In the event that business operators have reached an agreement on the basic principles of unfair collaborative acts and have reached several agreements in the process of implementing such agreement, and even if they have reached several agreements over a long time without the agreement on such basic principles, if each agreement has been implemented for the same purpose on the basis of a single intent, and without being cut off, it is reasonable to see that such a series of agreements as a whole are one unfair collaborative act, barring special circumstances (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Du3756, Sept. 25, 2008, etc.).

After finding the facts as stated in its holding, the court below determined that each of the instant collaborative acts is reasonable to be deemed an individual act, not a single series of acts, on the premise that there must be an agreement on the basic principles of unfair collaborative acts in order to become a single collaborative act, on the premise that there exists an agreement on the basic principles of unfair collaborative acts, and on the premise that Hyundai Petroleum Chemical Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Cex”) reached an agreement on the basic principles of unfair collaborative acts and continued to reach an agreement on the basic principles of unfair collaborative acts each year in the course of its implementation.

However, in light of the above legal principles, even though there is no agreement on the basic principles of unfair collaborative acts, if each of the instant collaborative acts is to carry out the same purpose based on a single intent, and has been continuously carried out without being cut off, it may be deemed an unfair collaborative act. Thus, the court below should have determined whether each of the instant collaborative acts constitutes a single unfair collaborative act in light of the above circumstances, but should have determined otherwise on the ground that there is no evidence to acknowledge that there was no agreement on the basic principles of each of the instant collaborative acts between the Plaintiff and CTT as to the number of unfair collaborative acts. Thus, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the number of unfair collaborative acts, which affected the conclusion

Therefore, the part of the lower judgment against the Defendant is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the lower court for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Yang Chang-soo (Presiding Justice)