1. Article 19(1) of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act prohibits “agreement on acts that unfairly restrict competition”. The agreement includes not only explicit agreement but also implied agreement.

In this context, the essence of the agreement lies in the communication between two or more enterprisers, so it cannot be deemed that there was an agreement as a matter of course on the ground that there was an appearance consistent with the act listed in any of the subparagraphs of the above provision, but it can be deemed that there was an agreement in a case where a circumstance to prove the reciprocity of communication among the enterprisers

(see, 2012Du17421, Nov. 28, 2013). Therefore, in a case where an enterprise with a high market share in an over-point market has determined its price in accordance with its independent judgment, other competitors are confiscing the price, and business entities are fully aware of such circumstances due to accumulation of such price-fixing practices for a considerable period of time, if the communication related to the price-fixing is proven, or if such communication can be confirmed in light of various additional circumstances, there is an agreement on an act unfairly restricting competition.

2. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the lower court: ① the strong external shape of the LPG sales price within the collusion period, in particular, the difference in the same sales price continues for a certain period; ② the Defendant and X Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “X”; and the Defendant and X together with “import2 company”) exchange information on the base price, which is the basis of the sales price within the collusion period; ③ the domestic LPG market is the over-point market in which the share of six companies, such as the Defendant, etc. (4 companies excluding import two companies, referred to as “all companies”) is 100%, and the share of six companies, such as the Defendant, etc. (4 companies excluding import two companies, referred to as “four companies”), the existence of barriers to demand, and the homogeneity of the LPG products.