2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. The costs of the lawsuit shall be four minutes, which shall be borne by the plaintiff, and the remainder shall be borne by the defendant.

A. Status and general status of the plaintiff, etc.

(1) On April 3, 2001, the former El branch chemical was a corporation surviving LGI, which was established around 1947, and was divided into the Plaintiff into the petroleum chemical business division and the industrial product business division, and the food product business division and the cosmetics business division were divided into the EL branch health of the EL branch (hereinafter “former EL branch chemical” in cases where it is necessary to specifically separate the Plaintiff from the Plaintiff, and it is not classified into “Plaintiff” but called “Plaintiff” in the case where it is not required to do so).

(2) The Plaintiff and Honam Petroleum Chemical Co., Ltd., the Daenam Petroleum Industry Co., Ltd., the Korea Oil Industry Co., Ltd., the Samsung T&T Co., Ltd., the Samsung T&T Co., Ltd., the 2nd C&T Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “8 companies including the Plaintiff, etc.”) manufacture and sell synthetic resin, which is a kind of petrochemicals, constitutes a business operator under Article 2 subparag. 1 of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act (hereinafter “Fair Trade Act”). The general status of the capital, sales, etc. of eight companies including the Plaintiff, etc. is as set forth in the following Table 1 < Amended by Act No. 1.

Table 1 â………………………………………………………

As of December 31, 2004, units: Won, name

2. Employees of Samsung 2, 159,30,30,300,30,4648,419,30,468,47,419,30,468,47,41,30,468,419,47,40,50,30,300,419,30,419,463,463,462,189,419,49,497,419,497., 197., 2.41,00,001,001,71,740,710,7102,7102,710,7718,718,784,47,50,764,47,75,29,20,306,64,67,75,719,74,719,74,27

(b) Market structure and actual conditions;

(1) Characteristics of synthetic resin industry

The synthetic resin is manufactured with ethylene and propyers produced in the course of decomposition process (Napththa Cracker: Napthr) as principal raw material in the process of refining crude oil. The synthetic resin is also called polybin. Polyolin is divided into polypropye (hereinafter referred to as "P") and polyethylethylene (hereinafter referred to as "PE") and polyethylene (Pholythyle: hereinafter referred to as "PE"), and it is called polybin in combination of PP and PE.

The petroleum chemical industry is a capital-intensive industry and its initial investment cost takes a large scale, and it can be seen that it is included in the national key industry in terms of producing basic materials for all industries. The domestic polybin industry has been converted from domestic-oriented industries in 1991 to export-oriented industries in terms of domestic production capacity in 2003, and has been serving as a major supplier in Asian region together with Japan as a major supplier in Asian region in terms of the production capacity in 2003.

Since the 1990s, domestic polyfin industry has been faced with difficulties to the extent of 70% of the ratio of exports in the process of production due to extreme excessive supply and the continued increase of domestic sediment, and recently, the imbalances between domestic demand has gradually been reduced, but export share has still been more than 60% of the ratio of exports.However, as large-scale expansion has been made centering on oil countries such as East and East Asian countries such as Singapore and China, competition in the export market has been deepened, and domestic markets are also exposed to risks caused by the heavy dynamics, etc., which have become high growth tax due to the strengthening of environmental regulations such as the restriction on the use of disposable products and the increase of processing companies' overseas transfer).

In the process of the development of the petroleum chemical industry, with the entry into force of the Petroleum Chemical Industry Promotion Act in 1970, factories were newly built in Ulsan and inn, etc. after the designation of the petroleum chemical industry as a strategic development project. Since the 1990s, the Petroleum Chemical Industry Promotion Act was repealed in 1986 and the Industrial Development Act was changed into the Industrial Development Act, the increase of new entry into the new market, such as construction of plants in Samsung General Chemical and Hyundai Petroleum Chemical into the Chungcheongnam Heavy Industries.

(2) Characteristics and uses of synthetic resin products

PE is classified into low-density ethylene (LDD) (LDPE: hereinafter referred to as “LDPE”), type low-density ethylene (LLDDPE: hereinafter referred to as “LLDPE”), high-density ethylene (HGE) (HGE) with a weight of at least 0.94; hereinafter referred to as “HDPE”).

HDPE는 주원료인 에틸렌에다 부텐·헥센의 부원료를 소량(2% 미만) 주입하여 저압법으로 제조한 것으로, 밀도가 0.925∼0.963g/㎤로 고강도, 딱딱함, 저투명성, 변형성이 우수한 특성을 가지고 있어 쇼핑비닐백, 맥주상자, 우유용기, 수도관, 가스관 등 다양한 제품의 원료로 사용되고 있다.

