2. Human telecom pande;

3. Inteur Korea Co., Ltd.

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

A. Status of the plaintiffs

The plaintiff's telecom (hereinafter referred to as "the plaintiff's telecom") manufactures a central data processing device (hereinafter referred to as "CPU") with its affiliates and sells it in the global market, and makes a final decision on the manufacture and sale of the CPU (hereinafter referred to as "CPU").

The plaintiff Lodu Rod" performs the duty of selling Intel CPU to computer manufacturers and sales companies (hereinafter referred to as "PC manufacturing companies") in Asia-Pacific area (PAC), agencies, etc., including the Republic of Korea.

Plaintiff Telecom Korea Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Plaintiff Telecom Korea”) is a local branch established in the Republic of Korea to sell in the Republic of Korea the Inc., Inc., and “Plaintiffs” (hereinafter “Plaintiffs”) shall collect and transfer the items, quantities, and prices, etc. of the Plaintiff’s CPU demand to Plaintiff Telecom, and consult with the other party to the transaction with respect to the transaction conditions, such as the price, quantity, etc. so that the Plaintiff can make a decision on whether or not the Plaintiff’s CPU was sold in the Republic of Korea or not.

B. Sales price of CPU

The Plaintiffs classified the PC’s major consumers of the Intel CPU into Category A, B, and C (Catery) according to the volume of purchase, market status, etc., and applied the same grade differently from the sales price by grade. The prices of sale are determined by directly negotiating with consumers to individually respond to the market competition situation, consumer demand, etc. In order to determine the CAP price discount and its size, etc., the Plaintiffs agree to jointly bear the expenses incurred in the PC’s production and new Intel CPU’s exercise, etc., and to jointly bear part of the actual expenses incurred in the PC’s production. It is called webdif (MDF3).

These EAP and MDF are ordinarily called ‘Libert'. The CPU business operator, such as the plaintiffs, uses the payment of rebates as a business for the sale of the CPU.

C. The defendant's corrective order and penalty surcharge payment order

On November 5, 2008, the defendant issued a corrective order and a penalty surcharge payment order on the ground that the following transactions (hereinafter referred to as the "transaction") of the plaintiffs correspond to Article 3-2 (1) 5 of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") and Article 5 (5) 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") by the plenary session Resolution No. 2008-295 (hereinafter referred to as the "resolution of this case") on November 5, 2008.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

[A] No dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 6, 30, and 51, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition procedure is lawful

(a) Resolution by an unauthorized member;

1) Plaintiffs’ assertion

Since the B member who signed the A member in the resolution of this case was dismissed before the resolution and was not entitled to participate in the resolution, the disposition of this case is null and void because there is a significant and obvious error in the non-authorized member.

2) As a result of the plenary session’s deliberation, in full view of the contents, structure, legislative purport, etc. of the provisions of Articles 42(1), 43(1) and (3), 45(1) and 48 of the Act on the Qualifications of Members, of the Fair Trade Commission, Articles 54(1) and (4), and 56 of the former Rules on the Operation of Meetings and the Procedure for Cases of the Fair Trade Commission (amended by the Fair Trade Commission Notice No. 2009-3, Mar. 27, 2009), the Defendant’s plenary session’s plenary session shall deliberate on the case, and shall make a resolution on the case in closed form after which the members participating in the agreement on the resolution affix their signatures and seals, and shall send an authentic copy of the written resolution to the respondent.

Therefore, it is necessary for individual members involved in the deliberation of the case and the agreement on the resolution to be valid until they sign and seal the written resolution, but it is not necessary to continue to maintain the qualification of members even during the period of time until other members and the Chairperson affix their signatures and seals after signing and sealing them.

3) Facts of recognition

On June 4, 2008, the plenary session of the Defendant completed the deliberation of the instant case on the instant transaction, and agreed on the same contents as the instant disposition. On October 6, 2008, B members of the instant case prepared the instant written resolution and signed and sealed it, and then dismissed from office on October 7, 2008, which is the following day. Thereafter, other members who participated in the agreement on the deliberation and resolution of the instant case and the said president affixed their signature and seal on the written resolution in sequence until November 5, 2008, and the original copy was served on the Plaintiff.

[Reasons for Recognition] Evidence No. 111, Evidence No. 74, the purport of the whole pleadings

4) Determination

Examining the above facts in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, since the members B of the instant resolution maintained the qualification of members at the time of the deliberation and resolution of the case by Defendant plenary session, as well as at the time of signing and sealing the written resolution of this case, it cannot be deemed that there is no procedural error as alleged by the Plaintiffs in the instant resolution. Therefore, this part of the Plaintiffs’ assertion

B. Infringement of right to state opinion

1) Plaintiffs’ assertion

At the stage of investigation and examination, the issue is whether the part related to AMF 64 bitU withdrawal falls under “unfair customer inducement” among the instant transaction, and the decision at the stage of resolution constitutes “exclusive transaction by the market manager” is an infringement upon the opportunity of the Plaintiffs to state their opinion that the transaction does not fall under exclusive transaction by the market manager and thus, constitutes a serious defect in the procedure.

2) Determination

In full view of the evidence No. 1 and evidence No. 51 and the purport of the entire pleadings, the defendant applied both the provision on prohibition of abuse of the position of the market controlling entity and the provision on prohibition of unfair customer inducement as to the part related to the 64 CPU of this case's transaction in the investigation and examination stage, but only the provision on prohibition of abuse of the position of the market controlling entity at the resolution stage. The plaintiffs actively present their opinions about "whether the transaction with respect to the withdrawal of the CPU of 64 CPU is intended to exclude the AMF, a competitor," and the facts of dispute over the application of the defendant's law. Accordingly, since the plaintiffs cannot be deemed to have violated the opportunity to state opinion as alleged above, this part of the plaintiffs' assertion is without merit.

3. Whether the ground for the instant disposition exists

(a) A market-dominating enterpriser;

1) Criteria for determining the recognition of a market dominant enterprise

In order to determine whether a certain business entity is a market-dominating position, the market based on the related goods or services (hereinafter referred to as "goods, etc.") which are the objects of the transaction in a certain transaction area where competition relations may arise and the market based on the related area which is the geographical range of the transaction (hereinafter referred to as "relevant goods, etc.") should be specifically determined and the possibility of control in the market should be recognized.

