[2] The case holding that it is not unfairly unfavorable to an agreement that imposes on the Korean Land Corporation a provision that the size, usage rate, etc. is modified according to the fore agreement entered into with the construction company in relation to the supply of multi-family housing land according to the future development plan approval, the contents of environmental impact assessment, etc., and it cannot be deemed that the cancellation of the fore agreement on the ground of the above

Article 23(1)4 of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act (hereinafter “the Act”) provides that “an act of trading with another party by unfairly taking advantage of one’s trading position as one of the unfair trade practices.” Article 36(1) [Attachment 1] of the Enforcement Decree of the Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 17564, Mar. 30, 202) provides that the types of general unfair trade practices and standard subparagraph 6(d) of Article 36(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 17564, Mar. 30, 200) shall be “providing disadvantages” as one of the types of acts falling under Article 23(1)4 of the Act. The mere fact that the contents of the act are somewhat unfavorable to the other party in order to constitute a disadvantage in the act of offering disadvantages is insufficient. In light of (a) through (c) to the extent that one party can be deemed to have unfairly taken advantage of one’s position in a trade, or to have disadvantage in the other party.

The court below acknowledged the facts as stated in its reasoning after comprehensively taking account of the evidence adopted by the plaintiff, and determined that the agreement between the non-party company and the non-party company (hereinafter referred to as the "non-party company") entered into on September 23, 200 with the Geum River Housing Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the "non-party company") on September 23, 200 with the view to receiving 36,612,170,000 won of the price for the supply of the apartment house C7-2 block (hereinafter referred to as the "the land in this case"), which was the non-party company to which the plaintiff could change the size, usage rate, and number of households on the land use plan due to the circumstances not attributable to the plaintiff such as the modification of the development plan after the conclusion of the agreement, and that the non-party company also entered into the agreement in this case with the non-party company's view that it is difficult to readily conclude that the contract area of the plaintiff's land cannot be seen as an inevitable cause attributable to the non-party company's company.

In light of the above legal principles and records, the above fact-finding and judgment of the court below are just and acceptable, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to mistake of facts or disadvantageous provision due to violation of the rules of evidence, as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.

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.

Justices Kim Young-ran (Presiding Justice)