[2] The case holding that the act of selling an apartment can be recognized as identical in the appearance of the act of selling the apartment, where the act of selling the apartment is recognized as identical in the appearance of the act of selling the apartment, where the act of selling the apartment is recognized as identical in the appearance of the act of selling the apartment without showing any difference

[3] The case holding that the act of a construction company's organization of a consultative body and implementation of an intermediate payment payment system to almost most apartment buildings in the sale of apartment units in a large housing site development zone, such an act of carrying out an intermediate payment payment system, etc., may not be recognized as "effectively consistent with the appearance of an act" and "actual restriction on competition"

[4] Criteria for determining "a certain field of trade" under Article 2 subparag. 8 and Article 19(5) of the former Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act

[5] The case holding that "a certain business area" under Article 2 subparagraph 8 of the former Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act, and Article 19 (5) of the former Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act, where an apartment is sold in lots through a large-scale housing development zone project, is "a new apartment market in the district where a large simultaneous sale was made"

[2] The case holding that since the elements that determine the product value due to the characteristics of apartment buildings, which are non-equal products, are diverse types of apartment construction costs, such as brand image, location conditions, apartment complex location, neighborhood living facilities, finishing materials, reputation, etc. of the construction company, the sales price of the apartment can be partially changed accordingly, even in addition to the construction cost of apartment buildings, the sales price of the apartment complex can be recognized if it is recognized that the sales price substantially corresponds to the external shape that the sales price is identical or almost similar, even if the sales price does not seem to coincide with the external shape that the sales price is identical or almost similar

[3] The case holding that in the case where an apartment construction company constitutes a consultative body in the Yongsan-dong Housing Site Development Zone and implements the intermediate payment system in most apartments in the apartment sale market, the intermediate payment payment system and the late payment system are generalized in the new apartment sale market, and the apartment sale agency's proposal is not sufficient to deny the agreement with the appearance of the act, so it can be recognized "in the external form of an act" to presume the agreement of unfair collaborative act, and the agreement is likely to affect or threaten to affect the decision of the price of the goods (as the price of the apartment) and the payment conditions of the price of the goods (as the competition in the new apartment market in the above Yongsan-dong Housing Site Development Zone is reduced, it is not possible to reverse the presumption of agreement on the ground that there is no evidence to acknowledge that the agreement is not a collaborative act

[4] The term “specified business area” as referred to in Article 2 subparag. 8 and Article 19(5) of the former Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act means an area where competition exists or may exist by the subject, stage, or region of a transaction. In a case where the price of a specific product traded in a specific area increases to a certain level to a certain extent for a considerable period of time, a representative purchaser of the given product or region concerned may convert the purchase to another product or area into an area, or a market classified by transaction stage or transaction counterpart. Such determination shall be made by comprehensively taking into account the characteristics, function, and effect of the product, awareness of the substitutability of the buyer or seller, and the behavior and time of decision on purchase or business decision-making related thereto, economic, and legislative aspects, etc.

[5] The case holding that "a certain business area" under Article 2 subparagraph 8 of the former Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act and Article 19 (5) of the former Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act is "a new apartment market in the district where a large concurrent sale was made" where apartment is sold in lots through a large-scale housing development zone project

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. Of the costs of lawsuit, 1/5 are assessed against the Plaintiff, and the remainder 4/5 are assessed against the Defendant, respectively.

A. Status of the parties

The following companies, including the Plaintiff, are those engaged in the construction business and fall under the business under Article 2 subparagraph 1 of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act (amended by Act No. 7315 of Dec. 31, 2004; hereinafter referred to as the “Act”), and the general status of each company is as shown below < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 21904, Dec. 1, 2004>

< by Presidential Decree No. 1070, Dec. 31, 2002; Presidential Decree No. 17758, Feb. 1, 2000>

본문내 포함된 표 ？ 회 사 주요사업 자본금 매출액 당기순이익 설립일자 1 한라건설 주식회사 건설업 48,185 448,742 7,144 1980. 5. 2 2 주식회사 서해종합건설 〃 8,000 179,546 21,658 1984. 3. 12 3 계룡건설산업 주식회사 〃 44,655 490,303 31,672 1978. 10. 11 4 주식회사 한국토지신탁 〃 180,000 123,389 8,002 1996. 4. 4 5 주식회사 신영 〃 5,000 213,330 5,032 1989. 3. 23 6 주식회사 동보주택건설 〃 5,032 49,240 494 1982. 2. 16 7 주식회사 동일토건 〃 3,300 168,497 7,797 1989. 5. 20 8 주식회사 대원 (원고) 〃 5,000 139,780 9,552 1972. 2. 21 9 주식회사 현진에버빌 〃 7,300 47,460 4,706 1987. 3. 16 10 모아건설 주식회사 〃 4,536 560 ▲2,180 1989. 3. 15

* Not more than * The above companies are used as the “Sari, Sari, Sari, Sari, Sari, Sari, Sari, Sari, Sari, Sari, Sari, Sari, Sari, Sari, Sari, Sari, Sari, Sari, Sari, or Sari, Sari, Sari, Sari,

(b) Current housing market;

(1) Current status of housing site supply

In the past, the supply of public housing sites has been continuously expanded across the country to improve the residential environment and stabilize the housing prices. From 1998 to 2002, the government supplied a total of KRW 95 million for housing construction of 2.65 million. As of 2003, as shown in Table 2, the government has designated 90 to 32.8 million in 90,000 in 90,000 as the housing site development district as shown in Table 2. In particular, in the metropolitan area, the housing site development for housing construction has been continuously expanded even after the development of a new large-scale new city, such as party, day, etc., to resolve the problems caused by population concentration, and to promote the stability of the lives of ordinary people and middle class.

Table 2> The designation trend of the area to be developed for housing site development (unit: opening, thousand square)

Of the table contained in the main sentence, the area of 4,472,9413,802,800 90 square meters 4,472,9413,802,8346,125 4,62632,800 Seoul Metropolitan area of 5736 5736 2,3142,3141,591,561,5618,0163,391,3913,013,0313,0313,0319,904

(2) Current housing construction status

As seen below, in 198 and 1999, the construction volume of multi-family housing was 30 to 40,000 per year due to the influence of the housing competition invasion due to the foreign exchange crisis, but after 2000, the government's support policies for various housing construction games and the recovery rate of housing games led to a large increase in the construction volume of multi-family housing centered on the private sector.