The relevant product market refers to the scope of goods, etc. in a competitive relationship that a market-dominating enterpriser generally controls the exercise of market power. Specifically, where the price of the traded goods, etc. increases or decreases at a certain level for a considerable period of time, it refers to a gathering of goods, etc. that can be converted to the purchase or sale in response thereto by a representative buyer or seller. The scope of such gathering shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account the price of the goods, etc. related to the transaction, the function and utility similarity, the number of buyers' substitutions, and related purchase behavior as well as the awareness of the substitutability of the sellers, the form of management decision related thereto, and the homogeneity and similarity of the business type recognized as social and economicly, etc. In addition, the technological development speed, other goods, etc. necessary for the production of the goods, etc., and other goods, etc. produced based on the goods, etc. shall also be considered (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2002Du826, Nov. 22, 2007; Supreme Court en banc Decision 2012.

(ii) the relevant markets;

A) Plaintiffs’ assertion

The Defendant regarded the pertinent market on the instant transaction (hereinafter referred to as the “instant market”) as the “domestic direct sales channel of the PCx86 affiliated CPU.” However, since the CPU (hereinafter referred to as “nonx86 affiliated CPU”) and the CPU for servers are mutually interchangeed with x86 affiliated CPU, both of them shall be included in the relevant goods. Since the CPU business operator sells the CPU by applying a single sales strategy to all the world markets, it shall be deemed the global market in accordance with the relevant CPU, and since the CPU business operator sells the CPU, it shall be deemed the CPU, as the CPU business operator sells a single sales strategy to all the world markets, the direct sales channel and the sales channel shall not be divided into different markets. Accordingly, the relevant market in this case shall be deemed the global CPU market.

B) Determination

(1) the market for the product concerned;

In light of the following circumstances, it is reasonable to view the product related to the instant transaction as “PCx86 CPU market” in light of the evidence Nos. 1, 42, 49, and 51, which can be acknowledged by adding the entire purport of the pleading to the statement of evidence Nos. 42, 49, and 51.

① The CPU of the x86 affiliated CPU and nonx86 affiliated CPU is largely divided into x86 affiliated CPU and ARM (AdanceC Mach), Pow PC CPU, SPAC, MIPS, etc.

First, affiliated CPU x86 is used for PC or small server computer such as the operation order in the form of CISx Inc.(hereinafter referred to as "OS") which is designed by the old operation system (hereinafter referred to as "OOS") in Window OSM, and mainly in the street north and the back 7).

However, nonx86 vertical CPU is primarily designed by the operation order terms in the form of RSC (RDC) and the old operation system in the form of a PEC other than Window OSM. Moreover, the CPU in the ARM is mainly used in cable method, satellite receiver, digital television, color racer, PDR, etc. In addition, PHU should be used in large financial institutions such as the company’s computer or bank that requires safety and safety, and SPAC CPU should be mainly used for the PEA, mobile communication device, digital camera, game machine, etc., and its price should be changed to the CPU’s design process and peripheral devices, etc., and should be changed to the CPU’s design performance and peripheral devices to more than the CPU’s design and peripheral devices than the CPU’s design and peripheral devices.

In full view of these circumstances, it is difficult to see that both the AR CPU, the MIPS CPU, the CPU or the SPAC CPU have a sufficient demand and supply substitution with x86 affiliated CPU.

② The non-alternative x86 CPU of the PCU and the CPU for server x 86 x has the CPU used in DT and the CPU for server PC. While the CPU only carries out one user’s order, the serverU continues to operate for 24 hours per 365 days, carries out several orders, and store large amount of data at the same time, it is much higher than the CPU, the CPU has much more high speed than the CPU for PC, and its stability is much greater than the CPU. Furthermore, the CPU’s design method differs from the CPU for PC, and the CPU’s price also differs from 100 to 150 (hereinafter the same shall apply) from the CPU to the CPU’s 300 to 3000-150 (hereinafter the same).

(2) The relevant geographical market refers to the geographical range in which business operators are generally competing with each other. Specifically, in cases where the price in all other areas increases or decreases within a certain period of time only in a certain region under certain circumstances, the relevant geographical market refers to the entire region in which representative buyers or sellers of the relevant region can convert purchase or sale in response thereto (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Du8626, Nov. 22, 2007).

In light of the above legal principles, the following circumstances, etc. that can be acknowledged by adding the overall purport of pleadings to the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 49, 51, 71, and 78, it is reasonable to view the relevant geographical market of the instant transaction as a domestic market (or, even if it is deemed a global market, the plaintiffs' market share in the global market exceeds 70% from 2001 to 2005, and as seen below, it is presumed that the plaintiffs are in the market dominant position, and thus, it does not affect its conclusion).

① The CPU business entity, such as the Plaintiff’s CPU business entity, etc., shall ordinarily divide the entire world into four regions, including: (a) North America and South America; (b) European, Middle East, Pacific; and (c) Ghana, the Pacific; and (d) establish local branches, such as the Plaintiff’s Republic of Korea, for each individual country. Local branches, present the market competition situation and response measures; (b) the CPU business entity, taking into account the current status of competitors and trends in the relevant country; and (c) establish a sales strategy suitable for the market competition situation. Accordingly, even if the CPU product is identical or similar to the CPU product, rebates for each country is paid differently. In fact, even if the trade cost, such as CPU transportation cost, has not been significantly occupied in the CPU price, the price was indicated in the CPU’s table, but there was a significant difference between the domestic market and the domestic market from 2005 to 2005.

CPU’s average annual price 8) ($$100)

A person shall be appointed.

In addition, the Intel CPU has a considerable difference between the domestic and other countries, such as that the average price of the defoli and the low sale will be 31 US$31 from 2001 to 2005 in Korea, Japan, etc., and that the maximum of 13 US$13 from the defoliation CPU would be different.Intel CPU's annual average price (unit: US$) by the Intel CPU.

A person shall be appointed.

In addition, the prices by item of the Intel CPU also differ in Korea and other countries as shown below. The difference between the plaintiffs' representative prices by item (unit: US$)

A person shall be appointed.

