2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. The inquiree shall be the defendant.

A. The defendant is a business operator who is engaged in the manufacture, sale, etc. of two-wheeled motor vehicles (hereinafter referred to as "wheeled motor vehicles"), a business headquarters for each region, and sells goods to the agencies, and the agencies shall sell or sell the two-wheeled motor vehicles purchased on consignment or directly.

Plaintiff

A, from the year 198 of the withdrawal of the Defendant, concluded a contract with the Defendant for the instant agency (hereinafter “instant agency contract”) and operated the E agency.

The agency contract was renewed by 2010.

B. The Fair Trade Commission, by its Decision No. 2015-151, decided May 6, 2015, recognized that the Defendant forced a part of an agency to purchase a wheeled vehicle regardless of the agency’s intent from July 2007 to June 2014, and decided to include the following:

Notes

1. The respondent shall not compel an agency holding excessive stocks by unfairly taking advantage of its transaction position to purchase products, and compel an agency to purchase products by increasing the agency's limit on credit transactions with which he/she deals, such as compelling the agency to purchase the products, again;

2.The respondent shall pay the penalty surcharge to the National Treasury in accordance with the following subparagraphs:

Amount of penalty surcharge: 300,000,000

3. Disposition.

B. 4) Determination of penalty surcharges is 50/100 of the base date for the second adjustment, taking into account that it is difficult to see that the act of compelling the purchase of the person subject to the determination of the penalty surcharges was committed at all agencies trading the person under question. (c) The Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Fair Trade Commission for revocation of the said corrective order, such as the Seoul High Court Order 2015Nu4528, but the above court dismissed the Defendant’s claim. The Defendant appealed against the above judgment and is currently pending in the final appeal court. The Defendant is still pending in the final appeal court. The ground for recognition is without any dispute, and evidence Nos. 1, 2, 5, and 8 (including the serial number; hereinafter the same