Seoul Seocho-gu Seoul High Public Prosecutor's Office 1 division

The Minister of Justice of the Republic of Korea

Government Law Firm Corporation, Attorney Park Si-si, Counsel for defendant-appellant

2. B

3. C.

4. Stock company D.

5. Stock company F

6. G stock company;

[Judgment of the court below]

From December 11, 2006, 626, 350, and 900 won from November 1, 2007, 5, 5, 575, 775, and 800 won

As regards September 30, 2008 to February 13, 2015, 5% per annum, and full payment from the next day to the day of February 13, 2015.

By the day, 20% interest per annum shall be paid.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims against the defendants are dismissed.

3. One-half of the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder by the Defendants, respectively.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

Until the last delivery date of the books of account, 6% per annum and 20% per annum from the following day to the date of full payment.

shall pay the amount by interest rate.

A. Status of the Parties

The defendants (hereinafter referred to as "in the case of an individual name, the "stock company" is omitted) are unmanned bridge.

The Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Fair Trade Act"), as a corporation that manufactures and sells a monitoring device;

The Plaintiff is a business operator under Article 2 subparagraph 1 of the Trade Act. The Plaintiff is a 16 local police agency under its jurisdiction (Seoul:

Busan, Daegu, Incheon, Gwangju, Daejeon, Ulsan, Ulsan, Gyeonggi-do, Gangwon-do, Chungcheongbuk-do, Chungcheongnam-do, Chungcheong-do, Jeollabuk-do, Jeollabuk-do, Jeollabuk-do, all others

95 proposals from November 2005 to September 2008 through Ranam-do, Gyeongnam-do, Gyeongnam-do, and Jeju-do)

The bid for the purchase of unmanned traffic monitoring devices was conducted (hereinafter referred to as the "tender of this case").

B. Summary of the instant tender

1) The Public Procurement Service shall reduce unmanned traffic from 2005 to 2008 by 16 local police agencies nationwide.

A successful bidder shall be determined by means of a separate bid for standard and price in bidding at a request for the purchase of the Si device.

The defendants are only the defendants due to the technology inspection certification system introduced and strengthened since 2000.

The requirements for participation in the tender were met.

2) Unmanned traffic monitoring devices are very high speed (hereinafter referred to as "speed") and signals;

Multi-functional monitoring devices (hereinafter referred to as "multi-functional monitoring devices") for violations, traffic lane violations, side-road violations, etc., a group of sections;

Section 2(hereinafter referred to as the "section Control") is classified into part control, and the status of participation in the bid in this case and the award of the contract.

The present status shall be as follows:

The current status of participation in the bidding of this case.

(unit: 1000 won)

A person shall be appointed.

C. The defendants' collusion act

The Defendants are, from November 2005 to September 2008, Defendants A, C, Defendant D, and Defendant F, etc.

The office of each local police agency, road traffic center, etc. shall gather to exchange information and promote friendship, etc.

and, in particular, a meeting has been held at least 10 days prior to the date of the relevant tender, if the notice of the instant tender was given.

B and exchanged the opinion of each party on the desired area of the successful tender that each party wants. After that, the Defendants C

the successful tender area shall be determined by completing the adjustment rate for the desired area from 2 to 3 days before the date of the tender of the Si;

In exceptional cases where the final adjustment rate has not been terminated, the parties who have different opinions;

Before the bid date, it completed the coordination on the desired areas of successful tender through consultation.

On the other hand, the bid for the instant bidding is scheduled to be awarded by the Defendant to the other Defendants.

It was made by means of telephone contact individually and request, etc. at that time.

Gohap did not have difficulty in preparing for participation in the bidding, and the bid bid of the relevant local police agency.

of the local police agency, if not, is likely to be disadvantaged by the local police agency in the future;

This is because the Russian tender actively cooperates in such a bidding.

The extent of 97 to 98% of the basic amount of 1) in the tender of this case by the Defendants, who are scheduled to award the contract of this case

and, in the case of the defendants who are bidders, the defendants are to be invested more than 98% of the basic amount.