② 현지 지사를 통한 판매 정책국내의 대규모 PC 제조사인 삼성이나 삼보가 구매하는 경우와 같은 대량의 CPU 거래는 원고 인텔과 같은 CPU 사업자의 동의가 있어야 가능하다. 그런데 CPU 사업자는 PC 제조사가 다른 국가의 현지 지사에서 CPU를 대량으로 구매하는 것을 허용하지 않는 정책을 펴는 것으로 보인다. 이를 허용할 경우 그 구매자가 속한 해당 국가의 현지지사가 크게 반발할 것이 명백히 예상되기 떄문이다. 그리고 삼성이나 삼보는 대량의 CPU를 안정적으로 조달하기 위하여 CPU 사업자의 국내 지사로부터만 구매하였을 뿐이고, 다른 국가의 현지 지사로부터는 구매하거나 이를 위한 시도를 한 적이 없었다. 이런 구매행태는 예를 들어 2003년경 Intel CPU 가격이 국내 시장에서는 17% 정도 상승하였으나 아시아·태평양지역 시장에서는 상승하지 않았던 때에도 마찬가지였다.

③ Since the rapid and continuous technical support of the CPU’s core parts of computers vary depending on their technical characteristics, the CPU’s CPU’s CPU’s CPU’s CPU’s CPU’s CPU’s CPU’s CPU’s CPU’s CPU’s CPU’s CPU’s CPU’s CPU’s CPU’s CPU’s CPU’s CPU’s CPU’s CPU’s CPU’s CPU’s CPU’s CPU’s CPU’s CPU’s CPU’s CPU’s CPU’s CPU’s CPU’s CPU’s CPU’s CPU’s CPU’s

④ In addition, in light of the fact that the size of Samsung and Samsung mainly sells the PC, the domestic PC market is smaller than that of the United States or the EU, it is difficult to expect that Samsung and Samsung will procure the CPU in the U.S. or the EU market instead of the domestic market.

(5) Even if the CPU price at which the domestic PC manufacture was sold in Korea has increased to a certain level for a considerable period of time, it is practically impossible to purchase the CPU in another overseas market corresponding thereto.

(3) A market at the trading stage and the trading partner.

In light of the following circumstances that can be recognized by comprehensively taking account of the evidence adopted earlier, it is reasonable to see that the relevant transaction stage and the market for the other party according to the other party is the direct personal market.

① The CPU business entity directly sells the CPU to consumers or sells it through an agency, etc. (agency channel). Directboard channel is used when a large-scale PC manufacturer, such as Samsung and Twit, seeks to purchase the CPU in the inside of the CPU, and an agency channel is used when it is difficult for a small and medium-sized PC manufacturer or the PC assembly business entity to directly trade with the CPU business entity, such as the present city computer, treatment computer, etc., or when Samsung or Twit to procure a small amount of CPU because it is difficult for an agency channel to stably procure a large amount of CPU that requires a large amount of CPU due to its large quantity of CPU.

② Since the CPU’s CPU purchase volume of the PC manufacture, the PC market influence, the PC design ability, trademark value, etc. are different in negotiations, the CPU business entity, such as the Plaintiffs, etc., guarantees prompt technical assistance and AS (AS) at the time of lowering the final sales price by paying rebates to buyers by means of ECP and MDF, etc. However, as the agency channel does not pay ECP and MDF, etc., the final sales price is higher than the direct sales channel.

③ From 2000 to 2006, the Plaintiffs sold approximately 3 million CPU on an average of one year in the domestic CPU market. From 2000 to 2006, the Plaintiffs directly sold 66% of these CPU to three Samsung, Twit, LG electronics, and sold 33% of the remainder to small and medium-sized PC manufacturers, PC assembly suppliers, general consumers, etc.

④ Until before 2001, small and medium sized PC manufacturers purchased the CPU from the CPU on the CPU because they did not have a large quantity of purchase thereafter, they purchased the CPU from the CPU’s agency channel in order to directly deal with the CPU business.

C) Sub-decision

The defendant's measures are legitimate, which regard the pertinent market as 'PC x86 affiliated CPU's domestic direct market.

3) Whether the plaintiffs' market dominant position is recognized

A) Recognition of a market dominant position

In light of the following circumstances, the evidence Nos. 1 and 51, 59, 62, 69, 70, 72, and 73 in the statement of evidence Nos. 51, 59, 62, 69, 72, and 73, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiffs had a market dominant position in the

① According to Article 4 subparag. 1 of the Act, if the market share of one enterpriser is 50% or more, the enterpriser is presumed to be a market-dominating enterpriser in the relevant market. However, from 2001 to 2005, the Plaintiffs are presumed to be a market-dominating enterpriser, since the market share in the relevant market was 89.5-99.2%, average 95.3% as indicated below (the Plaintiffs held 70% shares in the world market) and the Plaintiffs are presumed to be a market-dominating enterpriser.

Market share related to each year of CPU business (unit: %)

A person shall be appointed.

② The CPU market is very high due to high level of production technology including intellectual property rights such as patent rights on the CPU, the rapid development speed of the CPU, the minimum amount of funds necessary for production, etc.

③ In fact, the Plaintiff’s competitor’s capital share, production capacity, and financial power are significantly more behind the Plaintiffs.

B) Determination of the plaintiffs' assertion on this issue

The plaintiffs asserted that the plaintiffs actually did not have a market dominant position that can determine, maintain, and change the terms and conditions of transaction, such as the sales price of the CPU, in full view of the following: ① Samsung and Samsung, the opposite contractual party of the transaction, as a PC manufacturer of the global scale, had strong negotiating power and demanded the plaintiffs to continue the price discount, ② the competition between Samsung and Samsung, and Samsung, to the extent that it should continue to pay rebates in the relevant market, and ③ the new CPU was circulated through technological innovation in the relevant market during the trading period, and the difference in the CP price, etc.

However, even if the evidence submitted by the plaintiffs was fully gathered, it is difficult to recognize the above ①, ② part of the circumstances, and the above circumstance of the plaintiffs' assertion cannot be deemed to reverse the legal presumption that the plaintiffs are in a market dominant position. Therefore, this part of the plaintiffs' assertion is without merit.

(b) Conditional transactions not conducted with competitors;

1) Samsung-related

A) The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiffs only paid the ECP, which is the price at each competitive item (sku) in consultation with Samsung on a quarterly basis in order to take a superior advantage of the competition because the part of the Intel CPU (sku) regulates competition with AMF, and there is no condition attached to the payment of ECP on the condition that Samsung does not trade with AMF.

