The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

1. “Unfair collaborative act” prohibited under Article 19(1) of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act (hereinafter “Fair Trade Act”) is “agreement on an act that unfairly restricts competition” and “agreement” in this context includes not only explicit agreement but also implied agreement (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Du1239, Feb. 28, 2003). However, this is the essence of the communication between two or more enterprisers. Thus, it cannot be deemed that there exists an external form consistent with the “unfair collaborative act” listed in each subparagraph of the above provision, and there should be proof of circumstances to recognize the reciprocity of the communication between enterprisers, and the burden of proof on such agreement exists to the Defendant ordering corrective measures, etc. on the ground of such agreement.

(1) In cases where a competitor’s exchange of information on the price, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Du17421, Nov. 28, 2013). In addition, in cases where a competitor exchanged information on price, etc., the exchange of information may serve as a valuable material to acknowledge the reciprocity of the communication among the enterprisers. However, even if such exchange of information is so, it cannot be readily concluded that there is an agreement between the enterprisers on the determination of the price under Article 19(1)1 of the Fair Trade Act merely because of the fact that the exchange of information was made. The determination on whether the said agreement can be ratified by comprehensively taking into account all the circumstances, such as the structure and characteristics of the relevant market, the nature of the exchanged information, the subject and timing of the exchange, the purpose and method of the exchange of information, the purpose and intent of the exchange of information, the degree of consistency or difference between the enterprisers in external shape and the amount of output after the exchange

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Du16951, Jul. 24, 2014). 2. The lower court did so.