시정명령및과징금납부명령취소
The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.
The grounds of appeal are examined.
1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1
A. As to the Plaintiff’s superior position in the transaction, the lower court determined, on the grounds indicated in its reasoning, that the Plaintiff was in a superior position in the transaction with respect to the 35 suppliers, located in the Plaintiff’s department store during the period from January 1, 2012 to May 20, 2012 (hereinafter “instant supplier”).
Examining the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court’s determination is justifiable.
In so doing, there were no errors by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the superior position in the transaction, or by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence.
B. As to the recognition of illegality, Article 14(1) of the Fair Transactions in Large Franchise and Retail Business Act (hereinafter “Large Franchise and Retail Business Act”) provides that large franchise and retail business operators shall not unfairly require suppliers, etc. to provide business information under each subparagraph of paragraph (1).
The purpose of this is to establish a fair transaction order in large franchise and retail business and to ensure that large franchise and retail business operators and suppliers can develop mutually complementaryly on equal terms by establishing a fair transaction order in large franchise and retail business by prohibiting a large franchise and retail business operator from requesting a supplier, etc. to provide management information, without asking whether a large franchise and retail business operator went to a subsequent unfair transaction act according to certain conditions, if a large franchise and retail business operator requests a supplier, etc. to provide management information and is provided with such management information.
Considering the language and purport of Article 14(1) of the Act on Large Franchise and Retail Business, “unfair” required in the act of demanding the provision of management information prohibited under Article 14(1) of the Act is the market where the parties are faced.