial clibium based on soil analysis.

'BB Fertilizer Group 'BB Fertilizer Co., Ltd. 'BB Fertilizer Co., Ltd.' made by physically mixing without any physical reaction 6

In light of the nationwide soil test result and quantitative balance, a mixture of major ingredients in accordance with the soil environment;

7 Mollium (K) that facilitates the gratation and gratation of customized fertilizers and strengthens the roots of fratium (K)

8. Dominium, one of the fertilizers; 8. Dominium, an exclusive fluor for the cultivation of leaves, which is the raw material of leaf tobacco;

It consists of ‘welves', etc.

(b) Structure and characteristics of domestic fertilizer distribution;

Chemical fertilizers, except tobacco plant fertilizers, are distributed through the system purchase by the Agricultural Cooperatives Federation, and agricultural cooperatives are distributed.

The Federation shall establish an annual plan for the supply and demand of fertilizers by compiling the desired quantity of the association per single-line unit each year.

An annual supply contract with a fertilizer producer by bidding or free contract for necessary volume;

and each unit cooperative shall enter into a fertilizer from a fertilizer producer in accordance with the unit price prescribed in the contract.

supplied and supplied to farmers. Annual fertilizers are supplied to the project owner unless the project owner is an annual association.

It shall be distributed in a structure similar to the system purchase by the National Agricultural Cooperative Federation.

The Agricultural Cooperative Federation is expected to receive production cost data from a fertilizer enterprise participating in the tender and purchase the production cost data.

The successful bidder shall be determined to the extent not exceeding that. The National Agricultural Cooperative Federation shall be determined to the extent not exceeding that.

A project operator awarded in a tender shall have the annual supply volume of the relevant non-identical and the local agricultural cooperatives to be supplied by the project operator.

or, each local agricultural cooperative does not have a duty to deal with a fertilizer enterprise assigned to it and any other expense.

It is possible to place an order for a fertilizer to a subcontractor, which is called "free acquisition".

The Government has implemented a fertilizer support project to reduce the burden of farm household's farming costs.

The Federation of the Cooperatives shall select and select fertilizers for which the operation of the Federation is delegated by the Government and which are eligible for subsidies.

The amount of the subsidy was determined. As a result, the general market fertilizer that does not undergo the NACF.

In the distribution market of general chemical fertilizers due to the weakening of price competitiveness, the Agricultural Cooperatives Federation shall exclusively consumers;

As a result, the shares of the NAF in the general chemical fertilizer distribution market as of 2009 shall be the number.

Standard 99 3% (total 1,13, 00 tons, 1, 105, 00 tons) of 3% (total 8,94.4 billion won) of the amount base 99.4% of the amount (total 8, 94.4 billion won)

8. 8.9 billion won and amounts to 88.9 billion won, and this case's case's chemical fertilizers bid market for the National Agricultural Cooperatives Federation and the National Agricultural Cooperatives Association's order

The market share of business operators has reached 100%.

C. Agreement and practice of the instant enterprisers

The Agricultural Cooperative Federation and the National Cooperative Federation shall ascertain the demand for chemical fertilizers of each local union at the end of each year.

corporation and corporation supplying fertilizers by determining the estimated amount of purchase by non-type and by conducting competitive bidding by non-type;

The quantity, supply price, etc. for each company shall be determined. The instant enterprisers shall be from the portion of supply in 1995 to the portion of supply in 2010

7 kinds of chemical fertilizers group ordered each year by the National Agricultural Cooperatives Federation for the part of the supply of the Do and the year ordered by the National Agricultural Cooperatives;

The participation in a total of eight kinds of fertilizers, such as initial fertilizers, and the participation in a competitive tender for a desired quantity (hereinafter referred to as "tender for a desired quantity").

21-17 - 17 - 17 Fertilizer Group, NK Fertilizer Group 2), bean fertilizer, bean fertilizer, saltis, customized fertilizer, etc. among agricultural cooperatives, such as agricultural cooperatives.

In advance, the bid price and quantity for each bidding participant have been agreed on six non-assignments ordered;

Section BB Fertilizer Group and NK Fertilizer Group of 2010, 2010, hereinafter referred to as the “unit price bid”).

