2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The following facts shall not be disputed between the parties, or may be acknowledged in Gap evidence 1 by integrating the whole purport of the pleadings:

A. Nonparty 3, Nonparty 4 corporation, Plaintiff 1 corporation, Nonparty 5 corporation, Nonparty 6 corporation, Nonparty 2 corporation, Nonparty 7 corporation, Nonparty 8 corporation, Plaintiff 2 corporation, and Nonparty 1 corporation are corporations engaged in respective construction businesses, which are business operators pursuant to Article 2 subparag. 1 of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act (amended by Act No. 7315 of Dec. 31, 2004; hereinafter “Act”). The general status of each company is as follows:

Table 1> The general status of each company

As of December 31, 2002, units: Won

본문내 포함된 표 ？ 회 사 주요사업 자본금 매출액 당기순이익 설립일자 1 소외 3 주식회사 건설업 48,185 448,742 7,144 1980. 5. 2 2 소외 4 주식회사 〃 8,000 179,546 21,658 1984. 3. 12 3 원고 1 주식회사 〃 44,655 490,303 31,672 1978. 10. 11 4 소외 5 주식회사 〃 180,000 123,389 8,002 1996. 4. 4 5 소외 6 주식회사 〃 5,000 213,330 5,032 1989. 3. 23 6 소외 2 주식회사 〃 5,032 49,240 494 1982. 2. 16 7 소외 7 주식회사 〃 3,300 168,497 7,797 1989. 5. 20 8 소외 8 주식회사 〃 5,000 139,780 9,552 1972. 2. 21 9 원고 2 주식회사 〃 7,300 47,460 4,706 1987. 3. 16 10 소외 1 주식회사 〃 4,536 560 ▲2,180 1989. 3. 15

(2) Each of the above companies (hereinafter referred to as "non-party 3 corporation, "non-party 4 corporation," "non-party 1 corporation," "non-party 5 corporation," "non-party 6 corporation," "non-party 2 corporation," "non-party 7 corporation," "non-party 8 corporation," "Plaintiff 2 or plaintiff 2 corporation," and "non-party 1 corporation," and "the company of this case" collectively referred to as "the company of this case").

B. The apartment sale system has shown frequent changes within the framework of the “construction after the pre-sale” as a result of the domestic market situation and the necessity of public control. On November 1, 1989, the cost-free housing unit sale price (sale price = housing site cost + construction cost) was introduced. From November 1, 1995 to November 1995, the regulation of the sale price is gradually mitigated depending on the region and scale, and the sale price is basically implemented as an autonomous phase in which the sale price is determined by the market function in 1998, and the various forms and quality apartment products are developed among construction enterprises and competitive conditions are being created.

In relation to apartment sale procedures, a business operator who intends to construct and sell at least 20 units solely or multi-family housing must first obtain approval of a housing construction project plan pursuant to the Housing Act and the Rules on Housing Supply. In this case, a construction business entity shall submit an application for approval of a project plan stating the project cost to a local government, and at this time, the project cost so stated shall act as the upper limit when calculating the final sale price, and shall obtain approval for modification of the project plan if it is intended to establish a sale price in excess of the project cost. A construction business entity shall obtain approval of a project plan from a local government, and shall file an application for a sale guarantee with the Korea Housing Guarantee Co., Ltd., with the approval of the project plan, and at this time, the sale price shall be determined at this stage. A construction business entity that has received a sale guarantee shall submit an application for a sale guarantee stating the sale price by household and the sale price shall be determined at this stage. The sale price is determined.

C. The Dong-si Housing Site Development Zone (hereinafter referred to as the “Dong-si Housing Site Development Zone”) is located in the Dong-si Eup Eup located in the Dong-si, Chungcheongnam-si, the size of which is 3,308,000 square meters (1,000 square meters) and the population accommodation plan is 16,660 households, 51,646 households, and the population accommodation plan is 16,660 households, and the project period was 31 December 31, 1999 to December 31, 2004, and the Korea Land Corporation carried out the project in the Dong-si Housing Development Zone. A total of 19 companies obtained project approval from 28 blocks from 28 households to 8,902 households from 11, 203 to 2003 from 11, 2003 from 18, 2005 apartment units with the approval of the apartment units in this case from 185 units (hereinafter referred to as “the apartment units in this case”).

On February 27, 199, the Winter District was designated as a housing site development zone from the Ministry of Construction and Transportation. On December 31, 1999, the Gyeonggi-do development plan was approved on December 31, 199, and on October 23, 2002, the company applied for the first approval of the project plan from October 2002 to November 2002. The company rejected the application for the first approval of the project plan from November 4, 2002 to November 4, 2002 on the ground that the traffic shortage may increase due to the lack of road facilities connected to the Winter District. The company applied for the second approval of the project plan on January 27, 2003, the company applied for the second approval of the project plan from March 4, 2003 to June 3, 2003 to 203, and the company applied for the approval of the sale plan from June 23, 2003 to 38, 2003.

Around that time, the total market share of the company of this case in the new apartment market in the East-gu apartment zone reaches 96% (based on the number of households).

Table 2> The current status of apartment sale by company in the Eastern District.

(unit: Size, %) and number of households

. Co., Ltd. 3. 8. 2. 3. 8. 2. 3. 8. 3. 8. 3. 8. 1. 3. 8. 3. 8. 1. 3. 8. 3. 8. 3. 8. 1. 1. 8. 3. 8. 3. 1. 8. 3. 1. 1. 1. 1. 8. 3. 1. 1. 2. 8. 3. 3. 8. 3. 1. 8. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 3-342. 46. 16. 8. 3. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 20. 3. 3. 38. 1. 3

* The non-party 1 corporation shall sell private rental housing (the sale price is set and sold at the time of sale, but the ownership of the apartment is a construction enterprise upon entering into a lease contract at the time of occupancy, and the tenant may acquire ownership and register ownership within two and a half years from the date of occupancy).