B) Facts of recognition

(1) For the period of 2001, Samsung’s Samsung’s purchase of Samsung maintained 100% of PC’s Samsung SPS using only the CPU. However, since 2001, other PCs such as Samsung’s 3rd quarter of 2002, it was necessary to maintain the market share by appropriately responding to raising a considerable amount of performance by withdrawing AMF CPU PC from the home shopping circulation channel. Moreover, since the dependence on the Inte CPC is too high, it was too high to rely on the Intel CPC, and thus, it was difficult to properly respond to the unstable and insufficient supply of the Intel CPU. In order to improve the unstable and insufficient situation, it was 30% increased from the first quarter of 2002 to the 3rd quarter of 40% increased from the 3rd quarter of 2000.

A person shall be appointed.

(2) Payment of conditional rebates

The plaintiffs suggested that the ECP should be paid more than before the condition that Samsung continued not to manufacture and sell the Home shopping AMF to Samsung from the first half of 2001, when Samsung prepared for the departure of AMF CPUPC, until April 2002. However, Samsung rejected the proposal considering the difference between the plaintiffs and its opinions on the purpose of introducing AMF CPU and the timing of suspending purchase.

In May 2002, the plaintiffs proposed a long-term support plan (the long-term support plan, hereinafter referred to as the "long-term support plan") to suspend the manufacture and sale of the AMF for home shopping purposes until March 3/4, 2002, purchase 100% of the CPU's purchase volume into the Intel CPU, i.e., payment of 7% large-scale ECP on March 4, 2002 on condition of 10% of the purchase price to the Intel 100%, as well as payment of ECP on a quarterly basis of ECP to the maximum extent possible support of the ECP. The plaintiffs proposed a long-term support plan (the long-term support plan, hereinafter referred to as the "the plaintiff's purchase of Samsung within the period of 200% from 3/4th quarter of 200 to 240% of the plaintiff's purchase of Samsung and its payment to the Samsung PCP during the period of 2000%.

(3) Since the first quarter of March 2005, the Defendant’s resumption of the instant transaction, starting to investigate the violation of the law against the Plaintiffs, the Plaintiffs did not attach the Plaintiffs’ SamsungMS to maintain at 100% as the condition for the payment of rebates, such as ECP, and Samsung again manufactured and sold AMF CPUPC.

[Basis] Evidence Nos. 1, 1 through 6, 20 through 26, 29, 30, 33 through 36, 39 through 43, 46, 47, 51, 80, 81 of the evidence Nos. 1, 20 through 26, 29, 30, 33 through 46, 39 through 43, 46, 47, 51, 80, and 81

C) Determination

According to the above facts, from March 4, 2002 to February 4, 2005, the Plaintiffs agreed to pay the ECP to Samsung, on condition that Samsung will maintain 100% of Samsung ms of Samsung, under the condition that it sells the Intertel CPU to Samsung, and that it will maintain 100% of Samsung. Accordingly, in order for Samsung to receive ECP from the Plaintiffs, it should not appropriately adjust the CPU purchase ratio between artificial telecom and AmD, and only the Intel CPU should be purchased whenever the total purchase volume increases compared with the previous or originally anticipated increase. Therefore, the Plaintiffs are correct to deem that Samsung, the opposite contractual party, was conditionally traded with the competitor that it does not trade with the competitor.

2) As regards Trron:

A) Plaintiffs’ assertion

The plaintiffs did not offer rebates from the home shopping circulation channel on the condition that the plaintiff would not use the AMD CPU. The plaintiff paid rebates. The plaintiff merely increased the ratio of the Intel CPU on its own business needs and judgment. ② The plaintiff did not pay MPF on the cl cl cl cl cl cl cl cl cl cl cl cl cl cl cl cl cl cl cl cl cl cl cl cl cl cl cl cl cl cl cl cl cl cl cl cl cl cl cl cl cl cl cl cl cl cl cl cl cl cl cl cl cl cl cl cl cl

B) Facts of recognition

(1) From 2001, a large-scale PC manufacturer such as Samsung, Samsung, and other large-scale PC manufacturer manufactured the Inc. CPU PC and sold it through a general distribution channel such as a company's agent, hybrid, discount store, etc., unlike the fact that the PC in which the AMFU is loaded was manufactured and sold in the home shopping channel, the strategy of manufacturing the PC and selling it in the CJ Home shopping and GS home shopping (at that time, LG home shopping) was higher than that of other PC manufacturer. In addition, since 1/4th quarter of 2002, various PC manufacturer including Samsung, including Samsung et al. maintained a high market share of the AM PC, but the 30% market share of the plaintiffs remains below the 30% market share of the Home shopping channel.

Accordingly, the plaintiffs suspended the manufacture of Samsung's AMF CPU PC for March 3/4, 2002, and suggested that the three-fourths of the three-fourths of the three-fourths of the three-fourths of the CPU, both the CPU, which are loaded in the Home shopping PC, should be transferred from AMF to the Intel CPU. However, the three-fourths of the three-fourths of the CPU, refused to offer a considerable amount of rebates on the condition that the transfer of all the CPU to the Home shopping PC from AMF into the Intel CPU. However, the conflict between the general distribution channel operator and the interests of the CPU would occur. In this process, the ratio of the AMF CPU CPU PC to the AMF CPU 62% in the second quarter of February 2003.

From the end of February 2003, the plaintiffs paid rebates to CJ home shopping, etc. on condition of selling at least a certain quantity of the Inte CPUPC or broadcasting more than a certain number of times. At the beginning of March 4, 2003, the plaintiffs agreed to pay a large amount of rebates as indicated in the table on the condition that "Inte CPU, in lieu of inserting ACPU on the Home shopping PC in lieu of inserting it on the Home shopping PC, the three-yearly PC shall keep the Inc. CPS as 100% at 10% in lieu of loading it on the Home shopping PC." At that time, accelerators did not know well in the general distribution channel, so it was not likely that conflict between circulation channels may occur even if it was loaded on the Home shopping PC, and at the same time, three-yearly 10% in the ACP 40% in lieu of the ACPU 40% in a quarter from March 4, 2003.

3. The rebates paid to 3.

A person shall be appointed.

(2) On September 25, 2003, AMD 64 CPU ex officio, the Defendant planned to participate in the ex officio of the AMD 64 bit CPU (hereinafter “ex officio”) which was opened on September 25, 2003, and completed the development of the PPC (hereinafter “AMD 64 bit CPU”) on which the AMD 64 CPU was loaded. However, the Plaintiffs did not present the ex officio ex officio and the AM 64 bit CPU CPU PC on a large scale than 30 bit 64 bit CPU 64 bit CPU before and after the ex officio of the AM 64 CPU ex officio. The Plaintiffs did not accept the ex officio of the instant CP before and after the ex officio of the CP 60 CPU on a more quarterly basis than 30 bitU 40 bitU 64 bitU PC’s ex officio of the instant case.

