2. A litigation receiver of a merged national credit card company;

Korean Bank, Inc.

3. Schmark card companies.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

Article 23(1)1 of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act and Article 36(1) [Attachment Table 1] 2(a) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act mean "act of trading at a significantly favorable or unfavorable price depending on trade area or trade partner". Thus, it is established in cases where there is a significant difference in price depending on trade area or trade partner, and such difference in price is unfair so as to be likely to impede fair trade in the market. In full view of the legislative purport of regulating price discrimination and each of the above provisions, the issue of whether the price discrimination is unfair shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account various circumstances such as the degree of price discrimination, degree of restricting competition on the business activities of competitors or trade partners, degree of price discrimination on the market, necessity of management policy that led to price discrimination, and background of price discrimination.

The court below found that, even if the plaintiffs, who are credit card business operators, apply the merchant fee rate of 1% to the department stores, 2.5% and 15% of the credit card merchant fee rate of 15% for the department stores, the main product of the department stores and discount stores, consumers' motives for use, etc. notwithstanding the detailed differences, recent business strategies of both types of business, especially because of the expansion of the scope of discount stores, the department stores and discount stores are limited, but they are in mutual competition, and it can be viewed that the plaintiffs' difference between 1% and 1.1% of the merchant fee rate of the department stores in mutual competition between the department stores and discount stores can be viewed as the "where there is a significant difference between 1% and 1.1% of the merchant fee rate of the department stores in mutual competition." However, the court below determined that the plaintiffs' application of the rate of discount to the department stores is more likely to apply the rate of discount to the department stores in light of the fact that the plaintiffs' application of the rate of discount to the department stores is lower than the market price discount point.

In light of the above legal principles and records, we affirm the above fact-finding and judgment of the court below as just, and there is no error of law such as misunderstanding of legal principles as to the illegality of price discrimination, misunderstanding of facts, incomplete hearing, and misunderstanding of reasoning.

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 on the bench.

Justices Shin Hyun-chul

Justices Kim Ji-hyung

Justices Jeon Soo-ahn