C. On July 31, 2004, the Defendant: (a) sold the apartment of this case to the company of this case, including the Plaintiff, from July 25, 2003 to August 5, 2003, the company of this case, as the plenary session Resolution No. 2004-236, and (b) sold the apartment of this case in the Yongsan-gu, the sale price of this case was set at KRW 7 million per square, and (c) applied the intermediate payment interest payment method; (b) these acts correspond to “in the appearance,” and there are circumstantial evidence to be presumed that the company of this case actually restricted competition in the new apartment market of the East-gu, and thus, it is presumed that the company of this case agreed to pay the above sale price and purchase price terms, and thus, it is assumed that the company of this case, including the Plaintiff, issued an unfair collaborative act falling under Article 19(1)1 and 2 of the Act pursuant to Article 19(5) of the Act; and (d) of this case’s corrective order (attached 21) and 4) of this case.

D. In the instant disposition, the details of the Defendant’s penalty surcharge are as follows.

(1) From July 25, 2003 to August 5, 2003, in the case of the remaining companies except for the non-party 5 corporation, the sales amount, which forms the basis of the calculation of the penalty surcharge, was the sales amount for each company that each company entered into with each purchaser of the apartment in the Dongbag-gu apartment sale within the Dongbag-gu area. In the case of the non-party 5 corporation, the sales amount was identified as the trust fee in consideration of the revenue of the non-party 5 corporation related to the sale of this case under the trust agreement between the Korea Land Corporation and the non-party

(2) The imposition rate of penalty is 50% of the amount calculated by multiplying the relevant sales by the company by 3/100 in the case of the company other than the non-party 5 and the non-party 6, but the presumption provision under Article 19(5) of the Act is applied, taking into account the fact that the unfair collaborative act of the company in this case is first committed, and the amount calculated within the scope not exceeding 5% of the average sales in the immediately preceding three years under Article 9 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act.

On the other hand, in the case of a non-party 6 corporation, the sales schedule is delayed due to the factors such as the excavation and investigation of cultural heritage and the sales price was determined regardless of the agreement with other companies, etc., based on the amount obtained by multiplying the relevant sales by 2/100. However, in the case of a non-party 5 corporation, the amount calculated within the range not exceeding 5/10 of the average sales of the immediately preceding three years was 50%, and the amount calculated by multiplying the relevant sales by 5/100 in consideration of the fact that the sales price calculated as the relevant sales amount was relatively less than those of other companies calculated as the relevant sales amount. Unlike the case of the other companies, 50% of the amount calculated within the range not exceeding 5/10 of the average sales of the immediately preceding three years was not reduced.

(3) Specific penalty amount is set forth in the attached Table 3>

Table 3: Details of Imposition of Penalty Surcharge

(unit: million won)

In the case of Nonparty 4 Co., Ltd., Nonparty 5, Nonparty 6 Co., Ltd., Ltd., Nonparty 2, Nonparty 2, Nonparty 7, 130,653 25,398, 194, 256 130, 399 202,549 140,320 103,328, 3643,855 1,959 1,2691, 94263,03,03,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,0000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

* Nonparty 1 Co., Ltd was sold in units by means of private construction lease, and exempted from the imposition of penalty surcharges in consideration of the dynamic participation and scale.

2. Summary of the plaintiffs' assertion

Each of the dispositions of this case is unlawful for the following reasons.

A. As to the presumption of agreement on unfair collaborative act

The company of this case constituted the Dong Ba District Consultative Body for the smooth promotion of the apartment construction project in the Dong Bab District, and conducted consultation on the affairs of authorization and permission, collection of information or exchange of opinions related to the sale, but the above consultative body was established by the active request of the Korea Land Corporation, and did not have agreed on the terms and conditions of the sale price of apartment units and the sale price, and on the following grounds, did not meet the requirements for presumption of the agreement on collaborative acts under

(1) The absence of economic motive for collusion

Unlike other feassive materials, apartment buildings have the success price of apartment sales not only due to the sale price but also to the overall competitiveness such as location, brand, quality, etc., so there is no incentive for business operators to agree with the sale price. Moreover, since the supply price of each company has already been determined and the price of apartment sales is increased above the competitive price, it is inevitable to have the unsold quantity. Therefore, it is difficult to jointly determine the sale price in apartment market or to compete with the price in a limited manner.

(2) Absence of consent to the external form of action

In light of the fact that the sales price before and after the end of 7 million won claimed by the Defendant as agreed by the instant company does not coincide with the actual sales price of the instant company, and the final sales price of the Plaintiff 1 company fell below the above price, and the Plaintiff 2 company decided the final sales price of the KRW 770,000 per square year, it shall be deemed that the instant company decided the apartment sales price regardless of the meetings of March 6, 2003 and July 16, 2003, which the Defendant asserted that the apartment sales price was in collusion. The usual sales price of the instant apartment was determined in various ways for each company, and 4.8,00 won, 32, and 34,000 won, which are merely 30,000,000 won, and the apartment sales price of the instant apartment was determined in 30,000,000 won, which is similar to that of the instant apartment sales price at the end of 30,000,000 won.

In light of the fact that the sales of the intermediate payment interest payment system in the East Bag District was conducted on July 2003 and the above method was generalized in the sale of new apartment buildings in other regions, and that the Plaintiff 2 corporation analyzed its market itself and adopted the interest payment system, it is not the result of collusion, but the adoption of the payment system for the intermediate payment interest payment system is not the result of collusion.