The Defendants’ assertion on the instant tender made from November 3, 2005 to September 30, 2008

The act of collusion in this case is referred to as "act of collusion in this case".

D. The current status of the bidding by case, etc. of the instant bidding

1) Order points by case of the instant tender from 2005 to 2008, ordered volume, basic money

The amount, bid participants, bid amount, etc. are as shown in the attached Table 1 of the current status of bidding, and as shown in the above list.

The bid price rate in the bidding of this case reaches 52% from 97.52 to 99.50%.

2) Technology in the tender for the first half of the year 2009 unmanned transport monitoring device, which was in progress after the instant tender.

registration companies and software business operators with the relaxation of the requirements of the inspection certification system;

any person has been able to participate in a tender, and as a result, 16 participations in the first half of 2009.

In the bid, the bid price rate was 57. 16 to 72. 06%.

E. Disposition by the Fair Trade Commission and the defendants' objection

1) The Fair Trade Commission decided March 3, 2011 2011 - 018, as the Defendants committed the instant collusion.

B. On the ground that the Defendants violated Article 19(1) Subparagraph 8 of the Fair Trade Act

Correction Order and penalty surcharge payment order prohibiting the act of collusion (Defendant A: 1, 254, 000, 000, 200)

: 799, 000, 000 won, Defendant C: 824, 000, 000 won, Defendant D: 815, 000, 000 won, Defendant G: Defendant G:

133, 000, 000 won, Defendant F was exempted from penalty surcharges under the provisions of reduction or exemption of voluntary reporters, and Defendant F was exempted from penalty surcharges;

G was exempted from penalty surcharges by 50% for the same reason (hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”).

(3).

2) Regarding the instant disposition, Defendant A, Seoul High Court No. 2011Nu27126, Defendant B, and C

Seoul High Court Decision 2011Nu26161, Defendant D, Seoul High Court Decision 2011Nu27331

In each of the above cases, the agency filed an administrative litigation seeking the revocation of the disposition, but the agency filed this objection on November 21, 2013

Recognizing that the instant disposition was lawful by recognizing the act of collusion, the said Defendants’ claim is all filed.

Supreme Court Decision 2013Du25931, 2013Du26088 Decided February 1, 201

In 2013du26798, both appeals were dismissed on March 27, 2014.

【No dispute over admitted evidence”, entry of Gap evidence 1 to Gap evidence 5, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. Determination on the cause of the claim

According to the above facts of recognition, the defendants were from November 2005 to September 2008.

An agreement is reached and mutual contact is reached by adjusting a successful bid area, i.e., a successful bid area.

(1) after setting forth a bidder, the successful bidder shall be an amount equivalent to 97 to 98 per cent of the basic amount:

The successful bidder and the successful bidder shall be a successful bidder and the successful bidder by making a bid at a higher amount than that of the highest amount.

The defendants determined the successful bidder, bid price, successful bid price, etc. of the tender of this case.

Collaborative acts that unfairly restrict competition, which violate Article 19 (1) 8 of the Fair Trade Act.

Since the defendants are acts, they are due to the above illegal collusion pursuant to Article 56 of the Fair Trade Act.

The Plaintiff is liable to compensate for damages.

B. Determination as to the defendants' defense of extinctive prescription

The Defendants’ losses caused by the Plaintiff’s act of collusion around 2005 among the instant collusion acts

The claim for compensation for damage has expired with the lapse of the five-year statute of limitations as stipulated in Article 96 of the National Finance Act.

defense.

In the case of a claim for damages caused by a tort, the injured party or his legal representative shall cause the damage and

If the perpetrator has not been exercised for three years from the day on which he became aware of the offender, the short-term extinctive prescription shall expire.

(Article 766(1) of the Civil Code, in the case of a tort against the State on the other hand, five years from the date of such tort

(Article 96 of the National Finance Act, Article 96 of the Budget and Accounts Act, and Article 96 of the Budget and Accounts Act).

