시정명령및과징금납부명령취소
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.
The grounds of appeal are examined.
1. Whether the collaborative act of this case as a whole constitutes a single collaborative act (ground of appeal No. 1)
A. In the event that business entities have reached an agreement on the basic principles of unfair collaborative acts and have reached several agreements in the process of implementing such agreement, and even if they have reached several agreements over a long time without the agreement on such basic principles, if each agreement has been implemented for the same purpose on the basis of a single intent and has been continuously implemented without being cut off, such a series of agreements, barring any special circumstance, should be deemed as a single unfair collaborative act as a whole, even if there has been partial changes in the specific contents or members of each agreement.
(See Supreme Court Decision 2008Du16179 Decided January 30, 2009, etc.). B.
The court below held that the series of agreements in this case constitute one collaborative act as a whole by continuously performing the collaborative act from the time when the first agreement was reached to May 24, 2009 to May 24, 2009 with the Defendant’s investigation, on the following grounds: (a) the collaborative act in this case was conducted for the consistent purpose of guaranteeing business entities’ interests through the avoidance of competition in the market for purchasing pumps; (b) the contents and form of the agreement were repeated in the same structure as substantially identical to each other; and (c) most of the business entities manufacturing and supplying the entry pumps participated in the collaborative act in this case; and (d) there was no fact that a certain business entity explicitly withdraws from the collaborative act or breached the agreement; and (e) there was some changes in the specific method
Even if there were some competitive bidding conducted in the course of the implementation of each agreement, it is difficult to view that the continuity of the collaborative act is severed, and on different premise, it is part of the collaborative act.