(3) The absence of substantial restriction on competition

An apartment building has the nature of an essential asset as an investment asset, as well as its nature as an investment asset, and the apartment market is highly capable of demand depending on the investment profitability. From the perspective of consumers, a new apartment unit is highly likely to be widely substituted between the existing apartment buildings, the right to sell the existing apartment unit, the general housing, and the apartment units, which are expected to be sold in the future. The purchase demand can be converted to at least to the male and female area according to the factors such as the sale price and surrounding cities, location, size, complex size, surrounding environment, quality conditions, brand, brand, and future competition outlook. Furthermore, apartment as a residential unit is subject to restrictions depending on the workplace or the location of the living zone. However, since it is possible to make a broad regional choice according to the development of traffic, the possibility of substitution of demand or the cross-winning between the areas where the departure and retirement is considerably high. In full view of this, at least, the related apartment unit in this case should be narrow to the “existing apartment unit, apartment unit and new apartment unit” of the Seoul Metropolitan area.

An apartment supplied by each company is differentiated by quality or brand value, and thus, its competition is not substantially restricted, not only based on the price but also on the price as similar. In addition, apartment buildings tend to be determined based on the surrounding market price as a highly shotficable product. In the case of apartment sales market, it is difficult to increase the exclusive profit by raising the price, and considering that the apartment sales rate was 100% in fact, there is no competition limitation that may affect the determination of price or other terms and conditions of trading in this case.

On the other hand, if the instant company’s intermediate payment scheme becomes the same as the interest payment scheme, it cannot be said that there exists a restriction on competition solely on the ground that the said company’s intermediate payment scheme is identical because it would rather result in promoting the core price competition.

(b) Destruction of the presumption of agreement;

The company of this case only exchanged opinions (information) on the selling price, etc. through the Dong White District Consultative Body, but did not agree on the selling price, etc., and such collusion cannot be actually realized due to the characteristics of the apartment construction and sale business. Thus, the company was bound to determine the price and other terms of transaction according to its own judgment.

In particular, on July 12, 2003, prior to the meeting of the consultative body on July 16, 2003, the Plaintiff 1 corporation already confirmed the sale price by itself, and submitted to the Korea Housing Guarantee Co., Ltd. a notarized letter of transfer stating the transfer of business rights in a case where the business is not continued on the 16th of the same month from the 14th of the same month through all the preparation procedures for the guarantee of housing sale, so there was no need to discuss the sale price with another company at the meeting on July 16, 2003, and there was no collusion in fact.

Therefore, the presumption of agreement under Article 19(5) of the Act should be deemed to have been reversed.

3. Related statutes;

[Attachment 3] The entry of relevant Acts and subordinate statutes shall be as follows.

4. Determination on the legitimacy of the disposition

(a) Whether an unfair collaborative act is presumed;

(1) Purport of the presumption of collaborative act

Article 19(5) of the Act provides that "where two or more enterprisers are engaged in any of the acts referred to in the subparagraphs of paragraph (1) which practically restrict competition in a particular business area, it shall be presumed that they are engaged in an unfair collaborative act even in the absence of an express agreement to do such act." The purport of Article 19(5) of the Act is that in order to establish an unfair collaborative act as provided in Article 19(1) of the Act, the defendant must prove that the act in question was done under the express and implied agreement of the enterprisers. It is not easy to prove that the act in question is done under the agreement of the enterprisers. Thus, it is not easy to prove that it is done under the nature of the unfair collaborative act that is closely done, it is "the two or more enterprisers are engaged in any of the acts referred to in the subparagraphs of Article 19(1) of the Act (hereinafter referred to as "in this convenience"), instead of proving "the agreement of the enterprisers," and that it is necessary to prove only the fact that it is practically restricting competition in a particular business area (hereinafter referred to as "competitive act").

(2) Whether the act is consistent with the appearance of the act

(A) The following facts are acknowledged in light of Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 3-1 to 13, Eul evidence 4, Eul evidence 5-1 to 4, Eul evidence 6-1 to 23, Eul evidence 7-1 to 5, Eul evidence 8-1 to 6, Eul evidence 9-1 to 6, Eul evidence 10-2, Eul evidence 11, Eul evidence 12, Eul evidence 12, Eul evidence 14, Eul evidence 15, Eul evidence 16, Eul evidence 17, Eul evidence 18, Eul evidence 19, Eul evidence 21-1 to 22, Eul evidence 23, and Eul evidence 34, Eul evidence 10, Eul evidence 12, Eul evidence 14, Eul evidence 15, Eul evidence 16, Eul evidence 17, Eul evidence 18, Eul evidence 21-9, Eul evidence 22, Eul evidence 23, and Eul evidence 34.

① On July 3, 2002, the instant company constituted an “Yandong District Consultative Body” (hereinafter only referred to as the “Consultative Body”) by gathering to the Korea Land Corporation on July 3, 2002. On September 9, 2001, the instant company organized and operated a consultative body and decided the non-party 3 corporation with the lead of the consultation on sale in lots as the weekly company, and agreed on the method and progress of the sale in lots of apartment units from July 29, 2002 to July 16, 2003.