(1) the first annual association that has agreed on the bid price in advance. In addition, the first annual association that has agreed on the lowest price bid 4)

With respect to fertilizers for the beginning of the week, the bid price by bidding participants shall be agreed in advance.

After pre-determination of the successful bidder, the project operator who does not have part of the awarded quantity.

OEM (Original Equi management jusing, production of an original trademark, production of an original trademark) shall be distributed.

agreed and the project owner who does not participate in the tender shall be entitled to the raw materials necessary for the manufacture of allocated quantities.

2.3. A project operator who has participated in an agreement by year or by non-party to the tender.

Yellow shall be as follows (hereinafter collectively referred to as the Agreement by Year and Non-Class 1 of the Project Operators):

The act is referred to as "act of conduct".

Details of annual and non-specific agreements;

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

[Ground for Recognition] In the absence of dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1-1, 2-2, and Gap evidence 2

A person shall be appointed.

4. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. Whether the collaborative act in this case is a separate collaborative act by non-class type

1) The plaintiff's assertion

Each non-type subject to the collaborative act of this case has no possibility of substitution with each other, and it is different from each other.

In order to establish a separate collaborative act in which the relevant market belongs to the opening-related market and the relevant market is different from each other;

Do The instant disposition was conducted on the premise that each of the non-types belongs to a single related market.

illegal.

2) Determination

In full view of the following circumstances, the relevant market was not defined for each non-Class;

Therefore, the instant disposition cannot be deemed unlawful.

(1) The bidding market for chemical fertilizers in which the collaborative act in this case occurred shall be a purchaser, a purchaser, a transaction subject thereto and a transaction protocol

Basic structure of transactions is limited, such as cases specified from the beginning, and subject to bidding;

each product contained in the subsection has been tendered through the same procedure in substance, and the co-ownership of this case

A business entity involved in an act does not have a separate agreement for each non-specific non-party, but has made a separate agreement.

agreement has been reached on all items included in the subject: Provided, That each agreement shall be made according to the content thereof.

Only participating in the tendering of other items. Such a tendering market shall be consistent with the general trading market.

The entire product subject to the agreement, i.e. the chemical fertilizer bid market, because there are characteristics distinguishing them.

It is reasonable to regard the relevant market as a related market. 7)

② Definition of the relevant market is necessary on the premise that competition restriction is determined, and the instant project is conducted.

Competition is conducted even if the total market share of the persons reaches 100%, and the relevant market for each non-class category is defined;

Since it does not affect the judgment of limitedness, it is necessary to define the relevant market differently from the defendant's disposition.

need not be required.

③ The Plaintiff is required to calculate penalty surcharges, etc., regardless of whether competition is restricted.

The head of the Gu must define and the defendant has the burden of proof, but the defendant has the relevant market of this case.

Since there was no precise market definition method such as economic analysis to define it, the burden of proof is not established.

The instant disposition asserts that the disposition was unlawful because it failed to meet all the requirements.

This is, however, the history and history of the concept of the relevant market, which was introduced into the Fair Trade Act as a "specific business area".

not only is it acceptable as against the substance of the universal competition law theory and transaction.

It is difficult to prove justifiable reasons, such as the resale price maintenance, in particular, Article 29 (1) of the Fair Trade Act.

It is necessary to define the relevant market only for the calculation of penalty surcharges in the type of conduct with responsible business operators.

and if the burden of proof exists to the defendant, the relevant market for determining the legitimate reason shall be

A. The relevant market for the calculation of penalty surcharges may lead to an unfair conclusion that the defendant must prove respectively.

Of course, the Enforcement Decree of the Fair Trade Act (wholly amended by Presidential Decree No. 23864, Jun. 19, 2012)

Section 1 of Article 9 (hereinafter the same shall apply) sells the relevant sales in a particular business area.

(b) The sales of services or the amount equivalent thereto shall be defined as "the sales of services or the amount of penalty surcharges, etc."

public notice on the Corporation (amended by Act No. 2012 - 6 of the Defendant’s notice on March 28, 2012), penalty surcharges not exceeding “assumed”

Notice 'Public Notice' 'The impact on the market on the basis of the calculation standards by type of violation 'IN 1' also 'the impact on the market'.

