1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

The court below held that the service of this case's order to pay penalty surcharge is lawful as a service under Article 53-3 (1) and (2) of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act. The judgment of the court below is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to reverse delivery of fair trade case, as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

In full view of each provision of Articles 6, 17, 22, 24-2, 28, 31-2, and 34-2 of the former Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act (amended by Act No. 7315 of Dec. 31, 2004; hereinafter the same), the Fair Trade Commission has discretion to determine whether to impose a penalty surcharge for a violation of the Act, and if a penalty surcharge is to be imposed, the Fair Trade Commission has discretion to determine the specific amount of a penalty surcharge within a certain scope provided for in the Act and the Enforcement Decree. Thus, the imposition of a penalty surcharge against a violator of the Act by the Fair Trade Commission is a discretionary act. However, if there are grounds such as misunderstanding of the fact that serves as the basis for the imposition of a penalty surcharge in exercising such discretion, or violating the principle of proportionality and equality, it shall be deemed unlawful as a deviation or abuse of discretionary power (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200Du6121, May 28, 2002).

According to the records, the defendant's order to pay the penalty surcharge of this case is legitimate as an act within the scope of discretion of the defendant in consideration of the following circumstances: the degree of cooperation among the plaintiff and the non-party illegal cartel conduct of this case; the situation that the plaintiff did not attend the defendant's meeting; etc.; and the reason under Article 5-3 (1) of the Act; the content and degree of the violation; the period and frequency of the violation; and the size of profits acquired from the violation; etc.

The judgment of the court below to the same purport is just, and there are no errors in the misapprehension of legal principles as to deviation from or abuse of discretion in the calculation of penalty surcharges, the violation of the rules of evidence, the misconception of facts due to incomplete deliberation, the contradiction of reasons, omission of judgment, and the misapprehension of legal principles as to

3. Conclusion

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

Justices Lee Hong-hoon (Presiding Justice)