beta
(영문) 서울고등법원 2019.08.28 2019누34687

과징금납부명령취소

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. The defendant's disposition process

A. From April 2009 to August 2012, 201, 222 companies including the Plaintiff and C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “stock company”) were participating in 26 construction works of natural gas main pipes and management office (hereinafter “main pipe construction”) relating to the total 29 construction sections of the Korea Gas Corporation’s order from April 2009 to August 2012.

On July 18, 2011, the Plaintiff was selected as a “contestor” of a joint supply and demand supplier (representative N) in a bid for “AZ pipeline construction works” (hereinafter “AZ pipeline construction works”) by the Korea Gas Corporation’s order. The Plaintiff also participated in the bid for “AY main pipeline construction works” and “BA integrated energy supply pipeline construction works” respectively.

On July 20, 2015, the Defendant issued an order to pay penalty surcharges (hereinafter “instant disposition”) to the Plaintiff on the following grounds pursuant to Article 19(1)8 and 3 of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act (hereinafter “Fair Trade Act”).

From February 2011 to August 2012, the Korea Gas Corporation made a public announcement of the bidding of major pipelines construction works in the total of 10 construction sections (hereinafter “instant major pipelines construction works”).

A total of 22 companies, including the Plaintiff, jointly set a successful bidder and bid rate in advance for the instant main pipeline construction, and based on this, the business entity, who already received one-time successful bid, had an agreement with the intent not to obtain a successful bid in the subsequent bidding (hereinafter “instant collaborative act”), thereby unfairly restricting competition in the instant main pipeline construction market of the Korea Gas Corporation.

B. The penalty surcharge imposed by the Defendant on the Plaintiff pursuant to Articles 22 and 55-3 of the Fair Trade Act, Article 61 [Attachment 2] of the former Enforcement Decree of the Fair Trade Act, and the public notice on the detailed criteria for imposing the penalty surcharge (hereinafter “public notice of penalty surcharge”).