Although this regulation does not affect competition-restricted judgment, the relevant market is not affected by the relevant regulations.

It is difficult to say that the definition is necessary.

In addition, even where the relevant market is disputed in unfair collaborative acts, the precision through economic analysis.

The market definition is not necessarily necessary, but it is difficult to determine whether the competition is restricted.

D. reasonable doubt that the level and method of defining the relevant market conducted by the Defendant is inappropriate

It should be considered to be necessary to limit only when the case is raised to a considerable extent.

In addition, there is no dispute that the market share of the instant enterprisers reaches 100%.

Taking into account all the aspects of suppliers and consumers, there is a lack of substitution for each non-specific type of product.

and further between one buyer and a minority seller as in this case.

If a collaborative act is conducted, it is difficult to find out the benefits of economic analysis through surveys, etc.

Considering all the circumstances, such as the fact that the definition of the relevant market is inappropriate, a reasonable doubt is deemed inappropriate.

not so far as it has been filed.

(b) 21 - 17 - 17 - Whether the period of extinctive prescription for an agreement prior to 2003 of the fertilizer group and the component fertilizer group has expired.

1) The plaintiff's assertion

The relevant market is distinguished for each non-type and a separate agreement is established accordingly, and 2003

21 - 17 - In the 17 Fertilizer Group Tender, an agreement has been severed, and a new agreement has been made since 2004.

Since the agreement before 2003 of the above group of fertilizers was established, the five-year period of extinctive prescription has lapsed.

It should be deemed to be the case.

2) Facts of recognition

(A) 203 Agreement and Implementation

As regards the tender in 2003, 21-17- 17- 17 Fertilizer group, chloatium, BB Fertilizer group, NK Fertilizer group;

The Plaintiff agreed on six kinds of non-identical, including tobacco plant, and the Plaintiff among the NK Fertilizer Group.

21 - 17 - 17 - 17 - The plaintiff, B, and Jin in the case of the fertilizer group other than the Eul.

Dam, 3 others distribute bid volume, but Plaintiff 69%, B, since 1999 when the Jinhae closed.

31 % of the tender volume was allocated to the component fertilizer group, and in the case of the component fertilizer group, the Plaintiff and Sam○ 62 %, 38 %, respectively.

The bid volume was allocated to the Plaintiff and B. The Plaintiff and B, on January 6, 2003, - 17 - 17 fertilizers grouping

high 69%, B’ 31%, maintaining the distribution of the existing bid quantity, and newly entered in the component fertilizer group;

10,00 tons shall be preferentially allocated to the Corporation and the remaining quantity shall be distributed at the ratio of Plaintiffs 65% and 35% to 35%.

8), however, the Plaintiff was at the “A” component fertilizer as above, and agreed upon a reasonable bid price.

21 - 17 - 17 - 17 - 17 - the initial agreement and month in the fertilizer tender due to the dissatisfaction about the entry.

L 21 - 17 - 21 - 17 - 17 - 17 - The entire quantity of fertilizers awarded a successful tender (21 - 17 - 17 - 17 -

In respect of the remaining non-identicals except for the rest of the Department and the NK Fertilizer Group, no agreement shall be reached.

2) .

B) the agreement and enforcement of 2004

In the tender of 2004, the sum of six non-types of bean fertilizers ordered by the NAF to be added to the above six non-speaks

The plaintiff did not participate in the bid of the bean fertilizer. The plaintiff did not participate in the bid of the bean fertilizer.

With respect to August 14, 2003 to B, 2003, 21 - 17 - The entire quantity of fertilizers is awarded in accordance with an agreement in the tender in 2003.

I sought understanding and discussed how to cooperate. As a result, "Plaintiffs and B" are 203.

12. From the tender in 2004 on November 11, 2004, the volume of bid to Plaintiff 69%, B’s 31% equal to the agreement in 2003.

shall be divided, however, by adjusting the additional shares in 2004 as compensation for the violation of the agreement of the Plaintiff.