Table 2> The System Classification of Petroleum Chemical Industry

본문내 포함된 표 Up-stream Down-stream 기초원료 중간원료 제품명 용도 주요 수요업체 납사(나프타)-NCC ？ ？ ？ ？ ㅇ에틸렌 EDC-VCM ㅇ 합성수지 ？ ？ -LDPE, LLDPE, HD PE -필름, 전선피복, 성형제품 일신, 내쇼날 LG화학 ㅇ프로필렌 ？ ㅇ PP -자동차성형제품 삼영화학, 화승 ？ ？ ㅇ AN(합섬원료) -ABS, NBR 원료 ？ ㅇ부탄혼합물(부타디엔) ？ ㅇ 합성고무 ？ ？ ？ -BR, SBR, NBR, Latex -타이어, 신발 한국·금호타이어 ？ ㅇ MTBE -접착제, 휘발유 첨가제 ？ ㅇ벤젠 SM ㅇ 펜탄(벤젠부산물) -SBR, PS 원료 LG화학 한국바스프 ㅇ싸이클헥산 ？ ㅇ 카프로락탐 -나일론섬유 원료 ？ ㅇ톨루엔 ？ ㅇ 우레탄수지 -신발, 접착제 ？ ㅇ크실렌 ？ ㅇ 텔레프탈산(TPA) -폴리에스테르 섬유원료 ？

(3) Market status

(A) the market scale and the share of each participating company;

As of the end of 2004, six business entities, including Honam Petroleum chemical, Molim industry, the Korea Oil Industry, the Plaintiff, KS, and Samsung C&P, etc. (excluding third-party comprehensive chemical and C&T) manufacture and sell HPE. The annual sales performance of each company is as follows: 7,03.7 billion won. The annual domestic sales performance of each company is as follows: 41% of the total production. The domestic market share of each company in 2004 is 41% of the total production. The domestic market share of each company is 28.5% of the total production, 15.1% of the large industry, 14.6% of the Korea Petroleum chemical, 18.9% of the total production, KS 12.1% of the total production, and 59% of the total production.

Table 3* Sales Performance by HDPE Manufacturing Company

(as of the end of 2004, units: 00,000 won, per cent)

402,836 (23.6), 200,542 (28.5), 294 large forest industry 372,947 (21.8), 4239,789 (21.0), 102,433 (14.6) 257,356 Plaintiff 13,306 (7.8), 1306 (7.9.8), 208, 783 (14.6) 257,356, 130,306 (18.9), 783,83 (6.6), 883 (6), 78, 883 (4.6), 78, 885 (15.68), 196, 197, 197, 257, 1986, 197, 257, 1987, 1985 (6, 196)

5) Honam Petroleum Chemical

Note 6) ELIFT

(b) Product classification and distribution structure;

Products made of synthetic resin are classified into uses, such as private withdrawals, Film, Yarn, Pipe, Co., Ltd. Among them, products that are produced without quality differences by manufacture and are widely used in the market are criminal specifications. On the contrary, special specifications are less than market size and less than 7 products that are less than market size and are sold.

The HDPE distribution structure is largely divided into direct trade sales and agency sales. Although there are differences for each company, the sales ratio of the ordinary agency is about 10 to 20%, and at least 80% is distributed through direct trade sales. This is because manufacturers such as shopping plastic bags, beer, beer, beer, water supply pipes, and gas pipes, which are used as major raw materials by HDPE, have the characteristics of mass consumption as consumers of HDE, and most of them are in the form of direct trade by business managers.

(c)price structure;

The selling price is largely divided into the base price and the direct dealing market price. Each product is subdivided into various specifications for each use, and normally is the base price. The base price refers to the applicable price following the month that is determined in consideration of factors for pricing, such as the price change of raw materials, the international HPE price, and the domestic HPE market situation. Based on this base price, each company shall determine the selling price of products for Grade which is subdivided.