Table 3: Annual Housing Construction Results (unit: 1,000 units)

본문내 포함된 표 ？ 1998년 1999년 2000년 2001년 2002년 2003년 분양주택 212 296 337 427 580 464 임대주택 94 109 96 103 87 86 계 306 405 433 530 667 550

As a large-scale construction of housing continues, the nationwide housing supply rate as shown in Table 4, as shown in Table 4, is significantly improved, such as holding 100% (12,357,000) above in 202, but the housing supply rate in Seoul and Seoul Metropolitan area is merely 91% below.

Table 4> Annual Housing Dissemination Rate (unit: %)

The attached Table contained in the main sentence of this year, 1998, 2009, 2002 April 3, 2002 92.93, 2002 April 3, 2003, 2003, 2002, 92.3, 100.0.2, 100, 81.9.2, 82, 282, 86.2, 18, 91.82, 70, 71.7, 707, 791.383, 91.0

(3) The current housing price and land price.

In the case of apartments in the Seoul Metropolitan area since 1999 and 2003, the annual average of 14% of the sales price and the total annual average of 15% of the sales price were shown to be in a calorie, but since the latter part of 2003, the housing price was overall stable due to the implementation of the measures to restrain real estate speculation and the continuation of the economy.In the case of apartments in the Seoul Metropolitan area, the land price was relatively stable compared to the housing price by the annual average of 5% for several years until 2001, but since the beginning of 2002 when the real estate competition was activated, the land price increase rate of the above area was maintained by the higher rate of 15% per annum, and since the latter part of 2003, the price increase again became a factor such as the government's measures for stabilizing real estate prices and the game ties.

(c) Matters concerning the sale of apartments;

(1) Changes in the system related to apartment sale

The apartment sale system has shown a frequent change as a result of the domestic market situation and the necessity of public control within the framework of the "construction after pre-sale". Since the 1970s, the construction of apartment buildings has been regulated by the government for a long time since the 1970s on the upper limit of the selling price and has restricted the resale of the selling price right by regulating the scope of the regulation depending on the market situation, and the government's intervention has contributed to price stability and the improvement of the residential conditions of the ordinary people in the short term, but in the long term, it has been required to carefully cope with the side effects that decrease the housing business operators' competitive efforts and cause other economic

On November 1, 1989, the cost-free housing unit sale price system, which is a limited price autonomous tool, was introduced. From November 1995, the regulation on the sale price has gradually mitigated depending on the region and scale, and since the abolition of the cost-free unit system in 1998, the sale price is basically implemented as an autonomous stage in which the sale price is determined by the market function.

On the other hand, the deregulation of the housing market has a positive aspect that the conditions of competition in the related market are improved, while the basic supply restriction of the housing market and excessive concentration on the ownership of real estate by Korean nationals, and the side effects that spreads of the social and economic harm caused by the exhaustion of the speculative and non-income generated therefrom, the government faces the situation that the government strengthens regulations and intervene in the market.

In the 200s, the real estate market appears to have an excessive heating volume due to the power of the government on the housing market before the deregulation and overall economy of the housing market, and the government restricted the resale of the right of sale in the overheated speculative zone on August 2002. Since April 2003, the government made efforts to conduct tax investigations to prevent speculation on the housing price, to strengthen the speculative speculation requirements and the general apartment zone in the reconstruction complex in the Gangnam-gu Seoul, and to stabilize the apartment zone, focusing on the reconstruction complex in the Gangnam-gu, Seoul.In May 2003, the government paid the intermediate payment twice or more, and to prohibit the resale of the right of sale until the expiration of one year from the contract date until the transfer registration of the ownership. In addition, the government announced the measures to stabilize the housing price on May 2003 to implement a tax investigation to prevent speculation, to strengthen the speculative speculation requirements in the apartment zone and the general apartment zone in the reconstruction zone.

(2) Procedures for apartment sale

A business operator who intends to construct or sell independently or separately 20 or more units of multi-family housing shall first obtain approval of a housing construction project plan pursuant to the Housing Act and the Rules on Housing Supply. In this case, a construction business entity shall submit an application for approval of a project plan stating the project cost to a local government, and at this time, the project cost stated shall act as the upper limit when the final sale price is calculated, and where it is intended to establish a sale price in excess of the project cost, approval of a project plan shall be obtained. A construction business entity shall obtain approval of a business plan from a local government. A construction business entity shall file an application for a sale guarantee with the Korea Housing Guarantee Co., Ltd., with the approval of a business plan, and at this time, the sale price is almost final and conclusive at this stage. A construction business entity shall obtain approval for the recruitment of occupants from the relevant local government, and at this time, the sale price shall be determined

(d) Current status of the sale of apartment houses in the Incheon Winter Housing Site Development Zone;

The Gandong Housing Site Development Zone (hereinafter referred to as the "Dongdong Housing Site Development Zone") is located in the Dong-Eup, Dong-si, Chungcheongnam-si, the size of which is 3,308,000 square meters (1,000 square meters) and the population accommodation plan is 16,660 households, 51,646 households, and the project period is 16,60 households, and the Korea Land Corporation has implemented the project from December 31, 199 to December 31, 2004. The total number of 19 companies obtained business approval for the construction of apartment units from 28 blocks to 8,902 households from June 21, 2003 to November 2003, and 10 companies in this case have sold apartment units with the approval of the apartment units from 28 households to 8,902 households from August 18, 203 to 18, 205.

Examining the process of parcelling-out, Dong area was designated as a housing site development zone from the Ministry of Construction and Transportation on February 27, 199. On December 31, 1999, the company obtained approval of the development plan from Gyeonggi-do on October 23, 2002. The company of this case filed an application for the first approval of the project plan on October 23, 2002. The company of this case rejected the application for the approval of the project plan on November 4, 2002 on the ground that there is a lack of road facilities connected to Dong area, and traffic shortage is likely to increase. The company of this case applied for the second approval of the project plan on January 27, 2003, and applied for the withdrawal of the said application and re-application for the approval of the project plan on June 3 and 4, 2003, and the company of this case from June 203 to June 28, 2003 to June 30, 2003.

The current status of apartment sale by company (unit: 5 square meter, %, and number of households) within the Dongbag District.

. C. 5-2 3. 8. 20, 20. 3. 8. 20, 20. 3. 8. 3. 8. 20, 20. 3. 8. 3. 8. 3. 8. 4. 7. 3. 8. 1. 20, 20, 460, 160 C. 410- 48. 49. 36. 18. 3. 7. 8. 2. 3. 3. 8. 20, 206. 7. 3. 8. 4. 1. 7. 20, 207. 3. 7. 8. 36. 18. 36. 20, 207. 3. 18. 24. 206

*The sale price of private rental housing in lots is set and sold at the time of sale, but the ownership of apartment is a construction enterprise upon entering into a lease contract at the time of occupancy, and the tenant can acquire ownership and register ownership within 2 years and 6 months from the date of occupancy.

