The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

1. Article 19 (1) (latter part) of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act (hereinafter “Fair Trade Act”) refers to the act of inducing other enterprisers to engage in, or similar to, unfair collaborative acts, and does not include the act of merely aiding and abetting other enterprisers to engage in, unfair collaborative acts (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Du1556, May 14, 2009). 2. The lower court determined that: (a) since 2009, Divers continued to demand the Plaintiff to increase their official recruitment; and (b) even before 2009, it was difficult to deem that the Plaintiff negotiated with the Plaintiff on the method, time, width, etc. of raising their official recruitment; and (c) it was difficult to deem that it was difficult to deem that the Plaintiff engaged in the act of inducing the Plaintiff to engage in, or similar to, the act of inducing the Plaintiff to engage in, the act of inducing the Plaintiff to engage in, or equivalent to, the act of inducing the Plaintiff to engage in, an unfair collaborative act.

3. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the aforementioned legal doctrine and the record, the lower court did not err in its judgment by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the teachers of unfair collaborative acts, or by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence

4. 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.