Details of quarterly MDF receipt (units: US$)

A person shall be appointed.

(3) The maintenance point of the percentage of the Intel CPU’s filing in an accommodation PC is that the market share in the area north America was 10% or more after manufacturing the AMD CPU’s PC and exporting its whole quantity to the area north America around the end of February 2003. In addition, the domestic market was released to the domestic market during the second quarter of February 2004. In order to respond to the AMD CPU’s CPU’s CPU’s manufacturing and selling other small and medium PCs manufacturing and manufacturing, the AM64 CPU began to put the AM CPU into the GM PC in March 4, 2004. In this process, the AM CPU’s filing ratio in the AM CPU CP in the first quarter was increased by 2.4% more than 5% more than that in the second quarter of 2004, and the total export CPU’s domestic and export 50% of the AM.

Accordingly, the plaintiffs agreed to pay a large amount of rebates on the condition that the payment is delayed due to the delay in negotiations on the payment of rebates such as EECP in the third quarter of March 2004, and that "Triang shall maintain at least 70% of the IntelU ratio among the CPU, which is listed in the accommodation PC after April 4, 2004." Accordingly, the plaintiffs maintained at least 70% of the Intel CPU ratio listed in the accommodation PC during the fourth quarter of April 2004.

[Reasons for Recognition] Gap's evidence Nos. 1, 59, 60, 80, Eul's evidence Nos. 1 through 6, 39, 40, 41, 42, 44, 46, 47, 48, 51, 57, 82, and 83, witness D, E, and F's testimony, and the purport of the whole pleadings

C) Determination

In light of the legislative purpose of promoting competition in a monopoly-dominating market, it is reasonable to deem that not only cases where a market-dominating business entity does not make any transaction with a competitor at all, but also cases where the free trade between a competitor and a competitor is restricted so that a competitor is made to make a transaction at a certain ratio less than a certain ratio out of his/her total trade with a competitor.

In full view of the above facts of recognition and the following circumstances revealed thereby, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiffs paid rebates on the condition that the third party did not trade with competitors while selling the Inc. CPU on the third party.

① The Plaintiffs, while selling the Intel CPU, paid ECP under the condition that the CMFU is not entirely used in the Home shopping PC.

② The Plaintiffs paid MPF in return for the fact that TMF did not engage in transactions with AMF and new AMF 64 CPU.

③ As long as the condition attached to the payment of ECP to maintain at least 70% of the 3rd ms of telecom while selling the Intel CPU in Sambu, the Plaintiffs should always purchase 30% or less of the 30% of the 3rd ms of AMF in order to receive ECP from the Plaintiffs. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs traded 3rd ms on the condition that the 3rd ms should not be traded more than a certain percentage with AMF.

3) Determination on the plaintiffs' additional assertion

A) Claim concerning the application of Article 5(5)2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act

The plaintiffs asserted that the application of Article 5 (5) 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act to the case where the market dominant enterpriser uses the "price" as a means to exclude competitors is a problem, and that Article 5 (5) 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act is a problem, and that Article 5 (5) 2 of the Act is applied to the case where other means than the price are used. Since the ECP paid by the plaintiffs to Samsung and Samsung is a price for competition, it is unlawful for the defendant to apply Article 5 (5) 2

However, there is no legal basis or reasonable ground for interpreting Article 5(5)1 and 5(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act, as alleged by the plaintiffs. This part of the plaintiffs' assertion is without merit.

B) Claim on the detention of the condition attached to the instant transaction

The plaintiffs asserted that the condition attached to the instant transaction (hereinafter referred to as “instant condition”) is not binding on Samsung or Samsung, and thus the instant transaction cannot be deemed a condition attached to the instant transaction.

However, in light of the future circumstances revealed by the evidence adopted earlier, it is reasonable to view that the condition of this case is binding to prevent Samsung and Samsung from being traded with AMF, in that Samsung and Samsung should comply with the condition of this case and lower the cost of manufacture of the PC in order for Samsung to secure competitiveness as a PC manufacture. Accordingly, this part of the Plaintiffs’ assertion is without merit.

① If Samsung and Samsung purchased the CPU with a very low operating profit rate of the PC sector, which accounts for approximately 10-20% of the total cost of the PC main body, and did not receive rebates, the final purchase price of the CPU and the cost of manufacturing the PC would have a rise in the chain of chain, thereby undermining the competitiveness in the PC market. However, inasmuch as the contract was concluded with the plaintiffs who purchased Samsung and Samsung Twit’s CPU either entirely or at a certain rate as a condition of suspension for receiving rebates, it may lose the right to claim rebates payment of rebates to the plaintiffs.

② Even if Samsung and Samsung violated the instant condition by purchasing AMF CPU, it does not undergo any sanctions other than the disadvantage that the Plaintiffs were unable to receive rebates. However, in the absence of sufficient grounds to determine that the total economic profit, which Samsung and Samsung may obtain from the purchase of Samsung and Samsung, is greater than the economic disadvantage, such as the loss of rebates, etc., the purchase of AMF CPU does not have any economic reason.

③ Moreover, as indicated below, Samsung did not exceed 3% of the PC partially operating profit ratio (Evidence No. 64) and the amount of rebates paid by the Plaintiffs to Samju was ordinarily 2.6-5.4% of the purchase amount of Samsung Samsung CPU, and it seems that the difference was not different (Evidence No. 65).

The annual operating profit ratio of Samsung & Samsung for each part of the PC

A person shall be appointed.

(4) On the other hand, as long as the plaintiffs were in the market dominant position in the relevant market of this case, they actually agreed on and implemented the conditional transactions of Samsung, Samsung, and Samsung, and the instant conditional transactions, and the instant disposition is not an issue itself about the payment of rebates, but is an issue about the conditions attached to the payment of rebates, it is not necessary that the instant transactions were binding as the meaning that Samsung and Samsung did not have to accept the offer of rebates payment. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs’ additional assertion on this issue is without merit.

C) As to the causal relationship between the instant transaction and the abuse of market power

The plaintiffs asserts that the payment of rebates to Samsung and Samsung is merely a normal price for this device in AMF and competition, and that it is irrelevant to the abuse of market power by the plaintiffs as market dominant business entities.