Each company's operating members are the selling price of direct trade, which is applied in the course of the sales business of direct trade centers based on the base price. Since direct trade is mainly related to continuous transactions, business partners take the method of preferential supply through consultation only with the approximate price at the beginning of each month. After the supply of products, business partners have determined the final settlement price by reflecting the exchange rate, raw milk price change, the international price change of synthetic resin, the situation of domestic market, etc. at the end of the month or the beginning of the following month. The closing price is used as the basis for determining the base price of the following month. The closing price is used as the basis for determining the base price of the following month. Unlike the direct trade wife, sales by applying the base price determined in the case of an agency

On the other hand, there are products that are sold in different names or by dividing into special standards by company, the price of these products shall be determined by reflecting the additional cost according to the special standards in the large standard price.

B. Price collusion between the plaintiff and 8 companies

(1) Summary

From Apr. 1994 to Mar. 2005, genetics, including the Plaintiff, agreed by holding a president's meeting, a president's meeting, a chief of the headquarters, a chief of the business, or a business working group's meeting, etc. to determine the price of the monthly sales of HDPE and the standard sales price of the following month. The method of determining the price by referring only HDPE through a group of groups in charge, or HDE's representative use (Film, Yarn, etc.) by referring to a group of groups in charge, or HDE's representative purpose (Film, Ynn, etc.). In particular, in the agreement on the standard sales price of HDPE's sales, the producer, including the Plaintiff, etc. agreed by the method of determining the width or determining the lowest price, thereby allowing a certain period of discount for a specific product. Upon the determination of the standard price for each company's product, taking into account the standard price of the product.

(2) Detailed details

㈎ 구 엘지화학, 호남석유화학, 대림산업, 대한유화공업, 에스케이, 삼성종합화학(이하 ‘구 엘지화학 등 6개사’라 한다)은 1994. 4. 28. HDPE의 판매가격에 대하여 다음과 같이 합의한 후 1994년 말까지 매월 HDPE의 판매가격을 합의하여 결정하였다.

A person shall be appointed.

Note 9) Doki

㈏ 그 후에도 구 엘지화학 등 주10) 6개사 는 1995. 1.부터 2001. 12.까지 HDPE 용도별로 내수판매 기준가격과 직거래처 판매가격을 매월 합의하여 결정하였다.

㈐ 원고, 호남석유화학, 대림산업, 대한유화공업, 에스케이, 삼성종합화학, 주11) 씨텍 (이하 ‘원고 등 7개사’라 한다)은 2002. 1.부터 12.까지 HDPE 용도별로 내수판매 기준가격 및 직거래처 판매가격에 대하여 매월 합의하여 결정하였다.

㈑ 원고 등 주12) 7개사 는 2003. 1.부터 12.까지 HDPE 용도별로 내수판매 기준가격 및 직거래처 판매가격에 대하여 매월 합의하여 결정하였다.

㈒ 원고, 호남석유화학, 대림산업 주13) , 대한유화공업, 에스케이, 삼성토탈은 2004. 1.부터 2005. 3.까지도 과거의 관행대로 HDPE 용도별로 내수판매 기준가격 및 거래처별 판매가격에 대하여 매월 합의하여 결정하였다.

C. The defendant's disposition

(1) The Defendant issued a corrective order and a penalty surcharge payment order against eight companies, including the Plaintiff, on June 5, 2007, on the ground that “eight companies, including the Plaintiff, etc., agreed upon and decided the HPE’s monthly sales termination price from April 28, 1994 to April 30, 2005 each month from April 30, 2005, thereby engaging in an unfair collaborative act as stipulated in Article 19(1)1 of the Fair Trade Act.” The Defendant issued a corrective order and a penalty surcharge payment order against the Plaintiff, etc., as listed in the attached Table 1 (hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”).

(2) In calculating a penalty surcharge, the Defendant determined the amount of penalty surcharge imposed on the Plaintiff as KRW 10,421,00,000, to the extent that the amount of penalty surcharge imposed on the Plaintiff does not exceed the amount obtained by multiplying the sales amount determined by the Presidential Decree pursuant to Article 22 of the former Fair Trade Act (amended by Act No. 7315 of Dec. 31, 2004 and enforced April 1, 2005; hereinafter referred to as the “former Fair Trade Act”). Article 8 of the Addenda of the amended Act (Act No. 7315) was to be applied to the act that continued before the enforcement of the amended Act or even after the enforcement of the amended Act.