On the other hand, the aggregate of the market share of the company of this case in the new apartment market in the Dong 00 district reaches 96% (based on the number of households).

E. The defendant's disposition

(1) As of July 31, 2004, the Defendant: (a) sold the apartment of this case to the company of this case, including the Plaintiff, from July 25, 2003 to August 5, 2003; and (b) applied the method of payment after the intermediate payment interest; (c) such act is “an agreement with the outside form; (d) substantial restriction on competition in the new apartment market in the East-gu area; and (e) there are circumstantial evidence to be presumed that the company of this case reached an agreement on the terms of sale price and payment; (e) pursuant to Article 19(5) of the Act, it is presumed that the company of this case, including the Plaintiff, sold the apartment of this case, and (e) sold the apartment of this case, and (e) applied the corrective order of this case (Article 21(1)1 and 21(2) of the Act; (e) and (e) pursuant to Article 21(1) of the Act (attached Form 3).

(2) In the above disposition, the details of the Defendant’s penalty surcharge are as follows.

(A) Relevant sales, which serve as the basis for the calculation of the penalty surcharge, are the sales amount for each company that the instant company concluded with the subscriber of the apartment, in the apartment sale in the East-gu area between July 25, 2003 and August 5, 2003, where the instant unfair collaborative act was conducted.

(B) The imposition rate of penalty shall be 50% of the amount calculated within the range not exceeding 5% of the average sales in the immediately preceding three years under Article 9 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act, taking into account the following: (a) the rate of penalty surcharges shall be calculated by multiplying the relevant sales by the company by 3/100, taking into account the fact that the unfair collaborative act of the apartment seller brings about the ideal of the real estate market and the harm of the occupants to other economic areas is highly negative; and (b) the presumption provision of Article 19(5) of the Act is applied; and (b) the unfair collaborative act of the company in this case is first committed by the company. (b)

(C) Specific amount of penalty surcharge:

< Remark 6> Details of imposition of penalty surcharge (unit: KRW 600,000)

The penalty surcharge of 3,643,859 1,269 1,942 686 3,0382,103,104 572,104 572,104,256 130,399 202,549 140,320 103,328 328 3,6428 242,82,885 1,959 1,269 1,942 686 3,0382,104

* However, in the case of "new Enforcement Decree", it is recognized that the sale schedule was delayed due to the causes such as the excavation and investigation of cultural heritage at the time of the final determination of the sale price, and the sale price was determined regardless of the agreement with other companies, so the relevant sales amount shall be calculated by multiplying the relevant sales amount by 2/100, and it shall be 50% of the amount calculated within the scope not exceeding 5% of the average sales amount for the immediately preceding three years under Article 9 of the

* In the case of “Korea-China”, the effect of breach of law shall be limited to the total amount of sale, but in accordance with the law and accounting standards, the amount of penalty surcharge shall be determined at 5/100, taking into account the fact that the sale price is relatively less than the other companies calculated by the total amount of sales in question, and the amount of penalty surcharge shall not be reduced by 50 per cent of the amount calculated within the extent not exceeding 5 per cent of the average sales in the immediately preceding three years.

* In the case of “Maternia,” unlike the general sale and purchase sale of other companies, discrimination is recognized in the way of private construction and lease, which is a method of converting the purchase right after two and half years to five years, and brand recognition as a local business entity is recognized to have inevitably participated in the collaborative act of the business entity located in the Seoul Metropolitan Area. Since brand recognition as a local business entity is recognized to have an inevitable aspect of participating in the collaborative act of the business entity located in the Seoul Metropolitan Area, it is judged as a person who has passive participated in the price determination

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1, purport of whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The instant disposition is unlawful for the following reasons.

(1) As to the agreement on unfair collaborative acts

The company of this case only constituted the Dong White District Consultative Body for the smooth promotion of the apartment construction project in the Dong White District and conducted consultation on the authorization and permission business, and conducted collection of information or exchange of opinions on the sale, and did not perform any collaborative act such as agreement on the sale of apartment units or other terms and conditions of transaction, and did not meet the requirements for presumption of the agreement on the collaborative act under Article

(A) Absence of consent to the external form of action

The usual sale price of the apartment of this case was determined in various ways by company and by grade. In the case of the apartment of 40 square meters and 50 square meters sold by the plaintiff, the highest price is the difference between 12 and 14% compared to the plaintiff's sale price, and 18.5 billion won compared to the total price. In particular, in consideration of the fact that the apartment of this case was supplied with land through the Housing Site Development Act in Korea, there is no big difference in the land price, and that there is no direct construction cost in the sale price in the apartment of this case, it cannot be said that there is an external accord without disregarding the difference in the actual sale price as above. Moreover, the late payment of the intermediate payment interest is a little competition at the time of July 2003 where the sale in this area was conducted, and the above method was generalized in other areas, as well as the result of the analysis of the plaintiff's act of selling the apartment of this case, it cannot be said that the company adopted the intermediate payment payment payment as a market and presented it.

(B) The absence of substantial restriction on competition

Apartments can be converted to the Seoul and the Seoul Metropolitan area according to the factors such as the sale price and surrounding cities, location, complex size, surrounding environment, quality conditions, brand, and future competition outlook. Further, apartments as residential goods are subject to restrictions depending on the workplace or living zone's location, but they are able to make a broad regional choice according to the development of traffic, so that the possibility of substitution of demand or cross-interscepticability is considerably high between regions that are able to leave and leave. In full view of this, at least, the related market in this case should be able to define the new method of measurement of apartments, apartments and new apartments, and apartments that are expected to be sold in the Seoul Metropolitan area, and at least to define the new market in the Seoul Metropolitan area's market. However, at least the relevant market in this case should not be able to define the new method of measurement of apartments, apartments, and new apartments by the survey or market development.

