1. As to the ground of appeal No. 1, the lower court determined as follows: (a) the act of the Plaintiff, Daelim Industrial Co., Ltd., gold industry Co., Ltd., gold industry Co., Ltd., and Copi Global Global Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Co., Ltd.” in the name of all the companies”) by forming a joint supply and demand organization respectively; and (b) each of the aforementioned four companies was participating in the instant bidding as its representative, and the Plaintiff agreed to “the bid bid ratio compared to the estimated price of construction work” (hereinafter “instant agreement”) and the act of the Plaintiff’s participation in the bid as the “tender price” calculated by the agreed bid ratio, constitutes “an act of unfairly restricting competition” under Article 19(1) of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act (hereinafter “Fair Trade Act”).

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the above determination by the court below is just, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by misapprehending the legal principles on competition limitation of unfair collaborative acts.

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 “Enforcement Decree of the Fair Trade Act”) provides for the main sentence of Article 22 of the Fair Trade Act.