시정명령및과징금납부명령취소
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.
The grounds of appeal are examined.
1. Whether the statute of limitations has lapsed (Ground of appeal No. 1)
A. In the event that the multiple agreements have been reached for a long period of time, if the agreement was reached for the same purpose based on a single intent and continued to be implemented without any interruption, the specific contents of the agreement were partly modified.
Even if such a series of agreements ought to be considered as a single unfair collaborative act, barring special circumstances.
(See Supreme Court Decision 2007Du3756 Decided September 25, 2008, and Supreme Court Decision 2013Du6169 Decided February 12, 2015, etc.) (b).
Based on the following circumstances, the lower court determined that the instant collaborative act was aimed at achieving the same purpose on the basis of a single intent, and as a whole, constitutes a single unfair collaborative act, and that the statute of limitations for disposal was not imposed on such premise.
① In 2005, six employees, including the Plaintiff, anticipated that a large number of O construction works will be ordered, and agreed on the basic principles, such as the formation of a consensus on the principle of stable acceptance of contracts by allocating the successful bid volume among the companies.
② Accordingly, each agreement in the year 2006, 2007, and 2009 may be deemed to have continued to meet several times in the process of implementing the said agreement and to reach an agreement for the decision of specific matters.
C. Such determination by the lower court is based on the legal doctrine as seen earlier, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the establishment of a single collaborative act and the prescription period, or by exceeding the bounds of the principle
2. Whether the calculation method of penalty surcharges is unlawful (Ground of appeal No. 2)
A. 1) Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act (hereinafter “Fair Trade Act”)
In full view of the provisions of Articles 6 and 22, the Fair Trade Commission shall take into account.