However, in full view of the following reasons, it is reasonable to view that such an act is not necessary due to the abuse of market dominant power by a market dominant enterprise under Article 3-2 (1) 5 of the Act, in establishing a conditional act by a market dominant enterprise under Article 3-2 (1) 5 of the Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200Da32488, Apr. 1, 200). Accordingly,

① There is room to view the Plaintiffs’ payment of rebates itself as a type of price discount, which is a legitimate means for price competition between the Plaintiffs and AMF. However, the Plaintiffs demanded, as a condition for the payment of rebates, that Samsung and Samsung do not purchase them entirely or at least at a certain ratio. Therefore, the instant conditional transactions are the same as the instant conditional transactions where the terms and conditions for the payment of rebates are only purchased more than the specific quantity of Samsung or Samsung Creat (in such a case, setting aside whether it constitutes an exclusive dealing).

② Article 3-2(1) of the Act provides that “The market-dominating enterpriser shall not engage in any act falling under any of the following subparagraphs (hereinafter referred to as “abusing act”),” and it does not require any specific abusive act in the following subparagraphs, and further, it does not require any specific abusive act due to the market dominant power of the market dominant enterpriser. In addition, when examining the specific abusive act prescribed in each subparagraph, Article 3-2(1) of the Act stipulates that the market-dominating enterpriser’s act of restricting free competition by abusing its market dominant power is prescribed as the above specific abusive act.

③ Although a market dominant enterpriser’s transaction appears to fall under any of the above specific abusive practices, if it is not completely related to the market dominant power, such circumstance may be sufficiently considered in determining the illegality of such transaction.

(c) Improper;

1) Plaintiffs’ assertion

The market share in the CPU market is rapidly changing every quarter, as well as the market share of AMF has continuously increased. Since the Defendant’s erroneous market definition, even if the relevant market share has been reduced at a time due to the Defendant’s erroneous market definition, it cannot be readily concluded that such decline in the market share has occurred due to the restriction on competition in the instant trade. Moreover, as AMF had been sufficiently replaced customers despite the instant trade, and was paid quarterly, the period of violation of the Act was insufficient to prevent the entry into the market. Furthermore, there is no evidence to prove that the instant trade caused the instant trade to the effect of restricting competition, such as the CPU and PC’s price increase and calculation volume, the impairment of technological innovation, and the reduction of product diversity, there is no evidence to prove that the instant trade has continued to decline during the instant trade period, and the CPU and PC price has continuously improved during the instant trade period. Moreover, the Plaintiffs’ rebates payment, after discount, did not benefit consumers by promoting competition within the scope of expenses.

2) Article 3-2(1)5 of the Standards for Determination of “unfairness” and Article 5(5)2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act should be interpreted in line with the legislative purpose, “unfairness of an exclusive dealing,” which is defined as an abuse of a market-dominating position by a market-dominating entity. Therefore, the illegality may be recognized when an exclusive dealing, which is objectively assessed as an act likely to cause the effect of restricting competition, is conducted, with the aim of maintaining and strengthening monopolys in the market, by restricting free competition in the market, and by artificially restricting competition in the market.

Therefore, the illegality of an exclusive transaction as an abuse of a market dominant position should be determined by comprehensively taking into account various circumstances, such as the purpose and mode of the transaction, market share of a market dominant enterprise, the degree of blocking opportunities for competitors to enter or expand the market, the increase in expenses, the period of transaction, the change in the price and output in the relevant market, the existence of similar goods and adjacent markets, the innovation and the decrease in diversity (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Du16322, Jun. 10, 201).

3) Determination

Comprehensively taking account of the above facts, the evidence adopted earlier and the evidence as well as the facts revealed in the evidence Nos. 37, 38, and 70 as well as the overall purport of the pleadings, the instant transaction is recognized as improper on the ground that the Plaintiffs’ intent or purpose was artificially intended to affect the market order by restricting free competition in the relevant market, and that there was a concern that such restriction might have an effect of restricting competition. Therefore, this part of the Plaintiffs’ assertion is without merit.

① At the time of the instant transaction’s intent or purpose, Samsung mainly loaded with the dead CCPU in the domestic PC market, and had a market share as indicated below as a PC manufacturer. At the time of the instant transaction, not only the Intel CPU but also the Intel CPU, the market share was two higher than the market share.

Samsung’s annual domestic PC market share

A person shall be appointed.

However, the expansion of the CPU’s market share and operating profit ratio in Samsung PC instead of the Intel CPU in PC would immediately have a significant impact on the market share and operating profit ratio. Moreover, in the mid- to long-term domestic PC market, LG electronic, small and medium-sized PC manufacturer, which is a large-scale PC manufacturer, has pressure on increasing the ratio of AMF CPU in order to promote the price competition. As such, the Intel CPU should have more strict competition between the Plaintiff’s operating profit and market share by using the AMF CPU and the price discount. In order to prevent the expansion of Samsung CP’s market share from 2002, the pertinent market share of the instant case, which had been less than 2% prior to Samsung 202, should be able to take into account the strong market share of Samsung CP’s new trading with the Plaintiff’s market share in order to prevent the expansion of Samsung CP’s new trading with the Plaintiff’s market share.

② The instant transaction behavior

Under the terms of the instant case, Samsung and Samsung under the condition of the said case, it is necessary to purchase at least 70 per cent of its total CPU’s CPU’s total CPU’s CPU’s CPU’s CPU’s CPU’s CPU’s CPU’s CPU’s CPU’s CPU’s CPU’s CPU’s CPU’s CPU’s CPU’s CPU’s CPU’s CPU’s CPU’s CPU’s CPU’s CPU’s CPU’s CPU’s CPU’s CPU’s CPU’s CPU’s CPU’s CPU’s CPU’s CPU’s CPU’s CPU’s CPU’s CPU’s CPU’s CPU’s CPU’s CPU’s increase

In addition, in the instant trade, the Plaintiffs, once sold Samsung or Twit at the CAP price, which is a standard price for the CPU at the CAP price, used the method of paying the ECP after the end of the pertinent quarter. Accordingly, whether the Plaintiffs are obligated to pay the ECP according to the fulfillment of the instant condition can be determined after the end of the pertinent quarter. In order to do so, it is insufficient to confirm the details of the transaction between the Plaintiffs and Samsung or Twit Cross. Furthermore, it is necessary to verify whether the Plaintiffs have made the transaction with the competitor and its details, and even if the transaction details were to be confirmed. Accordingly, Samsung or Twit may also reduce the scope of the transaction details that the Plaintiffs, who are one of the parties to the trade, should provide the Plaintiffs with the relevant data so that they can verify their business activities. However, the Plaintiffs may have a de facto monitoring method of the transaction with the competitor or Twit assistant. Moreover, the Plaintiffs may refuse to pay the rebates in proportion to the scope of the Plaintiff’s transaction in question and its scope.