㈎ 위반기간

Considering that the first price agreement was reached on April 28, 1994, in the case of the Plaintiff, Honam Petroleum chemical, Daenam Petroleum chemical, Daelim chemical, SP, and Samsung Integrated Chemical, the date of the violation shall be deemed the time of the first price agreement. In the case of Samsung C&T, August 1, 2003, which commenced the business after acquiring the Samsung General Chemical Division by an investment in kind, shall be deemed the time of the violation. In the case of C&T, Hyundai Petroleum Chemical was involved in the collaborative act of this case from April 28, 1994. However, since the second half of 2001, it has not been confirmed that the fact of participating in the collaborative act of this case was not confirmed differently, and since the date of the acquisition of the claim, it appears that it again participated in the collaborative act of this case since 2002, it shall be deemed that it was the time of the violation.

With respect to the termination date of unfair collaborative acts (type), there is no evidence that the Plaintiff, Honam Petroleum chemical, ZK, KS, and Samsung C&PE selling price since April 2005. However, in light of data on March 2005 from PP and HDE’s “ma reduction price and standard selling price” (from December 2003 through March 3, 2005), the above companies have agreed on the selling price of March 3, 2005 when they agreed on the closing price of 0.4, and thus, it is deemed that the Plaintiff, on April 30, 2005, was the completion date of the violation, and the Plaintiff, on July 31, 2003, 200 if the Plaintiff, at the first 205 meeting, voluntarily refused the closing price of the petroleum industry from Samsung T&P to 30.4, 2003. As such, the Plaintiff’s chemical manager, at the first 205, 2003.

㈏ 관련상품의 범위

The instant collaborative act was conducted with a purpose to maximize profits by preventing the price decline of HDPE. Considering the transactional relationship and market situation of HDPE, consumer damage caused by the collaborative act, competition-restricting effect, etc., all HDPE products produced by 8 companies, including the Plaintiff, were directly or indirectly affected by the instant unfair collaborative act. Accordingly, the relevant products are all items of HDPE. Ultimately, the Plaintiff’s relevant sales amount is KRW 775,456,00,000.

㈐ 위반행위의 중대성 판단 및 부과기준율

The instant unfair collaborative act determines the price of HPE which has a significant impact on major manufacturing industries, such as fibers, automobiles, and electronic, jointly with eight companies, including the Plaintiff, etc., who have a market share of 100% in the HPE synthetic resin market. In light of the nature of the act, it is very serious that the substance of the act is very serious, and there is no clear and high efficiency that competition-restricting effect takes effect in light of the nature of the act, the ripple effect of the act is nationwide, and the damage inflicted on the national economy is extensive.

Therefore, the imposition standard rate of 3.5% through 5.0% shall be applied in accordance with the provisions of paragraph (1) (a) of the above Article 4 of the former Public Notice of Imposition of Penalty Surcharge, to the plaintiff, Honam Petroleum chemical, Daenam Petroleum chemical, Dae forest industry, K oiling industry, K, Samsung C, to which the public notice of imposition of Penalty Surcharge (amended by the Fair Trade Commission Notice No. 2005-3, Apr. 1, 2005; hereinafter the "former Public Notice of Imposition of Penalty Surcharge") applies, and the imposition standard rate of 3.5% through 5.0% shall be applied in accordance with the provisions of paragraph (1) of the above Article 4 of the former Public Notice of Imposition of Penalty Surcharge. In light of the fact that the instant unfair collaborative act was partially attributable to the increase in prices of crude oil, naphtha, etc., which is the main raw material of synthetic resin, most of the offenses committed before the public notice of imposition of Penalty Surcharge was implemented, the imposition standard rate of 3.5% shall be applied.

㈑ 기본과징금 및 의무적 조정과징금의 결정

The basic penalty surcharge shall be determined for each company by applying the above imposition standard rate of 3.5% and 3%, and there is no ground for obligatory adjustment, and the amount of the same penalty surcharge shall be the same as the basic penalty surcharge.

㈒ 임의적 조정과징금의 산정

Based on the provisions of paragraph (5) of the former Public Notice of Imposition of Penalty Surcharge IV, 20% of the compulsory adjustment penalty surcharge shall be reduced by taking into account the fact that the plaintiff, Honam Petroleum chemical, Daelim chemical, Daelim, Kan oiling industry, KS, and Samsung Can had no opportunity to voluntarily rectify due to the suspension of business due to transfer of business, sale of stocks, etc., in the case of the plaintiff, Honam Petroleum chemical, the violation prior to the commencement report of the instant case, and the fact that voluntary correction was made.

Furthermore, in the case of Cex, 20% of the mandatory adjustment penalty surcharge shall be reduced based on the provisions of Section 3(c) of the former Rules on Imposition of Penalty Surcharges in consideration of the fact that there were circumstances such as restructuring following the default of modern petroleum chemistry.

