The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

1. Article 22-2 of the former Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act (amended by Act No. 7315 of Dec. 31, 2004) and Article 35(2) of the Enforcement Decree thereof (amended by Presidential Decree No. 18356 of Apr. 1, 2004; hereinafter “former Enforcement Decree”) provide that a penalty surcharge shall be mitigated or exempted for a person who reported an unfair collaborative act or a person who cooperates in the investigation of an offense by means of providing evidence, etc.

In such a case, where two or more enterprisers cooperate in the report, etc., and the enterprisers are in a de facto control relationship, it shall be deemed that the enterprisers are entitled to reduction or exemption exceptionally. Here, the term "real control relationship" refers to cases where two or more enterprisers actually control the remaining enterprisers, and there are no autonomy and identity of decision-making, and each enterpriser cannot be deemed to be operated independently, taking into account the following circumstances: (a) the degree of share ownership among enterprisers; (b) the degree and method of exercising influence over decision-making; (c) whether the enterprisers are holding an ordinary order in management; (d) whether the enterprisers are holding concurrent office or not; (e) the perception of mutual relations between the enterprisers; (e) whether the enterprisers are integrated into accounts; (e) the possibility of independent decision-making on the business territory

(2) On September 24, 2015, the lower court held that four synthetic resin products, such as Honam Petroleum Chemical Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “ Honam Petroleum Chemical”) and Elchemical owned 50% equity shares of the Plaintiff on April 20, 2005, while Honam Petroleum Chemical owned 50% equity shares of the Plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as “Co., Ltd.”) (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Du13962, Sept. 24, 2015).