The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

1. Article 22 of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act (hereinafter “Fair Trade Act”) provides for the scope of imposing a penalty surcharge not exceeding the amount obtained by multiplying the amount of sales determined by the Presidential Decree by 10/100 (in the case of absence of sales, etc., two billion won) on a business operator who committed an unfair collaborative act by the Defendant.

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 that “Sales determined by the Presidential Decree” in the main sentence of Article 22 of the Fair Trade Act refers to the sales of related goods or services sold in a particular business area during the period of violation or the equivalent amount (hereinafter “related sales”). However, the proviso provides that “in the event of a bid collusion or any other similar act, it refers to a contract amount” in the proviso, the meaning of “sales determined by the Presidential Decree” in relation to the imposition of penalty surcharges against a business operator who participated in the bidding collusion is clarified.

In addition, the penalty system for such unfair collaborative acts aims to achieve the administrative purpose of depriving of the illegal economic benefits obtained by such unfair collaborative acts and suppressing the unfair collaborative acts, and in particular, the part of the bid collusion and similar acts are introduced as a policy to impose penalty on the basis of the contract price in order to ensure the effectiveness of sanctions, taking into account that the illegality of the bid collusion agreement is serious.

The meaning of the "contract amount", which is the basis of the penalty surcharge for bid collusion and similar acts, is to be understood.