③ The CPU requires high technological capacity and high financial capacity as a core part of the computer to prevent competitive enterprisers from entering the market or expanding opportunities to enter the market. In the relevant market of this case, only foreign business entities, such as Plaintiff, who are capable of manufacturing and supplying the CPU, and Plaintiff, as well as AMF, could supply the CPU at an average of 95% as seen earlier, as the Plaintiff’s market share is 95%, in order for competitors to compete with the Plaintiffs, for instance, even if Plaintiff, as Plaintiff, a local branch, established and operated a domestic office for business and technical support, it is necessary to secure more and more necessary sales than a certain size by collectively selling the CPU into the domestic large-scale PC manufacturing industry. This is the same due to the lack of necessary cost expenditure, and the lack of possibility of increase in sales, as well as the reduction or expansion of sales revenue, in the case of Plaintiff, a large scale of less than the market-dominating business entity or the market-dominating market-dominating business entity.

In addition, if the act of the market dominant enterpriser is not eradicated, the CPU enterpriser does not guarantee free competition in the relevant market of this case, and thus, it is clear that the plaintiffs' minimum market share necessary for subsidization of expenses cannot be ensured, and it does not release the plaintiffs' new products that may compete with the already preferred products to the related market. Therefore, even if the plaintiffs' payment of rebates such as ECP was made only for the intel CPU products that are actually competing with the AMFU, it is effective to prevent other CPU which is in a competitive relationship in the future from entering the market of this case and conducting competition in the related market of this case.

(A) Change in the market share of the instant transaction act

At each time of the instant transaction, AMF lost its capacity as a large customer, or reduced its trading size. However, due to the number of the parties to the transaction, status and size of Samsung and Twit, etc. in the relevant market, it did not find a purchaser as a substitute for the purchase of Samsung and Twit, and the market share decreased rapidly as follows.

A person shall be appointed.

In other words, the market share of AMF in the relevant market of this case was at least 1.1 to 1.2% until the first quarter of 2002, but it was difficult for Samsung to launch the AMF CPU PC in the first quarter of 2002, and the rise of up to 8% in the second quarter of 2002. However, since the plaintiffs commenced to launch Samsung and the field trading from March 4, 2002, Samsung suspended the purchase of AMF CPU in the fourth quarter of 2002, the plaintiffs turned down to almost all times in the fourth quarter of 202.

In addition, since the market share of AMF from January 1/4, 2004 was developed and sold AMF CPU PC to a foreign market, the increase has continuously increased to 16.7% in March 4, 2004 due to the continuous increase in sales of AMF CPU CPU PC, etc. to the home shopping PC market, etc., which was reduced to less than 4% in February 2/4, 2005 since the first quarter of April 4, 2004 agreed again with the plaintiffs and implemented the instant transaction.

On the other hand, in the home shopping PC market, the sales volume of the AMF continued to increase as follows, and the share of AMF began to increase above the plaintiffs and reached 60% around February 4, 2003, but the plaintiffs paid rebates to the CJ Home shopping around March 2003, while the plaintiffs made an intensive payment of rebates to the CJ Home shopping around the quarter of 2003. At the same time, the 3rd used AMFU agreed with the plaintiffs to conduct the conditional transactions in this case, and the market share of AMD decreased below the previous level.

A person shall be appointed.

(5) Where an exclusive dealing by a market-dominating enterpriser over a long-term period of the instant transaction continues to be performed in order to achieve the same purpose, the entire act shall be deemed one act, except in extenuating circumstances.

The plaintiffs intended to strengthen their market power by weakeninging the competitiveness of AMF by preventing the market share of the first degree Samsung from being traded with AMF in the relevant market of this case, and from March 4, 2002, Samsung and "Trisung will not enter into force with AMF." Since 2002, the plaintiffs negotiated with Samsung to determine specific ECP scale to be supported every quarter from February 2/4, 2005, and paid ECP in order to determine the specific ECP scale to be supported every quarter from March 4, 2002 to February 4, 2005. Thus, it is reasonable to view that the whole ECP was one act as one of the whole from March 2/4, 2002 to the quarter 2/4, 2005.

In addition, the plaintiffs continued to have continued to maintain and strengthen the plaintiffs' market power by preventing the expansion of the competitiveness of AMF by preventing transaction with AMF 2. The plaintiffs did not participate in the events at the time of delivery of AMF 64 non-use CPU p.m., and purchase at least 30% of AMF cU.m. among domestic-use PC at the time of delivery. Thus, it is reasonable to view that the instant transaction related to CMF continued to be one act as a whole during the quarter from March 4, 2003 to February 4, 2005.

As above, the period for which the plaintiffs engaged in the instant transaction with Samsung Samsung T&T is three years long and two years short, and there is a sufficient period to exclude competitors in the relevant market.

④ The PC market reduced the consumer welfare in the PC market, which is the direct backside market of the pertinent market, because the product diversity in the PC market was reduced due to the instant transaction involving the reduction of consumer welfare, such as that Samsung and Samsung did not release AMF at all, or limitation on production or items. The consumer welfare was reduced in the PC market, which is the direct backside market of the relevant market, because Samsung and Samsung were subject to limitation on the consumer’s choice of products to preference AMF CPU PC because the product diversity in the PC market was reduced.

(1) Other circumstances.

Inasmuch as the instant disposition is not itself that the Plaintiffs paid rebates to Samsung and Samsung, but rather subject to the payment of rebates, it is problematic that Samsung and Samsung C&T did not trade with AMF, and as long as the instant trade with which these conditions are attached is likely to cause economic restrictions on the grounds as seen earlier, even if the Plaintiffs’ final sale price after the payment of rebates exceeds the CPU production cost, such circumstance does not constitute a major factor to determine whether the instant conditional trade is effective in restricting competition.

