시정명령및과징금납부명령취소
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.
The grounds of appeal are examined.
1. Where an agreement, such as price fixing, etc., under Article 19(1)1 of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act (hereinafter “Fair Trade Act”) on the date of termination of the collaborative act as referred to in Articles 19(1)1 and 19(1)2 of the same Act and an act of implementation based thereon was conducted, the date of termination of the collaborative act refers not to the date of termination of the agreement, but to the date of termination of the act of implementation based on the agreement (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Du11275, Mar. 24, 2006). Such legal principle applies to the bid collusion related to the determination of successful bidders, successful bidders, and bid price, and the date of implementation based thereon.
In addition, whether the action based on bid collusion has been terminated should be determined individually and specifically for each case based on the contents of the agreement in question, comprehensively considering various factors, such as the specific scope, mode, agreement, etc. of the intended action and the existence of the effect of restricting competition in accordance with the agreement.
(See Supreme Court Decision 2015Du37396 Decided May 28, 2015). The lower court, based on its reasoning, determined that the instant collaborative act was terminated on February 11, 2010, while the instant collaborative act was terminated on March 17, 2011.
The judgment below
Examining the reasoning in light of the aforementioned legal principles and records, the lower court did not err in its judgment by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence inconsistent with logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the termination of unfair collaborative acts.
2. As to the expiration of the prescription period against the First and Second Collaborative Acts
A. The main sentence of Article 49(4) of the former Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act (amended by Act No. 11406, Mar. 21, 2012; hereinafter “former Act”) is Article 49(4) of the former Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act (hereinafter “former Act”). Five years from the date on which a violation of this Act is terminated.