1. As to the ground of appeal No. 1, based on its stated reasoning, the lower court determined that the act of the Plaintiff, Hyundai Construction Co., Ltd., gold industry, gold global Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “four companies including the Plaintiff, etc.”) formed a joint supply and demand organization respectively, and each of them, as its representative, agreed in advance to “the estimated price bid bid ratio” (hereinafter “instant agreement”) while participating in the instant bidding as a joint supply and demand organization, and the act of the Plaintiff’s participation in the bid to reflect “tender price” calculated by the agreed bid rate as such constituted “an act of unfairly restricting competition” under Article 19(1) of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act (hereinafter “Fair Trade Act”).

The judgment below

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the above determination by the court below is just, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal principles

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

A. Articles 22 and 55-3(1) and (5) of the Fair Trade Act provide that a penalty surcharge may be imposed on an enterpriser who has conducted an unfair collaborative act by the Defendant within the extent not exceeding ten percent of the sales amount determined by the Presidential Decree (2 billion won in the absence of sales amount). In addition, Article 22 and Article 55-3(1) and (5) of the Fair Trade Act provides that the criteria for imposing a penalty surcharge may be determined by the Enforcement Decree, taking into account the content and degree of the offense, duration and frequency

According to delegation, Article 9(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Enforcement Decree of the Fair Trade Act") is applicable.