B 'B' preferentially allocating 13,00 tons to 13,00 tons and finally allocating bid volume to Plaintiff 289, 308 tons (66%) and B

147, 283 tons (34%) were agreed to be distributed to the Plaintiff, B, and 30

I equal to B in 2003, distribute 10,00 tons to B, and then distribute the remaining quantity to Plaintiff 65%, 30

35 The agreement was reached to allocate the proportion of 35%. In the tender in 2004, each of the above agreements shall be implemented as it is.

was made.

[Reasons for Recognition] Evidence No. 1-1, Evidence No. 2, Evidence No. 3, 4, 5, 18, 34, 35, and evidence No. 20

1. Each entry of 1, 2

3) Determination

with a view to restricting competition, the enterprisers shall jointly agree on the basic principles; and

in the course of implementing the above agreement, with a meeting over several times and specific price

agreement for decision-making is continued, and the specific contents and composition of the meeting or agreement shall be

such series of agreements, even if any change has been made to the Board, shall be deemed to be a single unfair common

Since it is reasonable to see that the act is a violation of the provisions of the Act, in determining "the day on which the act is terminated".

each meeting or agreement of the Do shall not be separately determined separately, but such series of meetings or agreements shall be

The agreement should be considered as a single act (Supreme Court Decision 30 June 30, 201).

See Supreme Court Decision 2009Du12631 decided Feb. 1, 2006

notice that the withdrawal has been made under an agreement with the other entity in order to terminate the agreement;

or not there was an implied declaration of intent and there had been no collusion in accordance with its independent judgment.

Any business operator who has participated in the agreement, such as reducing the level of such agreement, shall do so, and

An enterpriser who has participated in the agreement so that all unfair collaborative acts have been terminated;

each business entity shall be subject to collusion in accordance with its own independent judgment, expressly cancelling the agreement;

in violation of the agreement, such as reducing the price that would have existed if, or

In fact, collusion between enterprisers participating in the agreement through repetitive price competition, etc. shall be de facto destroyed.

in fact an agreement, such as continuance of a period of time, has been de facto destroyed by the

(3) In the event that there is no reason to see that there is a reason to see that there is a reason to see that it is (Supreme Court Decision 2007Du12774 Decided October 23, 2008).

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision).

In light of these legal principles, the following private organizations recognized by the evidence mentioned above:

(1) A single chemical fertilizer tender from the year 1995 to the year 2010

Since the market was conducted, it shall be deemed that only the agreement on each of the non-identical species has been severed.

2. The Plaintiff: (a) 21 - 21 - 17 - 17 - 17 - 17 - 17 - 17 - 2

(1) The entry of the remaining fertilizer items and fertilizer groups made at the same time only after the full amount is awarded.

in the report, it shall be deemed that there was an act in contravention of the agreement explicitly since the agreement was implemented.

(3) The participation was made from the tender of the constituent fertilizer group in the year 2003 due to the change in the bidding conditions.

However, a new business operator shall distribute a certain quantity to B, and for the remaining quantity, the existing Si

Since the plaintiff was awarded a successful bid by allocating shares to the plaintiff, the price competition is avoided and the existing time is avoided.

It is difficult to deem that the agreement of the business operators who intend to maintain the share is essentially different; 4.

The volume of 21 - 17 - 17 fertilizers which the Plaintiff, etc., etc., received in full the quantity of the fertilizers in 2003 from a tender for supply in 204.

in consideration of B 21 - 17 - 17- 17 fertilizer group's volume, and as a whole, the market point of the plaintiff et al

In full view of the fact that there is no change in the rate, 21 - 17 - 17 fertilizer group among the collaborative acts of this case.

Since the agreement on the component fertilizer group cannot be deemed to have been severedd in 2003, this part of the Plaintiff’s objection

Sectoral argument is without merit.

C. Whether the Plaintiff was granted the status of voluntary reporters with respect to salting glass

1) The plaintiff's assertion

The relevant market is distinguished for each non-Class and a separate collaborative act is established accordingly, and salt is among them;

The status of those who have filed a voluntary report as the plaintiff provided evidence in the first order with respect to the portion of Gauri.

must be recognized.