㈓ 부과과징금의 결정

Taking into account the economic situation of the depression of the petroleum chemical industry and the fact that the unfair collaborative act in this case was partly promoted from the administrative guidance, the former Public Notice of Imposition of the Penalty Surcharge shall be reduced by 20% of the voluntary adjustment penalty surcharge commonly for the Plaintiff, Honam Petroleum chemical, Taenam Petroleum chemical, Dae forest industry, Kitry Industries, KS, Samsung C, and Samsung C, based on the provisions of paragraph (1) of April 1, 1994, and in the case of Samsung General Chemical, 20% of the voluntary adjustment penalty surcharge shall be reduced pursuant to paragraph (c) of the former Rules of Imposition of the Penalty Surcharge. Meanwhile, in the case of Samsung Heavy, 50% of the voluntary adjustment penalty surcharge shall be reduced by taking into account the structural characteristics of the text, such as the fact that it is the remaining corporation derived from the process of restructuring of Hyundai Petroleum Chemical. In addition, in the case of the Korea Heavy Industries Industries Industry, it was difficult to actively refuse to put the price of this case into the financial crisis, taking into account the fact that it did not actively participate in the price adjustment of this case.

Next, under the circumstance that the Defendant failed to secure sufficient evidence to prove illegality of the instant unfair collaborative act, A shall reduce 100% based on the provision of Article 35(2)2 of the Enforcement Decree of the former Fair Trade Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 18768, Mar. 31, 2005; hereinafter the same shall apply) as it constitutes an inspector for investigation under Article 22-2(1)2 of the former Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act by submitting evidence, etc. necessary for the first time to prove the instant unfair collaborative act until the investigation is completed. Since B and C cooperates in the investigation of this case after A's cooperation, it is secured sufficient evidence to prove illegality by the Defendant's cooperation of A's investigation, but it is recognized that the Defendant offered evidence, etc. to increase 20% of the former Enforcement Decree of the Fair Trade Act by submitting evidence, etc. to support evidence and statement submitted by A's 20% prior to the completion of investigation, based on Article 35(2)39 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Fair Trade Act.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 3 through 65, Eul evidence Nos. 2-1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

For the following reasons, the Plaintiff asserts that the instant penalty surcharge payment order is unlawful (the Plaintiff sought not only the penalty surcharge payment order but also the revocation of the corrective order, but also the corrective order is sought. However, since the corrective order did not claim specific grounds for illegality, this part is not determined separately).

A. Imposition of penalty surcharges on acts before the establishment of the plaintiff

The Plaintiff is a company established by dividing it from the old ELGmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmms

B. Limitation period of the disposition

It was true that the United Nations including the Plaintiff had a regular meeting from April 28, 1994 to April 30, 2005 and agreed on the base price, etc. of HDPE products. However, since there were significant changes in the structure and character of the petrochemicals market, such as HDPE, participants, supply and demand conditions, etc. over several times during the above period, the act during the above period cannot be deemed as one act with the same intent and purpose. In particular, since the price collusion was suspended in 2000, the essence of the price collusion agreement was fundamentally changed, such as the subject, object, and method of the agreement, etc. of the price collusion, which had been in parallel with the price collusion, and the price collusion was 40 years prior to the price collusion or 20 years prior to the price collusion with the price collusion, which was clearly set forth in the 200-year price collusion or 200-year price collusion with the price collusion with the purpose of selling cash for the stabilization of Hyundai petroleum chemical from the end of 2000.

C. The error in calculating the relevant sales amount

(1) Sales of special standardized products, etc.

The price collusion of this case is limited to the sales price for the base price or part of the HDPE-based product, and thus, special standardized products (CS520, CS0080, ME9180R), products traded in the form of Formula (PB150), products traded in the form of annual fixed price (HM7018), and sales price of defective products should be excluded from the relevant sales amount.

(2) Costs of consignment sale

On June 1, 2003, the Plaintiff acquired the shares of modern petroleum chemical from the creditors group, etc. of modern petroleum chemical, and concluded a sales agency contract with Hyundai Petroleum chemical from September 26, 2003, and sold HPE products produced by the said company on behalf of the Plaintiff (on behalf of the Plaintiff from January 1, 2005 to January 1, 2006, divided into ELDP products, which were produced by ELD primary oil oil refining, into ELD primary oil oil oil refining, the Defendant, not from the sales commission received by the Plaintiff from Hyundai Petroleum chemical, etc., but from the sales commission received by the Plaintiff on behalf of the trustee, should be calculated based on the sales commission charged by the relevant business operator. However, since the sales commission should be calculated on the basis of the sales commission charged by the trustee.