2003. 1. 10. 소외 5 주식회사가 소외 3 주식회사 및 소외 4 주식회사에게 보낸 팩스에 ‘당사에서도 협의체 참여사들과 사업일정 보조를 함께할 수 있게 됨에 따라 공동광고를 제외한 사업 인허가, 분양가 및 시기 조율 등에 대하여는 협의체의 재참여를 희망’한다는 내용이 기재되어 있다. 소외 4 주식회사의 실무 담당자가 2003. 2. 7.자 협의체 회의에 참석한 후 작성한 업무수첩에는 ‘6. 분양가로 동시분양의 당위성을(대의명분) Appeal하라’고 기재되어 있으며, 소외 3 주식회사가 2003. 2. 24. 작성한 문건 ‘03. 2. 24일 용인시 협의사항’에는 ‘향후 협의체 추진업무 및 일정: 분양가 Guide Line 협의 ⇒ 사업승인 재접수시 사업비 산정을 위한 분양가 Guide Line 결정’이라고 기재되어 있고, 위 문건은 소외 5 주식회사에게 팩스로 전송되었다. 소외 4 주식회사의 실무담당자가 2003. 2. 28. 개최된 협의체 회의에 참석한 결과를 자신의 업무수첩에 기록하면서 ‘2. 토지신탁 재가입건 → 최초 분양사 추첨일 이후 → 이자후불제(중도금 무이자) → 분양가 타 업체보다 평당 10-20만원 낮게 예정, 5. 다음주 수요일(3/5)회의 → 분양방법 (i) 정상가 분양인지 (ii) 무이자(이율 7%)인지 (iii) 이자후불제(이율 7%)인지 준비해 오라’고 기재하였고, 같은 날 소외 5 주식회사의 실무담당자도 자신의 업무수첩에 ‘분양시기, 입주시기- 소외 3 주식회사 ○상무, 분양가격 → 추후협의’라고 기재한 바 있다.

소외 3 주식회사가 2003. 3. 3. 작성한 내부 보고문서에는 ‘용인동백지구 협의체 - ‘03. 3. 5일 회의 실시 예정 ⇒ 분양가 Guide Line 및 분양방법 협의’라고 기재되어 있고, 소외 4 주식회사의 실무담당자가 2003. 3. 3. 작성한 업무수첩에는 ‘용인동백지구 분양 예정가 670-680만원, 하한선만 제한하자 〈 @650→33평 @680→48평, 공정거래위원회 문제’라고 기재되어 있다.

② On March 6, 2003, the instant companies attended meetings of the consultative body held at the conference room of Nonparty 3 Co., Ltd., and discussed the scheduled sale price and sale method of each company. At the time, the planned sale price of each company was distributed as “6.1.5 million won or KRW 8 million per square year,” and confirmed that the sale method was divided into “interest-free loan” and “interest-free payment system,” and discussed as to “sale price is between KRW 6.355 million and KRW 6.555 million per square year with exclusive area of KRW 85 million and KRW 855 million, and the intermediate sale method is between KRW 6.65 million and KRW 6.855 million with interest payment system.”

On this day, Nonparty 3’s meeting minutes of the Dong White District Consultative Body, which arranged the result of the meeting, states that “The sale of gold in the press, etc. may be misunderstood as a collusion meeting between the business entities in the Dong White District.” As such, the part of the sale agreement is indicated as the need for attention not to be exposed, and the work pocket book prepared by Nonparty 4’s working-level officers in charge of Nonparty 4’s working-level companies, also

③ During the period from March 24, 2003 to April 28, 2003, the instant companies applied for approval of a project plan for multi-family housing in the East-gu area, reflecting the above agreement and stated the following project cost as shown in the attached Table 4 < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 17175, Mar. 24, 2003>

Table 4> Details of application for approval of a business plan by company

(unit: 1,000 won, square meters, and the number of households)

Non-party 33-37,843, non-party 2, non-party 2, non-party 2, non-party 2, non-party 2, non-party 37,843, 677, 78-12, 701, 606, 64-138, 467, 9747, 7647, 97467, 9757, 97467, 9757, 2647, 9767, 1647, 9757, 1647, 9757, 9764, 2657, 167, 9764, 1675, 267, 9764, 367, 975, 130, 406, 532-168, 1057, 2684

소외 4 주식회사의 실무담당자가 2003. 4. 28. 작성한 업무수첩에는 ‘용인동백건(사업승인 및 분양일정) ⇒ 김 OO팀장 → 분양가 상향논의 제의 → 33평:680만원 47평:700만 만들라’고 기재되어 있고, 2003. 5. 9. 작성한 업무수첩에는 ‘Ⅱ. 분양가 인상 → 토지비 상승이라고 언론 언급(×) ((No comment))((2년 전부터 계획된 가격일 뿐))’이라고 기재되어 있으며, 2003. 5. 24. 작성한 업무수첩에는 “5.동백분양가 ⇒ 초기 비용만 줄여주면 분양가 700-720만원 → 계약금 비율 10%(?), 20(?)인지 (협의체 각사) 조사, 리스트작성 보고‘라고 기재되어 있다.

④ At the meeting of the consultative body held on July 16, 2003, the instant companies discussed the sales price and sales method scheduled for each company (the method of timely payment was found to be "interest late payment", "interest without interest", and "unfixedness", etc.) and discussed that each company should adjust the sales price of KRW 7 million in the future.

The case of “Non-Party 7 Co., Ltd.” written by the working-level staff in charge of Nonparty 4 Co., Ltd. after attending a meeting stating the scheduled sale price by each company. The same is that it is desirable for each company to review the land size and construction cost standard: when the sale price is calculated, it would be similar to each other. In the same way, it is stated that the sale price is likely to be controversial when there are many differences by each company, and that it would be adjusted before and after the determination at each company’s work book prepared by the working-level staff in charge of the non-Party 4 Co., Ltd., and that the expected sale price by each company and the “pre-sale price by each company and the high-sale price by each company shall be calculated and reported by the press on July 16, 2003.”