2) Facts of recognition

The Agricultural Cooperatives Federation prior to 1996, as imported fertilizers not produced in Korea;

The tender-related work, such as the determination of expected volume of purchase, was performed, but from the supply in 1996

The AFFF shall have determined the expected volume of purchase and the estimated price of purchase for the following year and shall trade in the AFF.

It was conducted by means of consignment purchase that allows us to conclude a contract through bidding. The Plaintiff and the Plaintiff

○○ is salted at the rate of Plaintiff 60% from the tender in 1999 to the tender in 2007, and the Kenya○ 40% from the tender in 2007.

The agreement was reached on the distribution of the quantity of tender, set a reasonable bid price, and implemented the agreement. 9)

Meanwhile, the defendant continuously supervised the sales prices, etc. of products by manufacturers and sellers of chemical fertilizers.

After June 8, 2010, the investigation was commenced on June 8, 2010, and B, on June 8, 2010: 48, "B" from November 1, 1994 to October 201, 2010.

6. By no later than the end, the fact that each agreement on bidding for the purchase of chemical fertilizers by the National Agricultural Cooperatives Federation and the tobacco cooperatives was reached.

D. On June 8, 2010, the Plaintiff also submitted relevant documents. The above facts in the second order around 20:20.

B. The Defendant made a statement and submitted relevant data, and accordingly, the Defendant did not appear as seen earlier.

As to the penalty surcharge reduction, the penalty surcharge was imposed.

[Ground for recognition] In the absence of dispute, evidence No. 1-2, evidence No. 2, evidence No. 2, and evidence No. 22, 41, and 88

Each entry, the purport of the whole pleadings

3) Determination

The purpose and purpose of the voluntary report reduction and exemption system and business entities participating in unfair collaborative acts voluntarily;

(2) On the grounds that evidence has been provided by reporting or cooperating with an investigation of an unfair collaborative act

The suspension of unfair collaborative acts by undermining the trust among participating enterprisers by granting benefits;

the reduction or exemption as a voluntary reporter or an investigative partner in consideration of the fact that it is intended to prevent such a violation;

In making a decision on whether it constitutes a prize and on the order of reduction or exemption, the relevant business operator is unfair;

It should be based on the degree of contribution to the possibility of detection of one collaborative act.

In light of these legal principles, as seen earlier, the instant collaborative act is a whole.

A voluntary reporter should be considered as a single collaborative act conducted in the school expenses bid market.

2 'B' of the collaborative act of this case as a result of the determination.

The participation in all non-competitive tenderings except for Li and bean fertilizers, and the subject of the disposition of this case was before the disposition of this case

The documents relating to the delayed period were first submitted to the defendant, and accordingly the defendant shall be the defendant.

B Even if there was no voluntary report, only the investigation into the materials and related persons in connection with the 'B' shall be incorporated into the 'B' portion

in full view of all the circumstances, such as the fact that it appears to have been able to prove the facts of this case

It seems that only the part of the act of dyeyl chloride is separately recognized to the Plaintiff as the first voluntary reporter.

It is difficult to file a voluntary report, and the penalty has already been mitigated by recognizing the status of the voluntary report for each non-party;

In addition, exemption from the total amount of penalty surcharge is not consistent with the purpose of the above system, so this part of the plaintiff

Sectoral assertion is without merit.

D. Whether the calculation of related sales is lawful

1) The plaintiff's assertion

① The essence of the collaborative act in this case is not the total bid documentation, but the "price collusion" or "market division collusion".

as a result of a difference between the bid price and the contract quantity due to the high-free contracting system, the bid collusion is required.

applicable contract amount, not "the actual sales", but "the actual sales", shall be deemed "the relevant sales", and ii)

21-17 - The plaintiff alone, such as love (21 - 9 - 10) among the fertilizer group, new generation (22 - 12 - 12 - 12), etc.

The non-participating species are excluded from the relevant sales because they are not the related goods affected by the agreement.

(3) substantial causes, such as the cost of promoting the improvement of logistics, direct handling subsidy, reservation subsidy, soil analysis subsidy, etc.

for the discount of sales, the sales should be deducted from the relevant sales.

2) Determination

Article 22 of the Fair Trade Act provides that if there is a violation of Article 19(1) of the Fair Trade Act, the defendant is the party.