In addition, it is recognized that the Plaintiffs’ payment of rebates on a large scale of Samsung and Twitland through the instant transaction, thereby resulting in the decline in the final purchase price of Samsung and Twitland and the cost of manufacture of the CPU PC, and only the InteU PC, the consumer welfare increase due to the decline in part of the PC price. However, even if all the evidence presented in the instant case were collected, it is difficult to recognize that the consumer welfare increase effect due to the instant transaction is larger than the consumer welfare decrease effect due to the instant transaction, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this differently.

An abuse of market dominant position by a market dominant enterpriser, the related market at which competition restriction is effective due to competition restriction may include not only the market to which a market dominant enterpriser or a competitor belongs, but also the market which supplies raw materials, parts, semi-finished goods, etc. necessary for the production of goods in the market, or the market which produces new goods after being supplied with goods produced in the market (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 2002Du8626, Nov. 22, 2007). Thus, the related market at which the market dominant position is recognized as a market dominant position and the related market at which competition restriction is at issue by the abuse of market dominant position is not to coincide with the market at issue. Furthermore, the competition protected by

Therefore, the illegality of the instant transaction should be recognized if the purpose of the instant transaction is to artificially affect the market room by restricting free competition in the domestic direct market of PCU x86 affiliated CPU, and objectively evaluate the act as an act likely to cause the effect of such restriction of competition.

4. Determination on the plaintiffs' assertion

(a) Completion of prescription for the disposition;

The plaintiffs asserted that the statute of limitations has expired for the part related to Samsung from March 4, 2002 to March 4, 2003 and the part related to March 4, 2003 and the part related to the launch of Samsung, among the instant trade, was completed.

However, as seen earlier, the instant transaction pertains to a single act as a whole for Samsung and Samsung. The Plaintiffs’ assertion that differs from this premise is without merit.

(b) in violation of the principle of clarity;

The plaintiffs asserted that the corrective order of this case violates the principle of clarity, because it is unclear that the part prohibiting the act of offering rebates on condition that the ratio of Intel CPU is no less than a certain percentage or the act of offering rebates is prohibited under the condition that it is loaded on board.

However, as seen earlier, it is unreasonable for the Plaintiffs to pay rebates on the condition that they maintain at least 70% of the CPU, which is contained in the accommodation PC, to the extent that they should be maintained as the Intel CPU.

In addition, the condition that such “intel’s transfer of more than a certain percentage” is an excessive restriction on the free economic activities of the transaction partner for the reasons as seen earlier, regardless of the certain percentage. Accordingly, the Defendant issued a corrective order to the Plaintiffs to the effect that “the transaction partner is prohibited from paying rebates on the condition that the transaction partner would maintain or load at a certain percentage of the IntelU ratio” to prohibit the payment of conditional rebates, and the Plaintiffs can sufficiently know these circumstances through the written resolution of this case. Therefore, the expression “at least a certain percentage” among the corrective order of this case cannot be deemed to violate the principle of clarity. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs’ assertion on this part is without merit.

C. Necessity of imposing penalty surcharges;

The plaintiffs asserts that the defendant's imposition of penalty surcharge is unlawful in light of the fact that the defendant did not obtain any illegal economic benefits through the instant trade.

However, as seen earlier, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiffs obtained unfair economic benefits through the instant transaction, since the instant transaction could have reduced consumer welfare and have an effect of restricting competition. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs’ allegation in this part is without merit.

(d) the calculation of the relevant sales;

1) Plaintiffs’ assertion

Of the plaintiffs' sales, the sales revenue related to LG electronic, which is unrelated to the instant transaction, and the sales revenue related to Samsung and Samsung, which is irrelevant to the payment of the instant rebates, should be excluded from the relevant sales revenue.

2) Determination

According to the comparison of the Enforcement Decree [Attachment 2] 2. A of the Act, the scope of related sales shall be determined individually and specifically in consideration of the type and nature of the goods which are directly or indirectly affected by the violation, transaction area, transaction partner, transaction stage, etc.

However, the plaintiffs, as seen earlier, have conducted the instant transaction in the domestic PC market with the intent or purpose of blocking the use of AMFU to the LG electronic, which is another PC manufacturer, in case where the 1st degree of the market share in the domestic PC market calls for AMF CPU PC or the 2nd degree of the market share increase in the sale of AMF CPU PC, not only between Samsung and Twit, but also between LG electronic, which is another PC manufacturer. Therefore, it is reasonable to view that the instant transaction directly or indirectly affects LG electronic.

In addition, the instant transaction pertains to the prevention of Samsung and Samsung from entirely purchasing ACPU itself or from purchasing more than a certain percentage regardless of the AMFU on the part of Samsung and Samsung. As such, all IntelU, which the Plaintiffs traded with Samsung and Samsung, constitutes the direct subject of the instant transaction. Moreover, insofar as the instant transaction aims to block the existence of competitiveness in the relevant market by the competitor, the effect of the exclusion of competitors ought to be seen not only to the competitive product, but also to the other products with potential competition relations.

Therefore, it is lawful that the Defendant calculated the entire sales amount of the goods related to the instant transaction period as related sales amount. Therefore, this part of the Plaintiffs’ assertion is without merit.

5. Conclusion

The plaintiffs' claims are dismissed in entirety for lack of reasonable grounds.

Judges Noh Jeong-il

Judges Jeong Jae-ok

2) Exce is an abbreviationd name of the CAP made by the CAP. The ECP means the price at a discount after the CAP, and it also means the difference between the price at a discount and the CAP.

3) It is the abbreviationd name of MDF1. hereinafter referred to as MDF1.

4) As of the end of 2006, major business operators manufacturing and selling CPU in the global market are Plaintiffs, Advanced Micro (hereinafter “AMD”), International Busi Business Management Corporation (IBM) etc.

5) hereinafter referred to as “AMD CPU”).

6) The word “Market Severe” is the word “ms” and the market share in the subdivided market, i.e., the subdivided market by consumers, such as age Samsung and Cron, means the market share in the Samsung sector; hereinafter referred to as “mS.”).

7) hereinafter referred to as "DT".

8) The CPU price is the price calculated by dividing the annual sales of the CPU’s direct channel by the total sales of the CPU without distinction between the pattern and use.

9) The ratio occupied by the Intel CPU among the CPU used by the Crel cel PC for the home shopping circulation channel

10) A large number of white Nations methods for ex post facto payment of rebates in the CPU transaction, etc.

A person shall be appointed.