⑤ Since July 25, 2003 to August 5, 2003, the instant companies have sold in lots by setting the sale price and the sale method as the < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 18135, Jul. 25, 2003>

The sale price and sale method of the Company in the attached Table 5>

(unit: Standards forcheon Won and Base Floor)

본문내 포함된 표 피심인 블록 분양면적(평) 세대수 세대당분양가 평당 분양가 분양조건 분양일 소외 3 주식회사 c3-3 33.01 322 227,500 6,892 중도금 이자후불제 2003.7.25. 33.37 20 230,500 6,907 c5-2 33.11 184 229,500 6,931 46.63 120 333,500 7,152 c10-1 46.59 248 330,600 7,096 계(평균) ？ 894 ？ 7,008 원고 1 c4-1 30.06 100 205,900 6,851 중도금 이자후불제 2003.7.25. 33.74 19 232,800 6,900 34.16 448 235,700 6,900 계(평균) ？ 567 ？ 7,043 소외 8 주식회사 c10-2 42.72 178 288,800 6,761 중도금 이자후불제 2003.7.25. 50.55 254 345,300 6,831 계(평균) ？ 432 ？ 6,893 소외 2 주식회사 c4-3 33.25 279 232,085 6,980 중도금 이자후불제(1, 2회 무이자) 2003.7.25. 44.07 202 325,898 7,395 계(평균) ？ 481 ？ 7,010 소외 7 주식회사 c7-1 34.16 276 244,500 7,157 중도금 이자후불제 2003.7.25. 34.32 158 238,800 6,958 43.64 309 318,500 7,298 계(평균) ？ 743 ？ 7,186 소외 5 주식회사 c5-1 34.18 239 223,000 6,525 중도금 이자후불제 2003.7.25. 46.41 175 323,740 6,976 c11 32.40 95 223,000 6,882 33.60 29 223,000 6,638 33.71 182 223,000 6,615 46.35 227 323,740 6,984 c12-1 29.81 76 196,000 6,576 32.53 72 223,000 6,856 33.75 312 223,000 6,607 33.83 132 223,000 6,592 c12-2 29.78 39 196,000 6,582 32.46 42 223,000 6,870 33.76 79 223,000 6,604 33.92 129 223,000 6,575 c13-1 29.75 68 196,000 6,588 32.40 38 223,000 6,882 33.71 73 223,000 6,616 34.01 100 223,000 6,557 계(평균) ？ 2,107 ？ 6,704 소외 4 주식회사 c2-1 33.38 382 229,350 6,870 중도금 이자후불제 2003.7.31. 33.63 50 234,350 6,969 33.63 50 234,350 6,969 c4-4 33.32 436 229,350 6,883 33.63 50 234,350 6,969 33.63 50 234,350 6,969 c9-1,2 46.65 265 345,000 7,395 46.65 155 345,000 7,395 46.94 48 352,000 7,499 46.94 96 352,000 7,499 계(평균) ？ 1,582 ？ 7,125 원고 2 c13-2 39.05 143 295,900 7,576 중도금 이자후불제 2003.7.31. 46.23 141 350,800 7,588 56.95 36 443,000 7,778 계(평균) ？ 320 ？ 7,611 소외 6 주식회사 c8-1,2 38.52 114 280,400 7,280 중도금 이자후불제 2003.8.5. 39.10 40 287,600 7,355 39.01 120 287,600 7,372 46.58 72 349,600 7,505 46.22 69 356,600 7,716 49.88 160 374,300 7,504 59.50 15 451,100 7,581 계(평균) ？ 590 ？ 7,462 소외 1 주식회사 c3-1 24.56 838 156,800 6,374 중도금 이자후불제 2003.7.31.

④ The instant company’s average selling price (representative value) of the entire company reaches KRW 6,937,946, as shown in the separate sheet No. 4. Do and the average selling price (representative value) based on the sales price and the number of households of the instant company.

7) On the other hand, the company of this case and its practitioners except for the non-party 1 corporation violated Article 19(1) of the Act in criminal cases instituted on the grounds that they violated Article 19(1) of the Act, were acquitted in the Suwon District Court Decision 2005Da1212, 2005DaMa1383 (Joint). The prosecutor appealed against this, but the prosecutor dismissed the prosecutor's appeal against the Suwon District Court Decision 2005No4635, which is currently pending in the final appeal.

(B) The appearance of the act of setting the selling price is consistent;

In this case, in a case where the price-fixing of the goods (Article 19(1)1 of the Act) is at issue, the phrase “where two or more enterprisers perform an act falling under any of the subparagraphs of Article 19(1)” under Article 19(5) of the Act shall include not only the cases where enterprisers have determined the same final transaction price for the same or similar goods, but also the cases where enterprisers are engaged in an act of setting the price-fixing standards such as the average price, standard price, base price, highest and lowest price, etc. for the same or similar goods, but also the cases where they are engaged in an act of determining the price-fixing substantially the same level through the act of determining the price level or limit with respect to the same or similar goods, such as the act of determining the price rate, profit rate, discount rate, etc.

In addition, even if the prices of each apartment product are different in appearance, if the difference is naturally attributable to the reasons other than the price agreement, namely, the characteristics of the company and the product, and the exclusion of such difference, the act of determining the prices of each apartment product, as a whole, shall be deemed to coincide with the essential part of the price. In this case, in addition to the cost required for apartment construction, it is reasonable that the elements to determine the value of apartment products are divided into the brand image, location, apartment complex, location in apartment complex, neighborhood living facilities, end-of-life, etc. in addition to the cost required for apartment construction, and the sale price vary partially depending on such factors. Thus, if it is recognized that the sale price is "if the difference according to the individual characteristics is excluded, the sale price is substantially consistent," the external form of the act of determining the apartment can be recognized.

