beta
(영문) 서울고등법원 2020.12.23 2020누46549

시정명령 등 처분 취소청구의 소

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. Of the total litigation costs, 40% is borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder is borne by the Defendant, respectively.

Reasons

1. Basic facts and circumstances of dispositions;

A. The Plaintiff is a company that sells goods used by consumers after being supplied by multiple business operators and whose retail sales in the immediately preceding year are at least 1,000 million won, and is a large franchise and retail business operator under Article 2 subparagraph 1 of the Act on Fair Transactions in Large Franchise and Retail Business (hereinafter “Large Franchise and Retail Business Act”), and is a business operator under Article 2 subparagraph 1 of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act (hereinafter “Fair Trade Act”).

(2) The term “ home shopping” means the retail business of providing information on goods to consumers using such media as cable TV, Kabrogs, and Internet, and of delivering goods to consumers at a place desired by consumers: Provided, That in general, “ home shopping” refers to a broadcasting medium; hereinafter referred to as “ home shopping,” : (unit: KRW 60, 3613) handled and treated in 2013 (Order 25,73242 (1) 30, 3696, 29636, 297 (Order 16636, 205, 294) 205, 3696, 205, 206, 3619, 206, 365, 206, 364, 205 (1) 46, 205, 2965, 296, 2536, 258 (36, 254) 2014)

) In August 2006, H acquires the largest shareholder’s share and is also called “I”. G (not less than 3 companies approved in 2001), Plaintiff (including 2 companies approved in 201) and only 6 businesses such as the approval in 201).