It shall not exceed the amount calculated by multiplying the turnover determined by the Presidential Decree by 10/100.

Article 9 of the Enforcement Decree of the Fair Trade Act provides that penalty surcharges may be imposed within the extent of not being imposed.

Paragraph (1) 'Sales prescribed by the Presidential Decree' means a certain area of transaction during the period of violation by the violating enterpriser.

the sales of related goods or services sold or equivalent to the sales of such goods or services, provided that

In the case of "tender collusion and similar acts", the term "contract price" means the contract price.

In addition, Article 19(3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Fair Trade Act provides that the penalty surcharge notice that has been delegated under Article 19(3) of the Enforcement Decree

related sales under the main sentence of Paragraph 1 of Article 9 of the Enforcement Decree of this Decree and related to the said proviso;

The term "goods (including services on goods; hereinafter the same shall apply)" means the purchase amount or equivalent amount of goods.

I. II 5C(1) provides that sales shall be value-added tax, sales discount, sales exchange from total sales.

Part II 5(2)(2) provides that it shall be calculated as net sales except for entry, discount, etc., and that this section is in violation of

shall be based on the purchase value if such purchase is made in connection with the purchase of a good, and "tender"; or

Where it is directly related to a specific contract or limited, "the contract amount shall be the basis for the contract amount."

(2).

In light of the contents, form, purport, etc. of these relevant provisions, first of all, the argument is examined.

(c) the bid collusion shall be subject to the price agreement, the supply restriction agreement, and the market division agreement, in accordance with the specific agreement;

It can be characterized as a nature and accordingly, not only Article 19 (1) 8 of the Fair Trade Act but also Article 19 (1) 8

Paragraph 1, 1, 3, and 4 of Article 19 of the same Act may be applied selectively: Provided, That the calculation of penalty surcharges shall be subject to the calculation of penalty surcharges.

the contents of the collaborative act, regardless of the relevant laws and regulations on the basis of the disposition.

(1) The acts of bid collusion and similar acts are directly related to tendering or specific contracts;

In the case of a contract or limited amount, the contract amount may be calculated as the relevant sales.

D. In the instant case, the Defendant’s act based on the instant disposition is governed by the Fair Trade Act Article 19(1)8 of the Fair Trade Act

Items 1 and 3 other than heading, but the content of the collaborative act in this case was stated in the National Agricultural Cooperative Federation and the National Research Cooperative

The agreement on the bid price and the quantity distribution in the chemical fertilizer bid market that the total ordered was made.

As long as the contract amount can be calculated as related sales, this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

Next, as to the Plaintiff’s assertion: health team No. 1-1, Gap evidence No. 2, Eul No. 3, 10

13. The whole purport of each entry and pleading of evidence of heading 16, 17, 17, 23, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, and 32

- The plaintiff et al. shall substitute for existing water vegetable and new generation fertilizers.

21 - 17 - 17 - 17 - 17 - 17 - 17 fertilizer group and component fertilizer group

The price of soil love and new generation fertilizers by the sole bid for each business entity after the price was first determined;

It can be recognized that the decision has been made, and in light of these circumstances, soil love and new generation fertilizers.

Since it was directly affected by the subject of the instant collaborative act, the relevant sales amount;

(not, the cartel conduct in this case must be included, even if not, with respect to the soil love and the cost of new generation

The judgment of the Supreme Court on June 25, 2009 cannot be denied that indirectly affected the price of the royalty.

The plaintiff's assertion on this part is without merit. The plaintiff's assertion on this part is without merit.

Finally, with respect to the plaintiff's argument, the Enforcement Decree of the Fair Trade Act as in this case.

Where the contract amount is calculated as the sales amount due to the application of the proviso to Article 19 (1), the promotion of logistics improvement.

It is difficult to view that the actual cost, direct handling subsidy, reservation subsidy, soil analysis expense, etc. should be deducted.

The plaintiff's assertion on this part is without merit.

(e) Whether the discretion is deviates or abused;

1) The plaintiff's assertion

The collaborative act of this case is conducted in the fertilizer market under the control of the state, and is subject to competition restriction.