As above, when expanding the related market of this case, the market share of the company of this case is not only decreased considerably, but also it is difficult for the plaintiff, etc. to increase the exclusive profit by raising the price of the apartment in the situation where the plaintiff, etc. reported the sale outlook at the time, as goods with high stimulability of demand, even though the relevant market is narrow as with the defendant. Thus, it is difficult for the plaintiff, etc. to increase the exclusive profit by raising the price of the apartment. Accordingly, there is no competition limitation that may affect the determination of

(C) Destruction of the presumption of agreement

The company of this case only exchanged opinions (information) on the selling price, etc. through the Dong White District Consultative Body but did not reach an agreement on the selling price, etc., and such collusion cannot be practically realized due to the characteristics of the apartment construction and sale business. Accordingly, the company had no choice but to determine the selling price and other transaction terms at its own discretion. In particular, the company decided the selling price independently in accordance with the proposal report received from the company by providing services to the selling agency on the sale price and conditions, and the cost analysis, information collection results, and the sale outlook, etc. In addition, the part payment interest and the follow-up payment scheme are also independently determined by the plaintiff on the grounds as set forth in Article 19(5) of the Act. Therefore, the presumption of agreement under Article 19(5

(2) As to the calculation of penalty surcharges

With respect to the instant apartment construction project, the Plaintiff entered into a joint project agreement with the self-employed corporation (hereinafter referred to as the “self-employed”) and 50:50 shares, and the self-employed does not have any part of the Dongban District Consultative Body consisting of the instant companies, but did not participate therein. Therefore, the amount of the penalty surcharge of this case calculated by a certain ratio (related sales x 3% x 50%) of the Plaintiff’s relevant sales (related sales x 3% x 50%) should be deducted. Even if the Plaintiff should bear the penalty surcharge for the self-employed, according to the method of calculating the Defendant’s penalty surcharge (limited to 5% of the average sales 3 years in the previous three years, and 50% of the calculated amount), the penalty surcharge for self-employed is less than the penalty surcharge against the Plaintiff, and thus, it should be reduced within the limit.

In addition, the total selling price of apartment sold by the plaintiff includes the value-added tax on the building part, and the defendant erred by failing to deduct the value-added tax from the relevant sales amount, which is the basis for calculating the penalty surcharge.

Furthermore, in light of the current management status of the plaintiff, the penalty surcharge in this case was too excessive and abused discretion.

B. Defendant’s assertion

The instant disposition is lawful as it is in accordance with the grounds for the instant disposition and relevant Acts and subordinate statutes in Section 1. E.

3. Relevant statutes;

[Attachment 2] The entry in the relevant statutes is as follows.

4. Determination on the legitimacy of the disposition

(a) Whether an unfair collaborative act is presumed;

(1) Purport of the presumption of collaborative act

Article 19(5) of the Act provides that "where two or more enterprisers are engaged in any of the acts referred to in the subparagraphs of paragraph (1) which practically restrict competition in a particular business area, it shall be presumed that the enterpriser is engaged in an unfair collaborative act even in the absence of an express agreement to do such act." In order to prove the establishment of an unfair collaborative act as provided in Article 19(1) of the Act, the Fair Trade Commission must prove that the act in question was conducted under the express and implied agreement of the enterpriser. It is not easy to prove such agreement due to the nature of the unfair collaborative act closely conducted, and it is not easy for the Fair Trade Commission to prove it." In lieu of proving "the agreement of the enterpriser, two or more enterprisers are engaged in any of the acts referred to in the subparagraphs of Article 19(1) of the Act (hereinafter referred to as "in a convenient manner, it is deemed that there is an act practically restricting competition in a particular business area, and it is not necessary to prove that the act in question is in accordance with the circumstances of "the act in question" or "the act in question, 90."

(2) Whether the act corresponds to the appearance of the act

(A) Facts of recognition

In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings, the following facts are acknowledged in the statements No. 1 and No. 1 to No. 6.

① On July 3, 2002, the instant companies established the Yongsan-do District Consultative Body (hereinafter “Consultative Body”) by gathering to the Korea Land Corporation, and agreed on the method and progress of the apartment sales business, following around 40 meetings during which the representative director or a person in charge of business is present, during the period from July 29, 2002 to July 16, 2003.

② On March 6, 2003, the instant companies attended meetings held at the Hanra Construction Meeting room, and discussed the scheduled selling price and the method of selling each company. At the time, each company’s planned selling price is divided into “loan without interest” and “interest-free loan” and “interest-free payment system.” After confirming that the sale price by each company is divided into “6.35 million won per square meter with the exclusive use area of 85 thousand square meters and 6.55 million won per square meter with the exclusive use area of 6.55 million won and 6.55 million won with the exclusive use area of 85 million won to 6.655 million won to 6.655 million won, and with the method of selling an intermediate payment to 6.85 million won as interest-free payment.”

③ During the period from March 24, 2003 to April 28, 2003, the instant companies filed an application for approval of a project plan for multi-family housing in the East-gu area with the view to viewing, and indicated the following business expenses as the attached Table 7>

The details of an application for approval of a business plan by company (unit: 7,000 won, 000 square meters and number of households)

C-37,843,364, 764, 764, 764, 765, 764, 764, 767, 975, 764, 977, 167, 974, 167, 974, 167, 167, 167, 1207, 7647, 974, 1647, 9757, 1647, 1647, 167, 974, 1647, 9757, 167, 9764, 167, 975, 164, 367, 975, 167, 9764, 130, 1406, 501, 285, 3286, 2684, 2964

* The usual sale price is calculated by dividing the apartment project cost under the application for approval on the business plan submitted by the company into the total floor area of the apartment.

④ At the meeting of the consultative body held on July 16, 2003, the instant companies mentioned the estimated sale price and sale method for each company (the method of the timely payment was found to be "interest payment system", "interest-free interest", "US", etc.), and discussed about the adjustment of the sale price of each company before and after the usual 7 million won from each company in the future. Of the instant companies, the internal portion of "the same "same" prepared by the working-level staff of the company in the meeting of this case after the attendance of the meeting, stating that each company's scheduled sale price and each company's scheduled sale price are stated as "pre-sale plan to be adjusted before and after the date of a large difference between each company and each company's scheduled sale price," and the working-level staff of "Seo-gu" stated that each company's work book is scheduled to be sold by each company, and that "Seo-gu's civil petition should be calculated" and the press report should be accused at the same time.