The period of the above five years of extinctive prescription, unlike the period of the short-term extinctive prescription of three years, has been immediately advanced

b. According to the statements in Gap evidence 1 to Gap evidence 3-3, the tender of this case in 2005

It is recognized that the last bid was in progress on November 22, 2005, and the plaintiff's lawsuit of this case is filed.

The facts raised on October 17, 201, after five years from the date on which 5 years elapsed, are apparent in the record, and thus the fence of this case

The part on the tender in 2005 was already extinguished by prescription for the plaintiff's right to claim damages.

C. As to this, the Plaintiff’s written reference was submitted on January 21, 2015 after the closing of the instant argument.

Right to claim damages before administrative litigation on the disposition of this case becomes final and conclusive.

Since there was a de facto obstacle to the exercise, the statute of limitations defense by the Defendants is against the good faith principle.

This is the abuse of rights, but only the Fair Trade Commission under the Plaintiff's control on March 3, 201.

As long as the statute of limitations has been reduced due to the confirmation of the act of collusion and the disposition of this case, the plaintiffs shall do so.

It is difficult to evaluate that there was a de facto obstacle to the exercise of the right to claim damages.

The plaintiff does not have any circumstance that the statute of limitations defense goes against the good faith principle or constitutes abuse of rights.

The above argument is without merit.

3. Scope of liability for damages

A. Method of calculating the amount of damages;

Any loss caused by an illegal bidding collusion shall be the successful bid price formed by such collusion, and

The difference between the price that would have been formed when there was no collusion (hereinafter referred to as "Virtual competition price") and the price that would have been formed when there was no collusion;

the price of the virtual competition here means the need for price formation in the market in which the act of collusion occurred.

10,000,000

shall be determined. It is practically difficult to accurately measure the virtual competitive price, but it is so, not.

or the plaintiff's right to receive compensation shall not be infringed upon in accordance with the simple trend.

Therefore, the amount of damages is based on scientific and reasonable methods based on theoretical grounds and materials.

If the court determines that the damages have been reasonably presumed, it shall compensate on the basis of the damages calculated as such.

order (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Da93790 decided November 29, 2012, etc.).

(b) Results of appraisal by this court;

virtual competitive price shall be excluded only from the effect of collusion in the same circumstances where all other market conditions are the same.

(1) at the time of the formation of the

The effect of collusion should be examined only by controlling the persons. The method of estimating virtual competition prices is the method of estimating them.

(1) There are: (a) front and rear guard method; (b) comparative market method; (c) double divided method; and (d) estimate of the completion of expenses, etc.

In this case, the appraiser South South Korea is the same method as before and after the appraisal of the virtual competitive price.

Because of the use of market prices observed in one market, analysis is easy and relatively accurate;

In the case of an unmanned traffic monitoring device, it is known that the National Police Agency is the sole buyer.

Other market factors affecting price determination are the same or the same except the collusion act in this case.

In consideration of the fact that it is difficult to find a similar market, it adopted the post adoption law.

Expert witnesses shall divide the unmanned traffic monitoring devices into speed and multi-functional, and purchase them by type of the above equipment.

i) The unit purchase price for each monitoring device through the successful bid price, on the basis of the number of copies and the data on the successful bid price.

and ii) a model in which the unit price for purchase during the competition period is determined through a multi-drop analysis;

following, iii) estimating the virtual competition price during the period of the collaborative act in accordance with the model and presumption as such.

The amount of damages was calculated through the difference between the virtual competitive price and the actual purchase price.

In accordance with such a manner as above, the appraiser of 2003, 2004, and 2009 shall be subject to the competition period of 3 years 2009

The entry of this case based on the number of purchases during the above period, data on the successful bid price, etc., in view of the collusion period

It is estimated that the virtual competitive price and the amount of damages have been estimated during the inspection period, and the result is attached Form 2.

As a result of the assessment of damages, the sum of damages under the above table is KRW 11,278, 729,000 (an appraiser).