As seen earlier, the sales price of the apartment in this case was finally determined at the lowest of 6.52 million won to 7.77 million won per square (including “non-party 1 corporation, 6.37 million won to the highest of 7.77 billion won per square,” and the final usual sales price is subdivided by similar usual types. From 30 square meters to 6.75 billion won per square, the number of vehicles from 6.77 billion won per square, including “non-party 1 corporation, 6.37 billion won to 6.85 billion won,” 32.34 square meters from 6.3 billion won per square, to 6.75 billion won per square, and the average of 6.77 billion won per square, to 6.75 billion won per square, and the number of vehicles from 6.3 billion to 7.7565 million won per square, respectively, to 6.965 million won per square, respectively.

[Attachment 6]

본문내 포함된 표 ？ 소외 3 주식회사 원고 1 소외 8 주식회사 소외 2 주식회사 소외 7 주식회사 소외 5 주식회사 소외 4 주식회사 원고 2 소외 6 주식회사 소외 1 주식회사 평균 평당 분양가(천원) 7,008 7,043 6,893 7,010 7,186 6,704 7,125 7,611 7,462 6,374 700만 원과의 차이(%) 0.11 0.61 (-)1.35 0.14 2.66 (-)4.23 1.79 8.73 6.60 (-8.94)

However, in full view of the purport of the argument in Eul evidence 24, Eul evidence 25, Eul evidence 26-1, Eul evidence 27, Eul evidence 28, Eul evidence 29, Eul evidence 30, Eul evidence 31, Eul evidence 32, Eul evidence 33, and Eul evidence 34, among the apartment of this case, the apartment of this case, "○○○" was relatively low, and the Korean Land Corporation, which has more than 51% of the company's 50% shares, made a relatively low apartment sales rate to the apartment of this case, taking into account the initial acquisition of the apartment of this case and the average level of private enterprises within the district, and the fact that the apartment of this case was sold in lots was sold in lots before and after the 202. The apartment of this case's apartment of this case's second apartment of this case's second apartment of this case's second apartment of this case's second apartment of this case's second apartment of this case's second apartment of this case's second apartment of this case's second apartment of this case's second apartment of sale.

On the other hand, the presumption requirement under Article 19(5) of the Act, "where two or more business entities engage in any conduct falling under any of the subparagraphs of Article 19(1) of the Act" shall be determined based on the appearance that can be evaluated as having objective elements to recognize the establishment of unfair collaborative acts in light of the legislative intent of the above provision, intending to enhance the effectiveness of the regulation of unfair collaborative acts taking into account the characteristics of the collaborative act that is closely committed.

As in the case of the apartment of this case, the term "joint price determination act" in relation to goods, the final price of which is bound to vary in nature due to the characteristics of the goods, such as the case of the apartment of this case, can only be recognized if the final sale price is simply the same or neighboring price range, and even if there is a somewhat small gap in the price, it can be recognized that the external form can be recognized even if the external form of the act is seen as the result of the unfair collaborative act in light of the process and circumstances leading to the final sale decision, and the situation leading to the final sale decision. In this case, it is deemed that the collaborative act showing a qualitative consistency in the external form of the act is established. In particular, if it is difficult to expect a strict quantitative agreement by itself as to the concept of the act, such as bid collusion, lowest price or average price, it is necessary to determine whether the collaborative act of enterprisers falling under quality is established in consideration of the circumstances leading to presumption of adjustment rate or implicit understanding between the enterprisers, but it is necessary to determine whether the act is in conformity with Article 15 (1) of law.

Based on these legal principles, the following circumstances acknowledged by the above facts and evidence are ① the usual apartment sales price per unit applied by the company in the sale of apartment units from July 25, 2003 to August 5, 2003. The issue of the company's average sale price per unit is over 7 million won prior to and after the sale of apartment units. In particular, the company's average sale price per unit is 6,937,946 won adjacent to the company's total sale price per 70,000 won, taking into account the following circumstances: (i) the company's apartment sales price per unit was no more than 70,000 square meters before and after the sale of the apartment units, and (ii) the company's average sale price per unit is no more than 60,000 won before and after the sale of the apartment units, and (iii) the company's average sale price per unit is no more than 7,000,000 won before and after the sale of the units.

(C) The external form of the act of setting interest ex post facto payments is consistent.

Of the instant companies, in addition to the fact that all the companies except for some apartment buildings of “Non-Party 2 Co., Ltd.,” prescribe an intermediate payment system by means of payment, there was a difference in the method of payment among the companies, but all the previous discussions were discussed in the consultative body. In full view of all, this part of the instant company’s act also corresponds to external shape (Article 19(1)2 of the Act).

As to this, the plaintiffs asserted that "the above intermediate payment and the follow-up payment system have been generalized in the sale of new apartment in other areas at the time of the sale of the apartment in this case, so it cannot be said that the company of this case adopted such system in common." However, there is no evidence to deem that the follow-up payment system of the intermediate payment is generalized in the new apartment sale market, and there is no such circumstance alone that it is impossible to deny the consistency of the appearance of the act. Thus, the above argument is

(3) Whether competition restriction exists or not

(A) Definition of certain areas of trading

In general, the term "relevant market" means a market in which competitive relations exist or may exist by the subject, stage or region of trade (Article 2 subparagraph 8 of the Act), and where the price of a particular product traded in a specific area has increased to a certain extent for a considerable period of time, a collective product (market) or region (geographical market) of which representative buyers of the product or region concerned can convert the purchase of the product to another area in response thereto, or other transaction stages or transactional transactions, or a market classified by opposite contractual parties, and it shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account the characteristics, functions, effects and price similarity of the product, recognition of the substitutability of the buyer or seller, and the behavior and time of decision of purchase or management related thereto, economic and legislative aspects, etc.