⑤ After that, the instant company, from July 25, 2003 to August 5, 2003, sold in lots by setting the sale price and the sale method as the attached Table 8>

The sale price and sale method (unit: 10,000 won and standard floor) of the Company 8>

본문내 포함된 표 회사 블록 분양면적(평) 세대수 세대당분양가 평당분양가 분양조건 분양일 한라 c3-3 33.01 322 227,500 6,892 중도금 이자후불제 2003. 7. 25. 33.37 20 230,500 6,907 c5-2 33.11 184 229,500 6,931 46.63 120 333,500 7,152 c10-1 46.59 248 330,600 7,096 계(평균) ？ 894 ？ 7,008 계룡 c4-1 30.06 100 205,900 6,851 중도금 이자후불제 2003. 7. 25. 33.74 19 232,800 6,900 34.16 448 235,700 6,900 계(평균) ？ 567 ？ 7,043 대원 c10-2 42.72 178 288,800 6,761 중도금 이자후불제 2003. 7. 25. 50.55 254 345,300 6,831 계(평균) ？ 432 ？ 6,893 동보 c4-3 33.25 279 232,085 6,980 중도금 이자후불제(1, 2회 무이자) 2003. 7. 25. 44.07 202 325,898 7,395 계(평균) ？ 481 ？ 7,010 동일 c7-1 34.16 276 244,500 7,157 중도금 이자후불제 2003. 7. 25. 34.32 158 238,800 6,958 43.64 309 318,500 7,298 계(평균) ？ 743 ？ 7,186

본문내 포함된 표 한토신 c5-1 34.18 239 223,000 6,525 중도금 이자후불제 2003. 7. 25. 46.41 175 323,740 6,976 c11 32.40 95 223,000 6,882 33.60 29 223,000 6,638 33.71 182 223,000 6,615 46.35 227 323,740 6,984 c12-1 29.81 76 196,000 6,576 32.53 72 223,000 6,856 33.75 312 223,000 6,607 33.83 132 223,000 6,592 c12-2 29.78 39 196,000 6,582 32.46 42 223,000 6,870 33.76 79 223,000 6,604 33.92 129 223,000 6,575 c13-1 29.75 68 196,000 6,588 32.40 38 223,000 6,882 33.71 73 223,000 6,616 34.01 100 223,000 6,557 계(평균) ？ 2,107 ？ 6,704 서해 c2-1 33.38 382 229,350 6,870 중도금 이자후불제 2003. 7. 31. 33.63 50 234,350 6,969 33.63 50 234,350 6,969 c4-4 33.32 436 229,350 6,883 33.63 50 234,350 6,969 33.63 50 234,350 6,969 c9-1,2 46.65 265 345,000 7,395 46.65 155 345,000 7,395 46.94 48 352,000 7,499 46.94 96 352,000 7,499 계(평균) ？ 1,582 ？ 7,125 현진 c13-2 39.05 143 295,900 7,576 중도금 이자후불제 2003. 7. 31. 46.23 141 350,800 7,588 56.95 36 443,000 7,778 계(평균) ？ 320 ？ 7,611 신영 c8-1,2 38.52 114 280,400 7,280 중도금 이자후불제 2003. 8. 5. 39.10 40 287,600 7,355 39.01 120 287,600 7,372 46.58 72 349,600 7,505 46.22 69 356,600 7,716 49.88 160 374,300 7,504 59.50 15 451,100 7,581 계(평균) ？ 590 ？ 7,462 모아 c3-1 24.56 838 156,800 6,374 중도금 이자후불제 2003. 7. 31.

* The term “mid-to-under-paid interest system” means that the company of this case pays the interest on loan when the buyer of the intermediate payment out of the apartment sale price received a loan from a financial institution, and the buyer pays the interest on the loan to the company within the designated date of occupancy or the actual occupancy date.

(B) Whether the sale price corresponds to the appearance of the act of setting the sale price

① In a case where an agreement on the pricing of goods (Article 19(1)1 of the Act) is at issue as in the instant case, the phrase “in a case where two or more enterprisers perform acts falling under any of the subparagraphs of Article 19(1)” under Article 19(5) of the Act includes not only the case where the business operators set the same final prices for the same goods, but also the case where the business operators are engaged in the act of determining the price of the same or similar goods through the act of setting the criteria for pricing such as the average prices, standard prices, base prices, highest and lowest prices, etc. for the same or similar goods, the act of setting the price discount and discount rates, the act of determining the price discount and discount rates, and the act of setting the level or limit on the price components such as the act of determining the price discount and discount rates, profit rates, discount rates, etc.

In addition, even if the prices of each apartment product are different in appearance, if the difference is naturally attributable to reasons other than the price agreement, i.e., the act of determining the prices of each apartment product, if excluding the factors causing such a difference due to the characteristics of each company and each product, the act of determining the prices of each apartment product, in whole, shall be deemed to coincide with the essential parts of the price. In this case, even though there is no external consensus that the apartment sale by each company is identical or almost similar to the apartment sale, in addition to the expenses required for apartment construction, the elements that determine the value of apartment products due to the characteristics of the non-quality apartment product, such as brand image, location conditions, apartment complex, neighborhood living facilities, finish, horizontal, etc. of the construction company, and the sale price vary partially depending on such factors as above, if the sale price is recognized to be "if the difference according to the individual characteristics is excluded, the sale price shall be recognized to be consistent with the appearance of the act of determining the price. However, it is necessary to analyze and prove that such individual characteristics are identical as a result.

2. However, considering the above facts in the instant case, the above facts found are examined as follows:

The court below held that the reason for the disposition of this case is consistent with the appearance that "the usual sale price of the apartment of this case was set at the time before and after 7 million won", and merely that "before and after 7 million won" exists, it is difficult for the court to determine whether the apartment of this case is identical with the price because it is too difficult to determine whether the apartment of this case's usual sale price is consistent."

As of March 6, 2003, the company of this case plans to sell apartment units from 6.1.5 million won to 8.8 million won per square year, and on March 4, 2003, at the time of obtaining approval of each business plan, the sale price per square year differs from the lowest of 6.7 billion won to the highest of 8.3 million won (excluding "Maternia" and "Majin", but excluding "Maternia" and "Majin"), and thereafter, at the time of the sale of apartment units in this case, the company was finally determined as between the lowest of 6.37 billion won per square year to 6.77 million won per square year (excluding "Maternia", from 6.52 million to 7.77 million won), and at the time of the sale of the apartment units in this case, the sale price per square year was finally determined as between the highest of 6.2 billion won per square year to 7.7 billion won

B. The following facts are subdivided into two types: (a) the first two parallels: (a) the first two parallels of two parallels of two parallels; (b) the second two parallels of two parallels of two parallels of two parallels of two parallels of two parallels of two parallels of two parallels of two parallels of three hundred and three hundred and twenty hundred, three hundred and twenty, three hundred and twenty, three hundred and twenty, three hundred and twenty; (c) the first two parallels of two parallels of two two parallels of three hundred and thirty hundred and twenty, three hundred and twenty, three hundred and twenty, three hundred and twenty, three hundred and twenty, three hundred and twenty, three hundred and twenty, three hundred and twenty, five hundred and twenty, and the second two parallels of two parallels of two two parallels of two two parallels of two two parallels of one parallels of three hundred and twenty; (d) the first two parallels of two parallels of two parallels of two parallels of two parallels of two parallels of three hundred and twenty, one half;