The sum (2) of the appraisal sheets No. 36 in the preparation of South-North China shall be the aggregate (2) of the appraisal sheets: Provided, That as deemed subsequent,

The statute of limitations expired 2005 part of the right to claim damages on a tender of 2005 will be excluded.3)

C. Determination as to the defendants' assertion

1) Summary of the assertion

An appraiser may reflect the "cost" in establishing a model for revolving analysis.

It was included and analyzed as a explanatory variable, but it was not included in the tender.

The producer price index at least should be reflected in the appraisal result due to the increase in costs due to the increase in costs.

It should be added as an explanatory variable, and if it is reflected, the amount of damages shall be 8,658,873,00 won.

2) Determination

The results of the appraisal of the appraiser's South Korea and the fact-finding about the appraiser can be known.

the following circumstances, i.e., the appraiser setting up a revolving analysis model with the unit price for the successful bid as a dependent variable:

in this section, the price rate, regional price difference, price difference by time, and other factors shall be considered as explanatory variables.

The "cost"-related factors claimed by the Defendants are not included in explanatory variables, 2 appraisal

person is required to add the producer price index (traffic signal apparatus) as an explanatory variable as a factor related to the "cost".

price change during the competition period in the producer price index (traffic signal device) above, although such change was made;

It did not find any factors that could explain flow, and the unit price of the traffic signal apparatus was from 2003 to 2004

The producer price index (transport price index) appears to have fallen rather between 209 and 2011.

In the case of heading equipment, there is no data from 2003 to 2004, as well as after 2009.

The U.S. has maintained almost the same level until 2011, which was from 2009 to 2011

Taking into account the fact that the actual purchase price decline of the traffic monitoring device was inconsistent with the size of the actual purchase price decline;

The producer price index (traffic signal apparatus) is not added as an explanatory variable, and 3 producer price index is the producer price index.

An index measured by weighted average prices of various products, which is the difference between the price increase of each item and the difference between the price increase of each item.

(1) The producer price index and the subject of the tender in this case, i.e., the unmanned traffic monitoring officer;

It should be recognized that there is a substantial proportion between the value's competition price and the value's competition price, but it should be an explanation variable.

It should be appropriate to include such proportional relationship, and it is reasonable to recognize that such proportional relationship is reasonable.

No evidence exists (the purchase group for the unmanned traffic monitoring device as seen above)

during the period between 2009 and 2011, the producer price index for a traffic signal device that has fallen;

In full view of the following factors, the appraiser’s need for the cost, such as the producer price index, etc.

It is reasonable to calculate the amount of damages by analyzing the successful bid price that has been observed without exclusion of action.

The release method is determined as the release method, and the producer price index of the general goods claimed by the Defendant is explained.

It is difficult to see that there was any error in the omission of adding it to several ways. Therefore, the Defendants’ assertion as above.

shall not be accepted.

D. Determination of damages

According to the above judgment, the amount of damages caused by the instant collusion is the result of the instant appraisal.

It is reasonable to view that the extinctive prescription has been completed as KRW 11,278, 729,00. Provided, That the extinctive prescription is completed in 2005.

Since the amount of damages caused by the collaborative act should be excluded, the result of the appraisal in this case

[Attachment 2] The total amount of damages of the tender in 2005 out of the table "as a result of the assessment of damages"

1. Amount of damages recognized as excluding KRW 9,585, 285, 00, 000 ( = 11, 278, 729, 700, 000 -

1. It shall be 1, 693, 444, 000 won.

E. Limitation on liability

The following circumstances acknowledged by the records of this case, i.e., ① as seen earlier:

In calculating the amount of the plaintiff's damages, the former and latter law is relative compared to the method of calculating other losses.

The method of statistical presumption is not entirely reasonable, but incomplete.

In such a case, the court is based on the whole purport of the pleading and the result of the examination of evidence.

(see Article 57 of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act), 2.2 The plaintiff, 2003

The winning bid rate from 2005 in the bid for the purchase of unmanned transport monitoring device that was conducted from the year to 2009.

From the moment of rapid increase, from 2008, to 97 to 98% of the basic amount for 4 years.

The amount has been maintained as the successful bid price and the bid rate has reached 98 to 101% in a uniform manner.

