[2] The case holding that the determination of price by an enterprisers' organization under Article 26 (1) 1 of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act is an act of determining prices of dental appliances by determining guidelines for the price of dental appliances between dental technicians in the same Metropolitan City and dental technicians' association by the members of each working-level consultative council, and by obtaining approval from the representative, giving notice of the above guidelines to the members under the representative's name

[3] The standard for determining the illegality of an act determining price by an enterprisers' organization under the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act

[4] The meaning of a justifiable act under the laws and regulations stipulated in Article 58 of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act

[2] The case holding that the determination of price by an enterprisers' organization under Article 26 (1) 1 of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act is an act of determining prices of dental appliances in light of the practice of the previous dental appliances price determination, the process of preparing the above guidelines and the process of notifying the above guidelines, etc., although the Metropolitan City's dentists' association established guidelines for the price of dental appliances through the members of the same working-level consultative body and obtained approval from the representative and stated that the above guidelines should be voluntarily referred to the above guidelines in the representative's name

[3] Article 19(1) of the former Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act (amended by Act No. 7315 of Dec. 31, 2004) prohibits unfair collaborative acts such as "the act of determining, maintaining, or changing prices that unfairly restrict competition" is prohibited, and Article 19(2) of the same Act excludes the application of paragraph (1) in cases where unfair collaborative acts are conducted for a certain purpose even if they fall under unfair collaborative acts under paragraph (1). The legislative purport of prohibiting unfair collaborative acts under Article 19(1) of the same Act is to promote fair and free competition, ultimately protect consumers and promote balanced development of the national economy, as long as the act of determining prices by an enterprisers' organization falls under a condition that affects, or is likely to affect, the determination of prices by the enterprisers' organization due to the reduced competition in a particular business area, and such act does not necessarily constitute an exceptional act where the ultimate purpose of determining prices is so large as to contribute significantly to the purpose of each subparagraph of Article 19(2) of the same Act and to protect consumers and to the national economy.

[4] Article 58 of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act provides that "this Act shall not apply to lawful acts conducted by an enterprisers' organization in accordance with other Acts or orders issued under such Acts," and the above provision provides that "the Act guarantees the exclusive status of an enterpriser through a project or authorization system in which competition restriction is deemed reasonable due to the unique nature of the pertinent business, while it refers to a minimum necessary act conducted within the scope of an order in accordance with the Acts or regulations that specifically recognize the exception of free competition from a public point of view of public nature, in the case of a project which requires a high level of public regulation.

A. Whether the determination of dental technicians constitutes an act of determining prices

Article 19(1)1 of the former Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act (amended by Act No. 7315, Dec. 31, 2004; hereinafter referred to as the "Act") provides that "the act of determining, maintaining or changing the price of the goods or services provided by a consumer or another business entity (hereinafter referred to as "price determination act") can be established with respect to the price of the goods or services provided by a business entity to a consumer or another business entity, and it can be established with respect to the price of the goods or services provided by a business entity. In light of these legal principles, a dentist's request a dental technician for the manufacture, repair or processing of dental appliances, shocks, or correction devices (hereinafter referred to as "medical appliances") necessary for his/her medical treatment (hereinafter referred to as "medical appliances") and the determination, maintenance, or alteration of the price of dental appliances paid in return for his/her dental services (hereinafter referred to as "medical appliances") does not constitute the act of determining the price of the goods or services provided by a business entity under Article 19(1)1 of the Act.

B. Whether the act of this case constitutes a price determination act

According to evidence and records duly adopted by the court below, it is also necessary to determine the lowest price of dental services rendered by the non-party 1 and the non-party 1 and the non-party 1 and to notify the non-party 1 to the non-party 9 members of the 9-level dental services guidelines that the non-party 1 and the non-party 9-level dental services were not subject to the 9-level dental services guidelines that the non-party 1 and the non-party 9-level dental services were not subject to the 9-level dental services guidelines that the non-party 1 and the non-party 1 and the non-party 9-level dental services were subject to the 9-level dental services guidelines that the non-party 1 and the non-party 9-level dental services were subject to the 9-level dental services guidelines that the non-party 1 and the 9-year dental services were not subject to the 9-level dental services guidelines that the non-party 1 and the 9-level dental services were not subject to such guidelines.