(3) Waste charges;

The relevant sales under the Fair Trade Act shall be calculated based on accounting sales as the concept of “sales” borrowed in accordance with corporate accounting standards. The waste charges are quasi-tax in the nature of consumption tax for synthetic resin products to be borne by the final consumers. As such, the waste charges are paid in preference to the final consumers on behalf of the final consumers, so that the relevant sales should be collected ex post facto in addition to the price of synthetic resin products. Therefore, the waste charges should be excluded from the relevant sales.

(d) Application of an excessive imposition standard rate;

(1) The price collusion in this case has a structure that is essentially not effective, and it was almost not observed. During the collusion period, the Plaintiff’s unjust enrichment was almost nonexistent and the effect of restricting competition was extremely low, and thus, cannot be deemed as a very serious violation.

(2) In light of the fact that the upper limit of the imposition standard rate, which serves as the basis for the calculation of the penalty surcharge, was 3% of the relevant sales until March 31, 2004, and was changed to 3.5% thereafter, and that the Defendant started to increase the sanctions against the unfair collaborative act after 2000, applying 3.5% of the imposition standard rate for the previous period of the instant violation, is too excessive to excessively deviate from and abuse discretion.

3. Related statutes;

Attached Form 2 shall be as listed in attached Table 2.

4. Whether the disposition is lawful.

A. Whether a penalty surcharge can be imposed on an act before the establishment of the Plaintiff

(1) The succession of a newly incorporated company or a surviving company to a corporate division is the rights and obligations of the divided company. Thus, until a penalty surcharge is imposed on the grounds of a violation of the Fair Trade Act prior to the division, only a simple factual act exists, and no obligation exists to the divided company in relation to the penalty surcharge, and it is not allowed to impose a penalty surcharge on the newly incorporated company on the grounds of a violation of the Fair Trade Act prior to the division, unless there is a special provision (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Du18928, Nov. 29, 2007).

(2) However, as seen earlier, the Plaintiff was newly established by dividing the petroleum chemical business division and the industrial materials business division from the former ELP on April 3, 2001, and thus, it is unlawful to impose a penalty surcharge on the Plaintiff for a violation up to April 2, 2001 of the former ELP. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is with merit.

(3) In regard to this, the defendant argues that, in the case of a merger with a company violating the provisions of this Act, Article 2-4 (4) of the former Contract for Division (No. 67 No. 67) provides that "if any contingent debt occurs after the division due to the causes before the division date (the date of April 1, 2001), the company established due to the division or the surviving company shall be jointly and severally liable, and the ratio of the share shall be the net asset value at the time of the division." Thus, in accordance with the provisions of the above contract for division, the defendant's assertion that the division may include the period before the division can be imposed on the plaintiff. Thus, in the case of the merger with a company violating the provisions of this Act, the Fair Trade Commission's violation may be deemed to be the act of the company established after the merger or the act of the company established by the merger, and the company's violation of the above provisions of Article 55-3 (2) of the former Fair Trade Act can not be seen to be jointly and severally imposed on the company newly incorporated or newly incorporated.

B. Whether the calculation of related sales was erroneous

(1) the meaning of the relevant sales and related goods;

Article 55-3 of the former Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act and Article 61(1) [Attachment Table 2] 2(a) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provide that a basic penalty surcharge shall be imposed within the scope not exceeding the amount obtained by multiplying the relevant sales by 5/100. In calculating the relevant sales, the scope of related goods under the premise shall be determined by considering the type and nature of goods directly or indirectly affected by the violation, transaction areas, transaction partners, transaction stages, etc., and the relevant sales shall be determined by referring to the accounting data of the enterpriser. However, each scope shall be determined individually and specifically by type of act. Article 61(3) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provides that "The scope of goods related to an unfair collaborative act shall be determined on the basis of an agreement concluded by the participating enterpriser, but even if not included in an agreement, if goods have the effect of restricting competition in light of the actual transaction relationship and market situation, etc., the pertinent provisions shall be included below."

(2) Special standardized products, etc.

