The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment as to the grounds of appeal on the meaning of “other enterprisers” under the main sentence of Article 19(1) of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act (hereinafter “Fair Trade Act”), in light of the relevant statutes and the records, it is justifiable to determine that the lower court does not necessarily have an horizontal competition relationship among the participants of the collaborative act in order to establish an unfair collaborative act under the Fair Trade Act, on the grounds as stated in its reasoning, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the meaning of “other enterprisers”

2. As to the ground of appeal on the “Interference with business activities” under Article 19(1)9 of the Fair Trade Act

A. Article 19(1) of the Fair Trade Act provides that "no enterpriser shall agree with other enterprisers to jointly engage in any of the following acts that unfairly restrict competition (hereinafter referred to as "unfair collaborative act") or allow other enterprisers to engage in such act." Article 19(1)9 of the Fair Trade Act provides that "other than those referred to in subparagraphs 1 through 8, acts practically restricting competition in a particular business area by hindering or restricting business activities or business activities of other enterprisers (including those who engaged in such acts)."

B. The lower court concluded a broadcast program supply agreement with the PP TV business entity among the PP business entities on November 14, 2008, with the intent to prevent the Plaintiff, etc. from providing a broadcast program to the PP business entity in response to the anticipated new entry into the PP service market.