Costs of appeal shall be borne by each party.

1. (1) As to the Plaintiff’s grounds of appeal, the lower court determined to the effect that: (a) on June 13, 2006, the Plaintiff: (b) agreed that the Plaintiff would purchase and deliver drugs at the hospital with another wholesaler who was involved in the transaction with the previous pharmacist, and then transfer the price to the wholesaler at the hospital (hereinafter referred to as “doing transaction”; (c) the delivery method was implemented for about one year thereafter; and (d) the bid price was maintained in the above hospital’s bidding in 2007 and 2008 (hereinafter referred to as “the bid in this case”); and (e) the bid price was maintained in the above hospital’s bidding in 207 and 208 (hereinafter referred to as “the bid in this case”).

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and duly admitted evidence, the lower court’s aforementioned recognition and determination is justifiable.

There is no violation of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules.

(2) In order to determine whether the relevant market definition constitutes an unfair collaborative act as provided in each subparagraph of Article 19(1) of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act (hereinafter “Fair Trade Act”), the pertinent market, which is the object of the transaction, is to be specifically determined with respect to a certain business area in which the competition relation may be at issue. In light of diversity of the unfair collaborative act, efficiency and rationality of the regulation, the Defendant’s collaborative act is committed.