㉣ 나아가, 유사한 평형의 아파트 간에 총분양가를 기준으로 비교하여 보면, 대략 1,000만 원에서 3,000만 원 정도에 이르는 편차를 보이는 점,

In particular, in the case of the plaintiff, the sale price per square meter is 6.76 million won (42.72 square meters) and 6.83 million won (50.5 square meters) in the case of the plaintiff. This is a difference between the sale price per square meter (46.23 square meters) to 7.77 million won (55 square meters) in the case of the sale of a similar flat, and the sale price per square meter is 7.5 million won (46.58 square meters, 49.8 square meters) to 7.710,00 won in the case of the "new" (46.22 square meters), compared to the sale price per square meter to 7.5 million won (46.58 square meters, 49.8 square meters) to 7.710,000 won (46.22 square meters in the case of the plaintiff;

On February 2 and 3, 2003, newspapers reported to the effect that “The company of this case shall make a decision on the selling price of the apartment of this case at 30 square meters per square year, 6.5 million won per square year, and 6.7 million or 6.8 million won per square year, for 40 square meters or more (the defendant’s reference materials submitted, 1.3), and thereafter, the level and the number of sales prices set by the company of this case show many differences in the contents of the above article.”

The apartment sales price of the company of this case, which has such a gap, cannot be said to be "(at the same time, the apartment sales price is determined before and after 7 million won all)".

3. The defendant asserts as follows.

즉, 이 사건 아파트 중 ㉮ ‘한토신’의 경우 ‘코아루’라는 브랜드의 인지도가 상대적으로 낮고, 회사의 51% 이상 지분을 가지고 있는 한국토지공사가 2002. 9.경 “공공부문에서 공급하는 점을 감안하여 실제분양가를 조정사업계획에서 정한 초기분양확보와 지구 내 민간업체의 평균수준을 고려하여 결정하라.”고 요청해 왔으며, ㉯ ‘서해’, ‘신영’의 경우 동백지구 내의 호수·근린공원, 중심상업단지, 용인경전철 ‘어정역’ 인근에 위치한다는 장소적 이점이 있고, ㉰ ‘현진’의 경우 경전철 ‘초당곡역’ 인근에 위치하고 다른 회사에 비하여 고급의 실내 마감재를 사용하는 등 고가의 마케팅 전략을 구사하였으며, ㉱ ‘동보’의 44평형 아파트의 경우 1·2회 중도금은 무이자로 정하여 그 금융비용 상당액이 분양가에 반영되었고, ㉲ 원고의 경우 토지비용은 다른 사업자와 비슷하나 공사비, 간접비 등에서 가장 적은 비용을 투자한 결과 분양가를 낮게 책정하더라도 매출이익률은 가장 높게 나타났으며, ㉳ ‘모아’의 경우 민간임대주택으로서 아파트의 평형도 가장 작고 토지비도 이 사건 회사들 중 가장 낮다는 특성이 있으므로, 이러한 개별 특성을 배제하고 나면, 이 사건 회사들의 아파트 분양가는 실질적으로 일치한다는 것이다.

In light of the reference materials submitted by the defendant on August 14, 2006, the circumstance (specifics by company and apartment) as alleged by the defendant can be small to some extent, but there is insufficient concrete proof to recognize that such circumstance is sufficient to offset the difference between the apartment sale price and the apartment sale price as seen above (the burden of proof is reasonable that the defendant is the defendant, and the specific analysis on the recognition map, location conditions, investment cost, and other details of the sales price decision should be supported by the company and apartment as well as the company for the purpose of proving the burden of proof). On the other hand, if the apartment sale price by company is decided due to such individual characteristics, if it is decided on the apartment sale price by company, it can not be accepted in this case, in that it can be an opposite circumstance that it is difficult to say that the apartment sale price corresponds to the decision-making act or that there is an agreement on the price.

(C) The external form of the act of setting the intermediate payment interest and the late payment system is consistent.

As seen above, as seen in the above facts, all companies except some apartment buildings of the “Dongdae” among the instant companies set forth an intermediate payment interest and the post payment system in the way of payment. However, in full view of the fact that there was a difference in the method of payment among the companies, but there was a discussion in the consultative body, it is recognized that the act in this part corresponds to external shape.

The plaintiff asserts that "the above intermediate payment system was generalized in the sale of new apartment units in other areas at the time of the sale of apartment units in this case, and the plaintiff's agency for the sale of apartment units also proposed the above system, so it cannot be said that the company of this case adopted it in common." However, there is no evidence that the intermediate payment payment and the post payment system are generalized in the new apartment sale market, and the plaintiff's agency for the sale of apartment units cannot deny the consistency of the appearance of the act with the appearance of the act. Thus, the above argument is without merit.

(D) Sub-committee

Therefore, the Defendant’s disposition, which presumed the collaborative act (agreement) of selling price determination based on the premise, cannot be recognized as identical to the external form of the instant company’s determination of selling price, is unlawful without further review. On the other hand, as to the intermediate payment interest payment system, it can be recognized as identical to the external form of the act, the Defendant continued to examine whether the other requirements are satisfied and the disposition is legality.

(3) Restriction on competition

(A) Definition of certain areas of transactions;

First of all, we examine the definition of the “specific transaction area” related to the instant case, i.e., the relevant market.

In general, the term "relevant market" means a field in which competitive relations exist or may exist by the subject, stage or region of trade (Article 2 subparagraph 8 of the Act), and where the price of a particular product traded in a specific area has increased to a certain extent for a considerable period of time, a collective product (market) or an area (geographical market) of which representative buyers in the given product or region may convert the purchase of the product to another area in response thereto, or other transaction stages or markets classified by transaction partners, and it shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account the characteristics, functions, effects and price similarity of the product, recognition of the substitutability of the buyer or seller, and the behavior and time of decision on purchase or management related thereto, economic and legislative aspects, etc.

In addition, in defining the relevant market, the fact that the act of this case occurred in the course of the simultaneous sale of apartment buildings on a large scale. That is, unlike the general commodity market where multiple buyers and suppliers adjust the price and quantity according to the supply and demand situation of the market, the large-scale simultaneous sale of apartment buildings has the characteristic that it means that the large-scale simultaneous sale of apartment buildings takes place by supplying the amount of supply determined at the price determined by the supplier at the price determined by the supplier and accepting the conditions determined by the supplier. Therefore, the scope of meaningful competition relationship under this structure can be established as a new apartment market in the district where large-scale simultaneous sale was conducted, and in this case, the "new apartment sale market in the Yongsan-gu area" is a "new apartment sale market in the commodity

(1) A commodities market.

