1. In cases where an agreement, such as price determination, etc., as stipulated under Article 19(1)1 of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act (hereinafter “Fair Trade Act”) and an act of enforcement based on such agreement has been terminated, the “the date on which the unfair collaborative act was terminated” refers to the date on which the act of enforcement is terminated. Therefore, in order to terminate an unfair collaborative act by a part of the enterprisers participating in the agreement, an act contrary to the agreement, such as explicitly or implicitly declaring their withdrawal from the agreement with the other enterprisers and reducing the price level at which they would have existed without the collusion according to their independent judgment. In addition, in order to deem that an unfair collaborative act has been terminated with respect to all the enterprisers participating in the agreement, there should be circumstances to deem that each enterpriser engaged in an act contrary to the agreement, such as reducing the price level at which the enterprisers would have existed without the collusion, or that each enterpriser engaged in the agreement has de facto terminated the collusion through the repetitive price competition, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 207Du174, Oct. 23, 207.

2. Review of the reasoning of the lower judgment and the evidence duly admitted reveals the following circumstances.

A. The Plaintiff, Yangyang Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “stock company” in its name omitted), eco system, eco system, eco system, IMN, IMN, Coenex, and Corroteon (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff, etc.”) agreed from March 6, 2008 to June 24, 2008 to determine “the standard price for waste asbestos reclamation” applicable from July 1, 2008 through the representative meeting, the business team leader meeting, etc., as KRW 250,00 per ton, and carried out the agreement (hereinafter referred to as “instant collaborative act”).

B. The “base price” agreed by the Plaintiff, etc. is not the final transaction price, but the reference price for determining the supply price or the selling price in an individual transaction. However, from July 2008 to July 2013, the actual monthly average price per ton, which the Defendant deemed from July 2013, as the termination date of the instant collaborative act, was a very large change.

C. From July 2, 2008, the Plaintiff et al. set the price close to the base price for two to three months. However, from October 11, 2008 to October 11, 2008, Swiftships decreased the waste asbestos reclamation price from KRW 217,00 to KRW 150,000, and from KRW 213,00 to KRW 15,000 to KRW 213,00, and even thereafter, it maintained the price reduction by the large width until July 2013.

D. Accordingly, the Plaintiff gradually lowered the waste asbestos reclamation price. Around November 2009, the Plaintiff reduced the price of KRW 174,000 to the extent that it is clearly distinguished from its relocation, and thereafter maintained a considerable reduced price situation compared with the base price for up to two years until November 2011, the Plaintiff appears to have maintained 200,000 won as a substitute for the period from January 201 to July 2013. These circumstances can be found in the same way as in the case of the East Epico and the Ecco system.

E. After the Plaintiff et al. agreed on the base price, the ○○○○ Development, as a new company, entered each market around September 2008 and around March 2009 by the △△△△△△△ industry, thereby deepening competition in the waste asbestos reclamation market. In addition, the Defendant informed of the instant agreement and conducted the first on-site investigation around October 2008 and the second on-site investigation around November 201. Accordingly, it seems difficult for the Plaintiff et al. to maintain the instant collaborative act.

F. It is difficult to find out the records that the Plaintiff, etc. took specific measures for the continuous maintenance and implementation of the agreement, or discussed and implemented sanctions against the business operators who failed to comply with the agreement.

3. Examining these circumstances in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, it is reasonable to view that, at least from September 2009 to November 11, 2009, multiple enterprisers including the Plaintiff reduced the price by a large amount compared with the base price, and the price difference by company was considerably high for each time. Therefore, the instant agreement by the Plaintiff et al. was de facto reversed through repeated price competition among the enterprisers, etc., inasmuch as the agreement by the Plaintiff et al. was reached at least on November 2009.

Therefore, although it is inappropriate for the lower court to view that the Plaintiff withdrawn from the instant collaborative act on November 2009, the lower court was unlawful, based on the premise that the instant collaborative act was terminated on or around November 2009, the Defendant’s disposition, which calculated the penalty surcharge, including related sales, was unlawful. In so doing, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the termination of the unfair collaborative act, etc., or by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical

4. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Ko Young-han (Presiding Justice)