시정명령 등 취소청구의 소
The judgment below
The part against the Defendant is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.
The grounds of appeal are examined.
1. If a corrective order issued pursuant to the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act (hereinafter “Fair Trade Act”) is excessively specific, it is consistent with several transactions that are conducted through a somewhat different transformation each day, and is eventually unreasonable and, thus, it is difficult to bring about a somewhat comprehensive abstract abstractness in light of its nature. In addition, in light of the purport of the system of the corrective order, the corrective order may not only suspend past violations but also prohibit the same type of acts that may be repeated in the near future.
The scope of the act prohibited by a corrective order ought to be determined by comprehensively taking account of the language and text of the corrective order, relevant statutes, and grounds for the corrective order stated in the written resolution.
(See Supreme Court Decision 2012Du19298 Decided November 14, 2013 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Du19298). Meanwhile, Article 19(1)8 of the Fair Trade Act provides that an enterpriser may not agree with another enterpriser to jointly determine a successful bidder, bid price, successful bid price, and other matters prescribed by Presidential Decree in a bid. Article 33 of the Enforcement Decree of the Fair Trade Act provides that “matters prescribed by Presidential Decree” referred to in Article 19(1)8 of the Fair Trade Act refer to the ratio of successful bid (title 1), design or construction method (title 2), and other matters that constitute competition factors in a tender (title 3). In addition to the provision of subparagraph 3, the Fair Trade Act prohibits an enterpriser from agreement on the percentage of successful bid and design or construction method of construction as a representative competitive factor in a tender, and prohibits an agreement on various competitive factors in a tender.
2. The reasoning of the lower judgment and the record are examined.