Apartments have both the essential nature of apartment purchased for residence and the investment assets purchased for investment, so it can be considered as a substitute in consideration of this.

However, in the characteristics of the goods, a new apartment unit is not immediately located at the time of the transaction and has the right to have a new apartment unit in the future after 2 and 3 years. From the perspective of investment risk, it is a product of the nature of paying a relatively low price instead of bearing the risk of initial investment in the verified profitability. Meanwhile, the right to sell an apartment unit is equal to a new apartment unit in that it is the right to have a new apartment unit in the future upon the payment of the intermediate payment and the balance after the purchase of the apartment unit. However, if the profitability is high after the completion of a new apartment unit, it is traded at a price lower than the sale price if the profitability is lower than the sale price. It is distinguishable from a new apartment unit in that the sale of an apartment unit is traded at a price at which the second-lane profitability evaluation is made after the purchase and sale of an apartment unit after the purchase of the existing apartment unit is made, and if it is not possible to immediately occupy the existing apartment unit and the new apartment unit can be immediately available after the purchase and sale of the apartment unit, it is distinguishable from an existing apartment unit sale risk.

(b) From the perspective of the eligibility of the consumers, the new apartment is set out in the order of priority for subscription under the Housing Act and the Housing Supply Regulations, and is given to homeless persons, subscription savings, subscription deposit holders, etc. for a certain period of time, and if the number of subscribers exceeds the supplied amount, the scope of consumers who can actually demand is limited to consumers with priority for subscription. However, there is no restriction on qualifications to purchase existing apartment or right to purchase, and it is distinguishable from new apartment in terms of that consumers with preference and ability to pay the cost can purchase all of them.

In the case of the substitution of demand for a new apartment unit due to the limit of the qualification for the pin demand, a consumer who has the priority of subscription for a new apartment unit due to the above qualification has the tendency to participate in the new apartment unit or the right of sale, rather than purchasing the existing apartment unit or the right of sale. Therefore, even if the sale of a new apartment unit is high, it is more likely to recognize a new apartment unit as a substitute for the existing apartment unit or the right of sale, rather than purchasing the existing apartment unit or the right of sale, rather than purchasing it as a substitute for the existing apartment unit or the right of sale.

In light of the aspect of the so-called supply, most of the suppliers of new apartment units are housing construction and apartment units, and the existing suppliers of apartment units or apartment units are private individuals or companies that make profits from resale, so the market participants are different, and the perception or management behavior of mutual competition and competition conditions is different. In addition, large-scale housing supply such as new apartment units is governed by various institutional, economic and procedural restrictions and regulations, and a considerable time and enormous cost expenditure is required for the supply process. Accordingly, the new apartment units in a large-scale housing site development zone are considerably flexible.

In full view of the above, it is reasonable to define the product market of this case as the "new apartment market for sale".

(2) A geographical market.

In ordinary, the scope of a geographical market is to be defined by comprehensively considering the characteristics of the goods concerned, transportation costs, consumers' participation in the market, and regional preference. Since apartment buildings, which are the goods concerned of this case, are different from ordinary goods, and it is impossible to move on the land, it shall be considered in defining a geographical market.

As seen above, apartment housing has the nature of the essential material for residence and the nature of investment, and considering the investment re-investment nature of apartment, the scope of a geographical market can be expanded across the country. However, the demand for apartment as an essential material for residence can be limited to a certain area in consideration of the distance from the departure and retirement, administration, education, and convenience facilities, etc. Furthermore, in determining the demand for apartment, not only the distance from the departure and retirement, but also the value of the district where the apartment is located is an important factor. In particular, in the case of apartment units sold by a large-scale housing site development project, the housing site development zone itself is developed in a small city with various administrative, educational, and convenience facilities, and it can be seen that the district is independent, and even if the same constructor constructs an apartment building with a similar specifications depending on the location in a certain administrative district, the price of apartment units can be divided by the district where the apartment is located.

Considering the fact that the instant case occurred in the course of large-scale simultaneous sale, the regional scope in substantial competition can be said to be the same as “Dong Bag area” and “a neighboring area where large-scale sale had occurred at the time,” which is the relevant district. Since there was no other large-scale sale in the neighboring area outside the Dong Bag area at the time of the sale of the instant case, it is reasonable to define the relevant geographical market of the instant

(B) practical restrictions on competition;

Article 19(5) of the Act provides that “competitive restriction of competition” of the act in question, which is to be proved in order to presume the agreement of enterprisers, refers to “competitive restriction of competition” before the agreement is presumed, so the existence of such “competitive restriction” should be determined by taking into consideration the characteristics of the act in question, consumer selection criteria, market share of the enterpriser in question, impact of the act in question on the competition of the market and the enterpriser in question on the competition of the enterpriser in question, and whether the act in question affects or is likely to affect the determination of price, quantity, quality, other transaction terms, etc. according to the intent of the particular enterpriser or enterprisers’ organization (see Article 2 subparag. 8-2 of the Act, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 99Du6514, 6521, Mar. 15, 2002).

In this case, although the demand for new apartment sale is similar to the general goods in terms of price carbon, there are many aspects of speculative demand in specific areas such as the Seoul Metropolitan area due to population congestion and urban concentration. On the other hand, the supply of new apartment sale is flexible due to the restriction on the supply of land and the institutional restrictions such as housing site development and approval, so it is not possible to expand the supply or adjust the sale price in the process of apartment sale even if there is an excess demand. ② even if the conditions of the competition at the time of this case were to be abolished, apartment sale price is to be determined by the autonomous decision of the construction companies, and the conditions of the price and quality competition were to be established in the apartment sale market, and in particular, it is inevitable to increase the market price and the price increase in the apartment sale price to the new apartment sale market because the new apartment sale price increase in the apartment sale price and the new apartment sale price increase in the apartment sale price and the new apartment sale price increase in the apartment sale price and the new apartment sale price increase in the apartment sale price in the apartment market.

(4) The theory of lawsuit

As such, the decision on the payment method of the intermediate payment by the instant company, including the Plaintiff, is deemed to have reached an agreement on the collaborative act pursuant to Article 19(5) and 19(1)2 of the Act, and such collaborative act is deemed to be unreasonable, given that there exists “the external concurrence of two or more enterprisers’ acts” and “actual restriction on competition.”

