On June 9, 2011, the Defendant issued an order to pay penalty surcharges pursuant to the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act (hereinafter “Fair Trade Act”) on the grounds that the Plaintiff, a school juristic person, a school juristic person, a daily oil company (hereinafter “three-party food”), and a group of them (hereinafter “three-party food”), engaged in unfair collaborative acts as follows; however, on July 18, 201, the Defendant issued a disposition to reduce the initial penalty surcharge by 50% on the ground that the Plaintiff is the first person engaged in investigation and cooperation (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

The first half-term agreement in 2008 (hereinafter referred to as the "first half-term agreement") shall be referred to.

The agreement to increase the ex-factory price of two products as of January 2008 and February 1, 2008 is the second half of 2008 and the second half of 2008.

On or after October 2008, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking revocation of the instant disposition under this Court 201Nu46387, which was the Plaintiff’s agreement to increase the ex-factory price of the two products. However, the Plaintiff appealed the lower court’s judgment on February 12, 2015 on the ground that “the date on which the Plaintiff completed the unfair collaborative act should be deemed the date on which the Plaintiff’s voluntary report should be deemed the date on which the Plaintiff’s voluntary report should be deemed the date of termination of the collaborative act, thereby misapprehending the legal doctrine on the termination of the collaborative act, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.”

Accordingly, the defendant shall regard the date of voluntary report of the plaintiff as the termination date of unfair collaborative acts under the resolution No. 2015-211 of June 25, 2015, where the case reversed and remanded is pending in the trial of the court, and shall be from February 1, 2008, which is the first day of the violation.