[2] In a case where an insurance company, as the main body of support, has induced group insurance from the main body of support at a business level and has received insurance premiums, and as a result, purchased commercial papers issued by the main body of support through a specified money trust method, the method of determining whether such transaction was made “any remarkably favorable condition”

Determination as to whether a transaction constitutes “any remarkably favorable condition” under Article 23(1)7 of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act refers to not only the difference between benefits and consideration, but also the economic benefits arising from subsidization, duration of subsidization, frequency of subsidization, timing of subsidization, economic situation at the time of subsidization, etc. In such cases, the normal interest rate, which serves as the basis for determining the difference between benefits and consideration, means the difference between the subsidizing entity and the subsidizing entity in terms of the financing transaction between the subsidizing entity and the subsidizing entity in the same or similar circumstances, such as the timing, type, scale, period, period, and credit status, should be determined comprehensively based on the consideration of the difference between the subsidizing entity and the subsidizing entity at the time of subsidization (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Du15726, Feb. 10, 2006; 203Du15064, Feb. 26, 2006).

According to the facts established by the court below and the records, the plaintiff had been holding that the total amount of KRW 10 billion was 3,000,000,000,000 was 5,000,000 won at the time of the above 8th of January 31, 197, which was 197, at the time of the above 100,000,000 won of the total discount rate of 10,000,000 won was 5,000,000 won of the total discount rate of 7,000,000,000 won of the total discount rate of 15,000,000 won of the total discount rate of 7,000,000 won of the total discount rate of 1,000,000 won of the total discount rate of 1,000,000 won of the total discount rate of 5,00,000 won of the total discount rate of the 1,0.

Examining the above facts in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, although each of the instant commercial papers and the comparable commercial papers were issued at the same or similar time as the Central Daily, there was a significant difference in the number of maturity, and at that time, there was a lot of short-term interest rate higher than the long-term interest rate, it cannot be readily concluded that the rate of the discount of the comparable commercial papers was the normal rate that should have been applied to each of the instant commercial papers. Moreover, the Plaintiff’s total profit rate arising from the instant transaction with the Central Daily was lower than the rate of the discount of the comparable commercial papers or the profit rate of the general corporate bonds. As such, the Plaintiff purchased each of the instant commercial papers at a somewhat lower rate than the comparative commercial papers, and the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have unfairly supported the Central Daily by purchasing each of the instant commercial papers at the Central Daily Broadcasting under the “ significantly favorable condition.”

Therefore, the transaction of this case between the plaintiff and the Central Publication does not belong to the "transaction of conditions significantly favorable to the support entity" regardless of whether it satisfies the order of fair competition, and thus does not constitute an unfair support under Article 23 (1) 7 of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act. Therefore, the court below is just in holding that the transaction of this case between the plaintiff and the Central Publication does not constitute an unfair support act, and the defendant's disposition of this case should be revoked in its entirety. There is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the concept of normal interest rate or the substantialness and unfairness of the support act, as alleged in

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)