The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

1. Relevant market definition and competition limitation (ground of appeal No. 3)

A. In order to determine whether a collaborative act constitutes an unfair collaborative act under each subparagraph of Article 19(1) of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act (hereinafter “Fair Trade Act”), first, the relevant market, which is the object of transaction, should be specifically determined regarding a certain business area in which competition relations may arise. Considering the diversity of unfair collaborative act, efficiency and rationality of regulation, etc., it is not necessarily necessary to undergo empirical economic analysis when defining a market related to such collaborative act.

(1) Determination of whether a collaborative act restricts competition ought to be made by examining whether the collaborative act affects or is likely to affect the determination of price, quantity, quality, other terms and conditions of trading, etc. by reducing competition in a particular business area, taking into account various circumstances, such as the characteristics of the relevant goods or services, consumers’ standard for choosing products, impact on the market and enterprisers’ competition.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Du19298, Nov. 14, 2013). (B)

In full view of the evidence in the judgment below, the court below reached a basic agreement on July 23, 2003 that four business entities, including the plaintiff, etc., engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling financial automation machinery (hereinafter referred to as "the plaintiff, etc.") under which the plaintiff, etc. reached a continuous agreement on the target selling price or the minimum selling price, etc. of financial automation machinery through mutual communication among the meetings of the ATM council, etc. or the officers and employees in charge of the business until April 2009, and the plaintiff, etc. issued new certificates from September 2005 to April 2009.