In light of the above, the defendants' potential of collusion was suspected, but due care was paid to them.

(3) The Plaintiff is an exclusive buyer of the unmanned transport monitoring device.

under the premise that the basic amount can be unilaterally calculated and publicly announced, but the cost shall be assessed or assessed on the basis.

It is deemed that the design work, maintenance and repair cost, etc. performed without compensation are not properly reflected.

There is room, 4. Business of unmanned traffic monitoring devices depending on bidding most of the sales.

In the case of some defendants, the profit ratio is not higher than the amount of sales, and in the case of some defendants, the above business itself is weighted.

However, it appears that the profits accrued to the Defendants by the instant collaborative act, such as this case’s collusion, are not significant.

Considering B, in light of the ideology of the damage compensation system, the Defendants are entitled to equitable and reasonable apportionment of damages.

The amount to be compensated for the Plaintiff shall be 70% of the amount of damages recognized earlier.

F. Sub-committee

Therefore, the Defendants are liable to each of the Plaintiff for damages arising from the instant collusion.

6, 709, 699, 500 won ( = 9,585, 285, 000 Won X 70%) and due to collusion in 2006 among the above amounts

The amount of damages = 507, 572, 800 won ( = 725, 104, 000 Won X 70%) shall be 206, the last bidding date.

12. 626, 350, 900 won ( = 894, 787, 000 won) arising from the collusion from November 11, 200 to 207

70 per cent) Damage resulting from collusion in 2008, the last bidding date, from November 1, 2007, and from the last bidding date.

Amount of compensation 5, 575, 775, 800 won ( = 7,965, 394, 000 Won X70 per cent) on the last bidding date. < Amended by Act No. 2008

9. From 30. 30. to 30. It is reasonable that each of the Defendants has a dispute as to the existence and scope of the discharge obligation.

Until February 13, 2015, which is a date of adjudication, 5% per annum prescribed in the Civil Act (the plaintiff is subject to 6% per annum of commercial interest).

The plaintiff's claim of this case is a claim for damages arising from a tort, but the plaintiff's claim of this case is standing.

The rate shall not be deemed to apply to the promotion of a lawsuit, etc. from the next day to the day of complete payment.

There is a duty to pay damages for delay at the rate of 20% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Korea.

4. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants is justified within the scope of each of the above recognition.

The remaining claims are dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Kim Jae-han

Judge Park Jong-soo

It is the amount set at a certain discount in consideration of the factors such as family changes.

2) There is a difference between scholars regarding classification and terms, but in this case, according to the classification and terms set forth in the appraisal report of the appraiser South Korea.

(1) Before and after the end of the year when there was no collusion for the same market, and the price at which there was collusion for the same market.

The method to estimate the unfair price increase due to collusion, and ② The comparative market law did not have collusion at the given point.

The price due to collusion by making the market as the standard market and comparing the price in the market where the act of collusion was committed with that market.

A method of calculating the increase, and (3) a double reduction method is a method of mutually supplementing the market law comparison with the front and rear comparison method, and collusion in the collusion market.

It is the method of calculating the difference in the price at the time and time that had not existed and the difference in the price at the comparison market by deducting the difference, 4.

The presumption method is to identify the costs of producers and to estimate them as the virtual competitive price by summing up normal margins that may arise in the competitive market.

is a method.

3) The sum total of the 'total damages' of the above table is (1) plus (2). The sum (1) is the result that only the 'amount' from the revolving analysis model as an explanatory variable and the combination is the result that only the 'amount' as an explanatory variable.

J. (2) The results are as follows: ‘The quantity' and ‘the number of compliance' in the revolving analysis model as an explanatory variable. Appraiser in 2003, 2004, and 2009.

The amount of damages shall be estimated by applying each of the above two models to the case of making the two models as the period of competition in 2003 and 2004.

As a result, the second model, in which the difference between the estimated damages during the competition period is written, i.e., the quantity, and 'the number of bidding' are written.

The total (2) as a result of the model used as a variable was presented as the amount of damages.

A person shall be appointed.