[2] The case holding that the act of reducing supply volume to the agencies of oil refining companies does not constitute unfair trade practices

[2] The case holding that the act of reducing supply volume to the agencies of oil refining companies does not constitute unfair trade practices

Article 23 (1) 1, 4, and 5 of the former Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act (amended by Act No. 4790 of Dec. 22, 1994; hereinafter the same) (Article 23 (1) 1, 4, and 5, Article 23 (2) of the former Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act (amended by Act No. 4790 of Dec. 22, 1994; hereinafter the same) provides for the types of and guidelines for unfair trade practices under delegation from the Fair Trade Commission (Notice No. 1993-20 of the Fair Trade Commission) (Article 193-20), Article 6, and Article 8 (Interference with Business Activities), in order to be subject to regulation of the Act, the relevant act must be more unfair in light of the purpose of the Act, in addition to satisfying the requirements prescribed by the above each of the above provisions, in determining the illegality thereof, taking into account the market situation such as the possibility and effect of the act, purpose and effect of the act, characteristics and contents of the relevant laws, etc.

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in comparison with the records and relevant statutes, the plaintiff recognized that the defendant joining friendly petroleum company committed an act of changing terms and conditions of transaction, such as reduction of supply volume of petroleum products, change of transaction conditions, such as reduction of credit period reduction, and the other party's default notification and request for non-acceptance and provision of security, etc. against the transaction partner, and the plaintiff provided preferential treatment to the above company as part of measures to secure claims due to the increase of credit payment, and it appears that the plaintiff took measures to exclude the previous preferential treatment, and took measures to reduce credit payment through the request for security, reduction of supply quantity, and reduction of credit payment date, etc. on the premise that the agency contract between the above transaction parties exists. The plaintiff's act was committed unfairly on the sole basis of the above facts, and it is difficult to conclude that it constitutes an unfair transaction refusal, abuse of superior status, or interference with business activities as stipulated in each of the above provisions, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it otherwise, and the court below's decision that the corrective order and imposition of penalty surcharge in this case, based on the above unfair trade practices cannot be accepted.

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

Justices Park Jong-chul (Presiding Justice)