The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

1. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 1 through 6, “unfair collaborative act” prohibited under Article 19(1) of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act includes not only explicit agreement but also implied agreement (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Du1239, Feb. 28, 2003). However, this is the essence of the communication among two or more enterprisers. Thus, it cannot be deemed that there exists a appearance consistent with the “unfair collaborative act” listed in each subparagraph of the above provision, and there is no proof as to the circumstances to recognize the reciprocity of communication among the enterprisers, and the burden of proof is against the Defendant ordering corrective measures, etc. on the ground of such agreement.

(2) In light of the aforementioned circumstances, the lower court determined that: (a) the instant construction project is a large-scale alternative construction project; (b) the bid background and character of the instant construction project, such as one construction section bidding is recommended according to the policy judgment of the ordering entity; (c) the Plaintiff’s decision to participate in the tender of the 4 construction section among the total eight construction sections; and (d) the other six construction sections except the Plaintiff and G Co., Ltd., other than the Plaintiff and G Co., Ltd., decided to participate in the tender of the 4 construction section among the entire eight construction sections; (c) the Plaintiff did not adjust the construction section and the bid section with G Co., Ltd., which selected the same construction section as the construction section desired, by maintaining the 4 construction section bidding policy even though the Plaintiff was the mother of the instant case; and (d) it was difficult to find the need to agree on the division of construction sections with other construction companies even when accepting the risk of failure caused by competition with G Co., Ltd.