Where there is a defect in the imposition of a penalty surcharge, the agency which has issued an administrative disposition may cancel or change it by itself, even without any separate legal basis (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 85Nu664, Feb. 25, 1986; 2003Du4669, May 25, 2006). In the imposition of a penalty surcharge, where the amount of a penalty surcharge is reduced on the grounds of a defect in the imposition of a penalty surcharge after an administrative agency imposed a person liable for payment, the administrative agency shall impose a penalty surcharge upon the person liable for payment, and the amount of the penalty surcharge is reduced on the grounds of a defect in the imposition of the penalty surcharge, the imposition of the penalty surcharge shall have legal effect on the part of the reduced penalty surcharge, not the initial imposition of a penalty surcharge and separate imposition of a penalty surcharge

Therefore, a claim for revocation of a disposition of reduction by the disposition of reduction is unlawful as there is no benefit to the lawsuit, as it relates to the portion not already extinguished.

(2) According to the records, on December 15, 2008, the defendant agreed and implemented the agreement on the price limitation, priority principle, observance of other terms and conditions of transaction with respect to the sale of Bosch Rexroth motor vehicles, etc. (hereinafter “instant collaborative act”). This constitutes an unfair collaborative act under Article 19(1)1 of the former Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act (amended by Act No. 8631, Aug. 3, 2007; hereinafter “Fair Trade Act”), and on the ground that the defendant constitutes an unfair collaborative act under Article 19(1)1 of the former Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act, only a corrective order and penalty surcharge payment order as stated in the attached Tables 1 and 2, and hereinafter “the penalty surcharge order”).