The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

1. Article 23(1) of the Administrative Procedures Act provides that when an administrative agency takes a disposition with respect to the determination of the grounds for disposition and the presentation of reasons therefor, the administrative agency shall present the grounds and reasons therefor to the parties. This purport is to exclude arbitrary decisions of the administrative agency and allow the parties to properly cope with the administrative remedy procedures. Thus, in a case where it is sufficiently known that a disposition was made by the parties at the time of the disposition in full taking into account the contents of the written disposition, relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, and the overall process, etc. up to the disposition, and where it is deemed that there is no particular obstacle to the party's objection to the procedure for administrative remedy, it cannot be said that the disposition is illegal, even if the grounds and reasons for the disposition are not specifically

(See Supreme Court Decision 2012Du12570 Decided September 4, 2014 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Du12570, Sept. 4, 2014). The lower court agreed that the Defendant, while issuing a corrective order and a penalty surcharge with respect to the Plaintiff, agreed to establish a close cooperative system for determining prices through mutual communication, such as operating a public interest group in which four similar entities, such as the Plaintiff, etc., participate in the retail business of the company before or after April 2004, and reducing the price reduction, thereby stably operating the selling price of gasoline, light oil, and diesel transit (hereinafter referred to as “SK”).

) The notified factory price (7,000 won, 10,000 won, 10,000 won, and 10,000 won, respectively, on the basis of drums.