In addition, in defining the relevant market, the fact that the act of setting the interest rate on the intermediate payment of the apartment in this case occurred in the course of the simultaneous sale of apartment buildings on a large scale. That is, unlike the general goods market in which many consumers and suppliers adjust the price and quantity according to the supply and demand situation of the market, the large-scale simultaneous sale of apartment buildings has the characteristic that the large-scale simultaneous sale of apartment buildings is a method in which the transaction is completed by supplying the amount of supply determined at the price determined by the supplier at the price determined by the supplier and accepting the conditions determined by the supplier. Therefore, the scope of meaningful competition relationship under this structure can be established as a new apartment market in the district where large-scale simultaneous sale was conducted, and in this case, the “new apartment market in the Yongsan-gu area” is “new apartment

(1) A commodities market.

Apartments have both the essential nature of apartment purchased for residence and the investment assets purchased for investment, so it can be considered as a substitute in consideration of this.

However, in terms of the characteristics of the products, a new apartment unit is not immediately located at the time of the transaction and has the right to have a new apartment unit after 2-3 years. From the perspective of investment re-sale, it is a product of the nature of paying a relatively low price instead of being able to take up the risks of initial investment. Meanwhile, the right to sell an apartment unit is identical to a new apartment unit in that it is the right to have a new apartment unit in the future when the intermediate payment and the balance are paid after the sale of an apartment unit is already made. However, if the profitability is high after the completion of a new apartment unit, it is traded at a price lower than the sale price if the profitability is low, and it is a product traded at a price higher than the sale price at which the second-lane profitability is evaluated after the sale of an apartment unit. Meanwhile, it is distinguishable from a new apartment unit after the sale of an apartment unit immediately after the sale of an apartment unit can have a new apartment unit in terms of the possibility of immediate occupancy after the sale of the existing apartment unit, and it is distinguishable from an existing apartment unit sale price.

(b) In terms of the eligibility of the consumers, the new apartment is set out in the subscription eligibility under the Housing Act and the Housing Supply Regulations, and is set out in order to homeless persons, subscription savings, subscription deposit holders, etc. for a certain period of time, and if the number of subscribers exceeds the supplied amount, the scope of consumers who can actually demand is limited to the consumers having priority in subscription. However, there is no restriction on qualifications to purchase the existing apartment or right to purchase, and it is distinguishable from the new apartment in terms of the fact that the consumers having preference to the apartment or the right to purchase the apartment or the right to purchase the apartment or the right to purchase the apartment can purchase all

In the case of the substitution of demand for a new apartment unit due to the limit of the qualification for the pin demand, a consumer who has the priority of subscription for a new apartment unit due to the above qualification has the tendency to participate in the new apartment unit or the right to sell it, rather than purchasing the existing apartment unit or the right to sell it. Therefore, even if the sale of a new apartment unit is high, it is more likely to recognize a new apartment unit as a substitute for an existing apartment unit or a right to sell it at an adjacent time or at an adjacent time than to purchase it as a substitute for an existing apartment unit or a right to sell it, so it cannot be said that the substitution with the existing apartment unit or right to sell

In light of the aspect of the past supply, most of the suppliers of new apartment units are housing construction and apartment units. The existing suppliers of apartment units or apartment units are private individuals or companies that make profits from resale, so the market participants are different, and the perception and management behavior of mutual competition and competition conditions are different. In addition, large-scale housing supply such as new apartment units is governed by various institutional, economic and procedural restrictions and regulations, and a considerable time and enormous cost expenditure is required in the supply process. Accordingly, the apartment units in the area subject to the development of a large-scale housing site are supplied in a large-scale housing site.

In full view of the above, it is reasonable to define the product market of this case as the "new apartment market for sale".

(2) A geographical market.

In ordinary, the scope of a geographical market is to be defined by comprehensively considering the characteristics of the goods concerned, transportation costs, consumers' participation in the market, and regional preference. Since apartment buildings, which are the goods concerned of this case, are different from ordinary goods, and it is impossible to move on the land, it shall be considered in defining a geographical market.

As seen earlier, apartment housing has the nature of an essential material for residence and an investment asset. Considering only the investment re-investment nature of apartment, the scope of a geographical market can be expanded across the country. However, the demand for apartment as an essential material for residence is limited to a certain area in consideration of the distance possible for departure and retirement, administration, education, and convenience facilities, etc. Furthermore, in determining the demand for apartment, not only the distance possible for departure and retirement but also the value of the district where apartment is located is an important factor. In particular, in the case of apartment housing to be sold by a large-scale housing site development project, it is developed into a small city with various administrative, educational, and convenience facilities for the housing site development zone itself, so the area is developed into a single independent unit, and even if the same constructor constructs an apartment with a similar specifications depending on the location in a certain administrative district, it can be seen that the apartment price varies depending on the area where the apartment is located.

On the other hand, in light of the fact that business operators run a housing construction project within a certain period of time and receive various administrative regulations, and considerable time and expenses are imposed on the housing site development zone, it is difficult for other business entities in other areas to immediately enter the zone because the apartment price in the new district increases, and it is difficult for them to easily expand the scope of the apartment supply.