Since it is not a serious violation, the business owner in this case cannot be viewed as the collaborative act in this case.

the plaintiff was not able to obtain a large amount of profit, and the plaintiff is also able to obtain financial difficulties for three consecutive years.

In full view of all the circumstances such as the fact that the penalty surcharge order in this case is too excessive.

There is an error of deviation and abuse of authority.

2) Determination

As a result of the collaborative act of this case, each of the chemical fertilizers bidding markets ordered by the Agricultural Cooperatives Federation and the National Federation;

A non-specific system is maintained in close vicinity to the estimated price, the upper limit of the successful bid price of the non-identical class, and a non-specific system

There have been significant competition-restricting effects, such as continuing to exist. Nevertheless, the company acquired by the company in this case.

The scope of unjust enrichment is not so large and the circumstances in which the government was involved in the supply and demand of fertilizers are considered.

3% of the "major violation" was subject to the minimum standard rate for imposition, and the demand for fertilizer has continuously decreased.

50% of the voluntary adjustment penalty surcharge shall be reduced due to consideration of the change in business conditions, such as filing a lawsuit, etc.

In full view of all the circumstances, including the fact that the penalty surcharge in this case is excessive or its calculation is deviating from discretion;

Since it is difficult to see that there is an abuse of law, this part of the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

5. Conclusion

Therefore, among the lawsuit of this case, the defendant's statement in attached Table 1 Paragraph 2 against the plaintiff

50 Of the order to pay the penalty surcharge of KRW 25, 206, 000, and 000, the revocation of the part exceeding KRW 25,103, 000, and 000.

Part and part of the claim for cancellation of the penalty surcharge payment order listed in the attached Table 2 shall be dismissed, respectively, and the rest of the Office

The Gu's dismissal is without merit.

Judges Gangseo-Appellee

Judge Shin Jae-hun

Among bidders who have participated in a unit price not exceeding the minimum unit price, the successful tenderer shall reach the expected amount to be bought in order from the lowest unit price bidder.

is the method of determining the minimum unit price below the estimated purchase price. The bidder who presented the minimum unit price below the estimated purchase price shall be first determined as the successful bidder as his desired quantity, and c).

The successful bidder shall be determined in order of bidders who have presented a low unit price in order until the estimated purchase volume is reduced successively.

2) A tender of 2010 does not include a tender of 2010.

3) The supply unit price for each company is set without setting the supply unit price for the company, and the participation in the tendering procedure is limited to the bid price and is among the participation in the tendering procedure.

A project operator who has participated in the lowest price is awarded a successful tender. The successful bidder's bid price is determined as the supply unit price of the year, and has not been awarded a successful tender.

Where a person wishes, he/she may obtain a delivery qualification by concluding a supply contract as the successful tender price.

4) If a participant participates in a bid with the total (Quantity unit price) of the expected quantity to be purchased, the lowest bidder among the participants shall award the entire intended quantity to be purchased.

is the method to receive.

5) On or after June 1998, the business was discontinued.

6) Around March 2007, the factory operation discontinued and failed to participate in the supply tender in 2008, and finally closed on March 31, 2009.

7) For example, goods subject to agreement in bidding collusion in the cases, etc. of No. 25, 26, 32, 38 March 19, 2010, Supreme Court Decision 2008 No. 25, 26, 32, 38, etc. on March 19, 2010

The relevant market has been defined.

8) In the existing elements and fertilizer tender for the existing elements and fertilizer group, the qualifications for participation in the tender was granted only to the plaintiff, 300 possessing domestic production facilities, but the tender for the supply in 203.

From 50% of the total quantity of purchase without such restrictions shall be allocated preferentially to existing enterprises and the remaining 50% of the total quantity of purchase shall be offered to the enterprises desired to be supplied.

As a result of the change to be conducted, B's participation in the bidding of elements and fertilizer group was allowed.

19) During the above period, the Plaintiff wishes to participate in the bid for Madro Madro Madro Madro Madro Madro Madro Madro Madro Madro Madro Madro Madro

(8- 8 - 9) The entry of other enterprisers into the market was prevented on the ground that it would be "participation in the market."

A person shall be appointed.