Although it is inappropriate for the court below to consider the guidelines of this case as the lowest price which is not the standard price for the official fees, it is reasonable that the act of this case constitutes the price determination by the enterprisers' organization, and there is no error of law such as misunderstanding of facts against the rules of evidence or misunderstanding of legal principles as to whether the act of this case constitutes price determination by the enterprisers' organization

C. Whether the instant act constitutes an act of restricting competition

Article 19(1) of the Act prohibits the act of determining, maintaining, or changing the price that unfairly limits competition as an unfair collaborative act. Article 19(2) of the Act prohibits the application of paragraph (1) where an unfair collaborative act is conducted for a certain purpose even if it falls under an unfair collaborative act under paragraph (1) and where authorization is obtained from the Fair Trade Commission. Article 19(1) of the Act prohibits unfair collaborative act, the legislative intent of prohibiting unfair collaborative act is to promote fair and free competition directly, protect consumers, and ultimately promote balanced development of the national economy. In light of the above, insofar as an act of determining prices by an enterprisers' organization falls under an act that causes, or is likely to cause, impacts on the determination of free price depending on the intent of an enterprisers' organization by reducing competition in a particular business area, such act shall be deemed unfair unless it falls under exceptional cases where it is recognized that the act of determining prices by an enterprisers' organization is considerably so much as to contribute to the purpose prescribed in each subparagraph of Article 19(2) of the Act, as well as to protecting consumers and promoting balanced development of the national economy

According to the evidence and records duly adopted by the court below, the act of this case is an act of determining the base price for the determination of the official fees in the area of public works in Busan District, and is an act of restricting the determination of the official fees on the basis of the price established as above to the dentists who are members, thereby affecting or threatening to affect the determination of the price at a certain level by the plaintiff's intent. The act of this case cannot be deemed to fall under an exceptional case which does not go against the ultimate purpose of the law to protect consumers as well as to promote balanced development of the national economy by restricting price competition through the method of establishing guidelines for the official fees by mutual agreement between the plaintiff and the press association, and thus, it cannot be deemed to fall under an exceptional case which does not go against the ultimate purpose of the law to protect consumers as well as to promote balanced development of the national economy. The ground for appeal on this point is without merit.

2. As to whether an act constitutes an exemption from application

(a) Whether it falls under justifiable acts prescribed by Acts and subordinate statutes under Article 58 of the Act;

Article 58 of the Act provides that "the provisions of this Act shall not apply to lawful acts conducted by an enterprisers' organization in accordance with other Acts or any order issued under such Acts." While the Act provided in the above provision guarantees an enterpriser's exclusive status through a business or authorization system which is deemed reasonable to restrict competition due to the special nature of the business in question, it refers to an act that is necessary to do within the scope of an order issued under other Acts and subordinate statutes, which specifically recognizes the exceptions of free competition in respect of the business which requires high level of public regulation from the perspective of public nature (see Supreme Court Decision 96Nu150 delivered on May 16, 197), Articles 3 and 22 of the Medical Technicians, etc. Act, and Articles 2 and 13 of the Enforcement Decree thereof, etc. are regulations concerning suspension of qualification for medical technicians, etc., and cannot be viewed as a law that specifically recognizes the exceptions of free competition. Thus, the act in this case does not constitute justifiable acts as provided in Article 58 of the Act.

(b) Whether it falls under the acts of the enterprisers' organization under Article 60 of the Act;

According to the records, in light of various circumstances, such as the size of dental disease and clinic operated by dentists who are members of the plaintiff, the plaintiff cannot be deemed as a cooperative for the purpose of mutual aid among small scale enterprisers as stipulated in Article 60 of the Act, and the act of this case constitutes an act of unfairly restricting competition and raising the price, and it does not constitute an act of raising the price under the proviso of Article 60 of the Act. Thus, the ground of appeal on this point is without merit.

3. As to whether a business act is justified

In light of the records, the act in this case cannot be deemed as an act according to the plaintiff's business and cannot be deemed as an act with social reasonableness. Thus, the ground of appeal on this point is without merit.

4. As to the deviation and abuse of discretionary power

The court below determined that the Defendant’s act of this case committed the act of this case in addition to the publication order of this case, and there was no illegality of deviation from or abuse of discretionary power, on the ground that the Plaintiff and the Korea War Veterans Association jointly decided the official fees on August 30, 1995. The Plaintiff and the Korea War Veterans Association committed the act of this case in addition to the publication order of this case. In full view of the contents, degree, period, frequency, etc. of the violation of this case, the court below held that there was no error of law that the Defendant exceeded and abused the discretionary power

In light of the relevant laws and regulations, the above judgment of the court below is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to deviation or abuse of discretionary power, as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.

5. Conclusion

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Yang Sung-tae (Presiding Justice)