독점규제및공정거래에관한법률위반
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (based on fact-finding) is as follows: (a) no construction company other than the Defendant did not intend to participate in the bidding, and thus, (b) no substantial competitive bidding could be conducted at the beginning; (c) even if the Defendant independently participated in the bidding, there was no possibility for another construction company to participate in re-tender because it is difficult for another construction company to change the bidding conditions, such as an increase in the expected amount, etc.; and (d) ultimately, the bid collusion between the Defendant and E (hereinafter “E”) does not constitute an unfair collaborative act, since there is no restriction on competition.
Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty by recognizing restrictions on competition, is erroneous as affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
2. Determination
A. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court and the first instance court, the following facts are recognized:
1) The Daegu Urban Construction Corporation (hereinafter “instant construction”) around April 23, 2008 shall be the Daegu G collective housing construction corporation (hereinafter “instant construction”).
(2) As to the Defendant’s business operation, the Defendant made a public announcement of the tender, such as “design construction work en bloc, estimated amount: KRW 129.7 billion, and the method of determining successful bidders: weight (70% design score and price score: 30%)” (2) around the above time, the Standing Director of the Defendant made a proposal to the effect that the Defendant would participate in the tender as a joint subcontractor by organizing a consortium so that the Defendant can win the instant construction project to F, the team leader of the public business team, at the next time.
3) In accordance with the above proposal, E constitutes a consortium with the Defendant, a company I introduced by the Defendant, and the price agreed in advance with the Defendant (presumed amount to 97.4% of the estimated amount).