㈎ 인정사실

① The CSS0250, one of the special specifications products produced by the Plaintiff, is the Combbbling with functional substances added to HDPE, and is used for co-rating in order to assign base characteristics to the inside of the optical cable protection center. In addition, in inserting optical cables into the protection center, it is difficult to inserting optical cables due to marcing and preventing defective products. The product is used to prevent the marcing of optical cables from being generated. The product was independently developed and supplied to the company at the request of the company at the request of the company at the early 2002 when a mar cable was laid underground because the installation of the super-high speed Internet became widespread, and was used to demarizing approximately 1-2 meters in the protection center, and thus, its quantity was not so high (Sales: 103,180,000 won).

② At the request of HysungC Co., Ltd. to use as a main ingredient in optical cable slock, CS080, which is another special standard product, discontinued in the course of demonstration application, the Plaintiff’s independent developed products or raw materials (Sales: 80,410,000) and subsequently the company discontinued its use since 2004. The company thereafter uses imported products instead of the above products.

③ ME9180R, which is a special standard product, is a Gaw Pow sold to a pow in order to create a pow product to be used as an inner contact with A.I.D., a product produced only by the Plaintiff in Korea (Sales: 419,306,000 won).

④ PB150, a product traded in the form of Form PB150, as a product from February 1992 to February 2, 1992, Hyundai Petroleum Chemical is a product in the form of Pow which is exclusively produced by entering into a license agreement with Germany (former BASF) and is used as the main ingredient of a plastic fuel tank for automobiles. This product is exclusively supplied to the Plaintiff only in the Bathromogens, and is produced by importing and manufacturing Bastelle’s special promotion. The price of this product is determined by the so-called Form 14 to be determined by adding a certain amount to the international price (Sales:6,542,254,000).

⑤ HM7018, which is a product traded in the annual fixed price Note 15), was made through a process of crushing in order to meet the size and distribution of a particular tenderer required by a customer based on ME9180R, which is a special standardized product under the above paragraph (3) and was used as a connection with the inside of high-class Arhz blades. This product was produced domestically by the Plaintiff’s only, and replaced by the German and Switzerland products, but at present, production was suspended as the producer of the demand source transferred the production base to a foreign country (Sales: 4,214,43,00 won).

6. In cases where defective or inferior products can be used as substitute products for those products whose quality is not high, they may be sold at a lower price than the authentic products. In such cases, they may be sold to the processing company manufacturing low-class plastic containers, such as paper, brine, meat box, and plastic powder, and some of them may be sold to the processing company. (Sales: 64,321, 86,000 won)

[Ground of recognition] Evidence A Nos. 15 through 17, Evidence A No. 31-1 and 2, testimony of Park Jae-chul and the purport of the whole pleadings

㈏ 판단

① According to the above facts, SH520, CSS080, ME9180R and PB150, a product traded by the method of mula and Form PB150, a product manufactured by the Plaintiff, and HMF7018, a product traded by the method of annual fixed price, among the special standardized product products produced by the Plaintiff, are domestically produced and sold by the Plaintiff company (part of the product is called a license agreement with a foreign company) and was not included in the subject of the price collusion agreement. Thus, in order to include the product in the scope of related products, the Defendant must prove that the price collusion in this case caused or is likely to cause limited competition in the market of the product, and the content of the proof was likely to hinder other competitors from entering the new product market, or hindering the production and sale of substitute products of the above product, but there is no evidence to acknowledge otherwise from the sales amount of each product.

② However, the inferior goods can be calculated at any time in the process of the manufacturing of petrochemicals products with the same raw materials, and merely fall under the quality of the manufactured goods, not at all, but at any time. Thus, even if limited, it is general to determine the market price in accordance with the market demand and supply rules. Thus, the price collusion of this case can only affect the price competition of inferior goods. Thus, it cannot be said that the price collusion of this case includes related sales.

③ Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is with merit within the scope of recognition above.

(2) Costs of consignment sale

According to Section 2.5. A. of the former Penalty Surcharge Imposition Notice, the sales amount refer to the sales amount of the goods related to "sale or purchase" or the sales amount corresponding thereto during the period of the violation. Thus, in principle, the sales amount in the case of the consignment sale means not the consignment sale fee, but the consignment sale fee, not the consignment sale fee, and the price collusion in the case of the consignment sale is not related to the consignment sale fee, and if a part of the enterprisers participating in the unfair collaborative act is the consignment sale, it is not related to the consignment sale fee, and it is against the principle of equity to calculate the penalty surcharge based on the consignment sale fee, not the consignment sale fee, and it is against the principle of equity to consider not only the damage of other enterprisers, but also the damage of consumers as well as the damage of consumers as to the consignment sale. In light of the above, it cannot be seen that the damage of consumers is less than the direct sale in the case of the consignment sale, the plaintiff's assertion against this is not acceptable.

