Costs of appeal shall be borne by each party.

1. As to the Plaintiff’s appeal

A. As to the existence of the instant agreement, the lower court determined that the Plaintiff agreed to purchase drugs from another wholesaler that had engaged in transactions with the existing pharmaceutical company and to transfer the amount to the wholesaler according to the successful bid price if the Plaintiff received the price from the hospital (hereinafter referred to as the “Plaintiff, etc.”) on June 13, 2006, on the following day after the bid price for the drugs at the Ulsan National University Hospital in 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the “instant agreement”), and that the delivery method was conducted for about one year thereafter, and that the bid price for the drugs in 2007 and 2008 (hereinafter referred to as “the bid price”) was also acknowledged in the instant agreement without any significant change in the bid price, and that each of the instant agreements was reasonable in view of the following facts.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and the evidence duly admitted, the lower court’s aforementioned determination is justifiable and did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of logic and experience and free evaluation of evidence.

B. In order to determine whether the relevant market definition constitutes an unfair collaborative act as provided in each subparagraph of Article 19(1) of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act (hereinafter “Fair Trade Act”), the first issue is with respect to a particular business area in which competition relations may arise.