Ultimately, considering the fact that the instant case occurred in the course of large-scale simultaneous sale, the regional scope in substantial competition can be said to be the same as the “Dong Bag area” and the “a neighboring area where large-scale sale took place at the time,” which is the relevant district. Since there was no large-scale sale in the neighboring area outside the Dong Bag area at the time of the instant sale, it is reasonable to define the relevant geographical market in the instant case as the

㈏ 실질적 경쟁제한성

Article 19(5) of the Act provides that “competitive restriction of competition” of the act in question, which is to be proved in order to presume the agreement of enterprisers, refers to “competitive restriction of competition” before the agreement is presumed, so the existence of such “competitive restriction” should be determined by taking into consideration the characteristics of the act in question, consumer selection criteria, market share of the enterpriser in question, impact of the act in question on the competition of the market and the enterpriser in question on the competition of the enterpriser in question, and whether the act in question affects or is likely to affect the determination of price, quantity, quality, other transaction terms, etc. according to the intent of the particular enterpriser or enterprisers’ organization (see Article 2 subparag. 8-2 of the Act, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 99Du6514, 6521, Mar. 15, 2002).

In this case, although the demand for new apartment sale is similar to the general goods in light of the price-oriented apartment market, there are many aspects of speculative demand in specific areas such as the Seoul Metropolitan area due to population congestion and urban concentration. On the other hand, the supply of new apartment sale is flexible due to the restriction on the supply of land and the institutional restrictions such as housing site development and approval, so it is not possible to expand the supply or adjust the sale price in the process of apartment sale even if there is an excess demand. ② even if the conditions of the competition at the time of this case were to be abolished, the apartment sale price was determined by the autonomous decision of the construction companies, and the conditions of the price and quality competition were established, especially in the apartment sale price-based apartment market, to increase the sale price in the apartment sale price at the same level as that of the new apartment sale price-based apartment market.

(4) The theory of lawsuit

Therefore, the instant company’s decision on the method of selling apartment and paying intermediate payments, including the Plaintiffs, is deemed to have reached an agreement on collaborative acts pursuant to Article 19(5), 1(1)1, and 2 of the Act, since the act of determining the method of selling apartment buildings and paying intermediate payments, corresponds to “the external form of two or more enterprisers’ act,” and such act is deemed to be unreasonable.

B. Whether the presumption of agreement has been destroyed

(1) A business operator who is presumed to have agreed on an unfair collaborative act pursuant to Article 19(5) of the Act may destroy the presumption by proving that an act of the same or similar act that was externally revealed has never been agreed upon by each business judgment without any agreement or mutual needs, or by proving circumstances that the act was not an act of the same or similar act that was externally revealed is not a collaborative act under the agreement. On the other hand, in determining circumstances where the presumption of an unfair collaborative act may be destroyed, the presumption shall be reasonably determined by comprehensively taking into account the characteristics and status of the market in the product concerned, the characteristics and features of the product concerned, the aspects and attitudes of the product concerned, the structure of the distribution, the structure of the price, and the impact of the price on the individual business operator's operating profit and market share, the impact of the change in the price on the individual business operator's business situation, the legitimacy of the business judgment, the actual condition of mutual exchange, etc. between the business operators, the actual situation of the mutual agreement, and the economic experience and probability at the time of the agreement.

(2) However, in light of the following circumstances, even if the company of this case takes into account the progress of the apartment sales business, the purpose and details of the organization of the consultative body, and the progress of the relevant criminal case, it is difficult to view that the act of determining the sales price of the company of this case including the plaintiffs, and the act of determining the sales price of the company of this case and the act of conducting the intermediate payment interest payment system jointly with each other without any adjustment or understanding, it is difficult to see that there is any circumstance to accept that the company of this case took place a contingency agreement or that it is not a collaborative act

Rather, as seen earlier, the company of this case established a consultative body of the Dong District and exchanged information about the sale price and the sale price in lots for about 40 times for about one year immediately before the sale, and continuously consulted with guidelines. ② As a result, the sale price difference between the company of this case and the sale price in lots has been reduced (as of March 2003, the difference between the sale price and the sale price in lots was 50,000 to 30,000 won, and 320 and 460,000 won to 9,000 won to 70,000 won to 30,000 won to 70,000 won to 16,000 won to 7,000 won to 7,000 won to 7,000 won to 7,000 won to 164,000 won to 16,000 won to 37,000 won to 20,000 won to 3,00.

However, the company of this case except for non-party 1 corporation and practitioners of this case were acquitted in a criminal case instituted on the ground that they violated Article 19(1) of the Act in the first instance trial, and the prosecutor's appeal was dismissed and currently pending in the court of final appeal, the company of this case except for non-party 1 corporation is prosecuted for violation of Article 19(5) of the Act, not in the first instance trial. The judgment of conviction in a criminal trial should be based on evidence with probative value that leads to a judge to feel true and true facts charged to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt. Thus, if there is no such evidence, even if there is suspicion of guilt against the defendant, it cannot be deemed that the presumption of unfair collaborative act agreement has been invalidated due to the judgment of innocence of the above criminal case.

C. Whether specific dispositions are lawful

Since it is recognized that the plaintiffs jointly with the company of this case determined the selling price for the apartment of this case, adopted the intermediate payment interest payment system, thereby committing an unfair collaborative act in violation of Article 19(1) of the Act, the defendant is ordered to take corrective measures pursuant to Article 21 of the Act; ① order not to repeat the violation of the Act against the plaintiffs; ② order not to publish the fact of receiving the corrective order; ② order not to publish the fact of receiving the corrective order; ③ order not to pay a penalty surcharge pursuant to Article 22 of the Act is all legal grounds; and the contents of the order are appropriate.

Therefore, all of the instant dispositions are lawful.

5. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment 1, 2, and 4]

Judges Kim Tae-dae (Presiding Judge) Park Jae-dae (Presiding Judge)