B. Whether the presumption of agreement has been destroyed

(1) General theory

According to Article 19(5) of the Act, a business operator who is presumed to have reached an agreement on an unfair collaborative act may destroy the presumption by proving the circumstances that an act of the same or similar act externally revealed is likely to have been done independently according to each business judgment without any agreement or mutual needs. In addition, in determining circumstances that may destroy the presumption of the agreement on an unfair collaborative act, the presumption shall be reasonably determined by comprehensively taking into account the characteristics and status of the market in the trade area of the product in question, the characteristics and patterns of the product, the distribution structure, the structure of prices, the structure of prices, and all other internal and external impacts that affect the market in question, the status of each individual business occupies in the market in the same trade area, the impact of the price changes on the business profit and market share of the individual business operator, the legitimacy of the business judgment, the actual condition of direct communication such as meetings between the business operators, the degree of probability that the agreement can be reached, the experience of price reduction, and the economic experience and policy prevailing at the time of the trade (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Du464827, May 2007).

(2) Determination:

However, it is not enough to acknowledge that the instant company’s implementation of the intermediate payment interest payment system in common was made independently in accordance with their respective business judgment without any agreement or necessity, or that some of the written evidence of Nos. 7 and 12 (including the serial number) were written alone with respect to whether there is a circumstance that it is not a collaborative act under the agreement, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Rather, according to each of the above facts, the company of this case discussed the following facts as follows: ① the company of this case has a meeting of 40 times or more during a year immediately before the sale, and exchanged information about the sale price, sale price, and sale price, etc., and continuously consulted with guidelines, etc.: ② In particular, in the case of intermediate payment interest, the company’s meeting on February 28, 2003 at the meeting of the Council on February 28, 2003, the company of this case prepared “the normal sale price, interest rate (7%), interest rate (7%), and interest rate-free (7%) as to the sale method at the next meeting; ③ the company’s agreement was adopted on March 6, 2003, each of the above companies was divided into “interest-free, interest-free, loan-free, etc.,” and ④ the company’s agreement was adopted as a replacement with the Council on March 6, 2003.

C. Whether specific dispositions are lawful

As seen earlier, the part of the apartment sale decision agreement cannot be presumed to be legally, so the disposition of this case related thereto (the part related to the corrective order of Paragraph (1), the publication order of Paragraph (3), and the correction order of each of the penalty surcharges of Paragraph (4) is unlawful. The following is examined as to whether the defendant's specific disposition regarding the "agreement on the decision on the decision on the decision on the late payment and late payment of penalty surcharges" recognized as an unfair collaborative act is legitimate.

(1) Action suspension and disclosure order;

Since it is recognized that the Plaintiff adopted the intermediate payment interest system and the late payment system with respect to the sale of apartment units in this case, and made an unfair collaborative act (agreement on payment terms) in violation of Article 19(1) of the Act, it is reasonable to order the Defendant to take corrective measures pursuant to Article 21 of the Act not to repeat the violation of the Act against the Plaintiff (it is possible to order not to repeat the same type of act that is likely to repeat in the near future as well as the past), and ② to order the Defendant to publish the fact that he received a corrective order from the Defendant on the newspaper on the ground of the violation of the Act. This part of the corrective order is legitimate

(2) Whether the order to impose a penalty is lawful

(A) Pursuant to Article 22 of the Act and Article 9, Article 61, and attached Table 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 18356 of Apr. 1, 2004), the Defendant’s total sales amount of the apartment of this case (140.320 billion won) shall be the Plaintiff’s sales amount, set at the rate of penalty surcharge of 3/100 and multiplied by the rate of penalty surcharge of 3/100. The Defendant calculated and imposed the amount calculated as penalty surcharge of 50% within the extent that does not exceed the average sales amount of the Plaintiff’s immediately preceding 3 years.

(B) However, the above penalty surcharge is a disposition for two unfair collaborative acts that the plaintiff agreed with the company of this case about the determination of apartment sale price (Article 19 (1) 1 of the Act) and the decision on the method of payment of intermediate payment (Article 19 (1) 2 of the Act). Among them, the disposition of penalty surcharge corresponding to the part (1) which is not recognized as an unfair collaborative act in this case should be revoked since it is unlawful. The defendant calculated and imposed a penalty surcharge without specifying the above two parts, and it is difficult to distinguish and specify the penalty surcharge only with the materials indicated in the records of this case. Thus, it is difficult for the court to determine the appropriateness of the penalty surcharge specified in the remaining part (Article 19 (1) 2 of the Act). In such a case,

(C) Furthermore, we examine whether the Defendant deviates from and abused discretion in calculating the penalty surcharge against the Plaintiff.

Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 8 through 11 (including additional numbers), the plaintiff entered into a joint project agreement with "self-Decree" (the first executive officer), a subsidiary company, around July 2003, by setting forth 50:50 shares; ② The plaintiff and self-Decree entered into a joint project agreement with "self-Decree" (the first executive officer) around July 2003; ② joint housing construction project plan approval and house sale guarantee; purchase and sale contract; purchase contract; advertisement; all of the expenses; and sales contract; ③ the fact that the plaintiff did not participate in the joint project; ③ the fact that he did not participate in the meeting; ④ the sales of his own house was 8,320,793; 461; ④ the sales of his own house in the year 2001; 18,053,414,513; 44,596,470 won in the year 202; and the average sales of his own house in the immediately preceding three years;

Thus, the defendant should have taken into account the above ratio of self-employed's shares in calculating the penalty surcharge against the plaintiff, or the average sales for the three years immediately preceding the self-employed's previous 3 years, but without considering such circumstances, based on the relevant sales and average sales, the disposition of this case was taken without considering all such circumstances. This is recognized as a disposition that deviates from or abused discretion by misunderstanding the facts which form the basis of the penalty surcharge or by considering them (Article 55-3 (1) of the Act).

5. Conclusion

Therefore, the part concerning the corrective order of Paragraph (2) of this case among the disposition of this case stated in [Attachment 1] is legitimate, and the part concerning the corrective order of Paragraph (3) of this case is legitimate, and the part concerning the corrective order of Paragraph (1) of this case among the order of public announcement of Paragraph (3) of this case, and Paragraph (4) of this case is illegal, and Paragraph (3) of this case of this case of this case of seeking the cancellation of the whole disposition of this case of this case of this case of this case of this case of this case of this case of this case

Judges Lee Jae-in (Presiding Judge)