(3) Waste charges;

(1) The term “annual sales or purchase amount” under Article 5-3 of the former Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act and Article 61(1) [Attachment Table 2] 2 (a) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act shall be defined by referring to accounting data, etc. In general, indirect taxes, such as value-added taxes, which a company temporarily receives from consumers and pays to a tax office after keeping them at a tax office, are classified and entered in the current liability account instead of sales under corporate accounting; (2) The term “annual sales or purchase amount” under the proviso of Article 2(1)7 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Fair Trade Act means the date on which the relevant business entity performs an act suspected of violating the provisions of Article 3-2 (Prohibition of Abuse of Market Control Status) of the Act (where the relevant act continues until the date of recognition or report, the date of approval or report shall be deemed the date of expiration of the relevant act; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the amount of money or service charges, other than those imposed on the head of the relevant local government for the immediately preceding business year.”

C. Sub-decision

Therefore, during the instant disposition, the payment order of penalty surcharge is unlawful without any need to further examine the remainder of the Plaintiff’s assertion.

5. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified only to seek the revocation of the penalty surcharge payment order, and the remaining claims are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment]

Judges Cho Byung-hee (Presiding Judge)

1) The Samsung General Chemical Co., Ltd. manufactured and sold synthetic resin products until July 31, 2003, and established Samsung P&P or a stock company as an investment in kind with 99.9% since August 1, 2003, and launched Samsung P&P or a joint venture with 50:50 shares in the method of issuing and selling new shares. The name of the above joint venture was changed to Samsung T&P around October 2004.

2) The remaining corporation of Hyundai Petroleum Chemical Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Moni Petroleum Chemical”). Hyundai Petroleum Chemical began to manufacture and sell synthetic resin since 1988. However, due to business deterioration, the consortiums of Honam Petroleum Chemical and Lichemical acquired the above company on June 26, 2003, following the Defendant’s order on January 1, 2005 to divide the company, the factory complex was divided into ELD District Oil Co., Ltd., a newly incorporated corporation, and the factory complex was divided into 2 complex into ELD Co., Ltd., a newly incorporated corporation, and the factory complex was converted into the facility management company on January 3, 2005. The Hyundai Petroleum Chemical Chemical was merged with the Plaintiff on January 1, 2006. < Amended by Act No. 7878, Jan. 1, 2005>

3) As a result of the active export promotion of domestic markets in excess of supply and industry, synthetic resin sector shows a high dependence on exports since the mid-1990s. Domestic synthetic resin import is oversupply of domestic markets, and it is merely 1% of domestic demand due to the absence of export capacity of middle-dong and East Asia.

Note 4) The combination of two or more units into a large quantity of molecular compounds.

5) The sales amount of the product that was consigned to be sold by scambling Co., Ltd. was included in the sales amount.

Note 6) Entrusted the Plaintiff with the sale of internal waters. On November 2, 2007, the Plaintiff was merged with the Plaintiff.

7) The producer and distributor of petrochemicals, such as the Plaintiff, etc., expressed the petrochemicals as “gasper”.

8) The price at which 8 companies, including the Plaintiff, etc., supply petrochemicals processing companies using HPE as a raw material.

9) The Plaintiff’s name prior to the change.

10) From April 3, 2001, the Plaintiff, not the former ELG, participated in price collusion.

Note 11) After this period, Hyundai Petroleum Chemical participated in the price collusion, but as seen in Section 2 of the above Note, since the remaining corporation of Hyundai Petroleum Chemical is tex, it is not classified into Hyundai Petroleum Chemical and Cex but called “Cex”.

12) Samsung General Chemical participated in price collusion until July 31, 2003, and from August 1, 2003, Samsung C&T acquired a business division of Samsung General Chemical was involved in price collusion by investment in kind, and C&T participated in price collusion until September 25, 2003.

Note 13) The forest industry participated in price collusion only until September 30, 2004.

Note 14) The price of domestic synthetic resin products is determined in conjunction with international prices of basic raw materials, such as Naphtha, Ethylene, and Prone, and synthetic resin products.

Note 15) It is a method of calculating the price of synthetic resin by adding a certain cost or margin to the ICS or the export price, which is an international price.