Ullsan MDAL

Representative Director Kim

Law Firm (LO)

Attorney Lee, O, O, O, Jong, Kim

Representative Chairperson White-ho

Law Firm Doz.

Attorney Lee Han, Choi, Jin, Jin, Kim

The organization of litigation performers,

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

1. On the first ground for appeal

(a) Whether the act conforms to the external shape;

In order to estimate the "agreement of a business entity" under Article 19 (5) of the former Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act (amended by Act No. 7315 of Dec. 31, 2004; hereinafter referred to as the "Act"), the fact that the Fair Trade Commission conducts an act falling under any of the subparagraphs of Article 19 (1) of the Act (hereinafter referred to as the "agreement") by two or more business entities and its "an act practically restricting competition in a particular business area" is sufficient to prove two indirect facts of "an act practically restricting competition in a particular business area" (hereinafter referred to as "competitive act"), and in addition, it is not necessary to prove the fact that the business entity's agreement or implied understanding should be presumed to be consistent (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 9Du6514, 6521, Mar. 15, 2002; 201Du5251, Feb. 25, 2005).

In full view of the evidence duly admitted, the court below determined that six construction companies including the plaintiff 1 corporation (hereinafter referred to as the "company of this case") sold the apartment of 2,635 units in the Taesi-si Housing Site Development Zone (hereinafter referred to as "the apartment of this case") around September 2001, 600, the above 60-70-60-60-60-60-60-70-70-70-70-70-70-60-70-70-70-70-70-70-60-70-70-70-70-70-70-70-70-70-70-60-70-70-70-70-70-70-60-70-70-70-70-70-70-700-70-70-700-70-700-70-700-7.

In light of the above legal principles and records, the above measures of the court below are just, and there is no violation of law such as incomplete deliberation or violation of the rules of evidence.

B. The relevant market, which is defined as the premise of determining an unfair collaborative act under the Act on the Definition of Related Markets, shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account the similarity of functions and utility of the goods subject to the transaction, the purchaser’s awareness of the substitution possibility, and the type of management decision related thereto (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Du14564, Nov. 9, 2006, etc.).

The court below shall assume the risk of new apartment sale as an investment asset at the latest and at the time of its occupancy.

Considering the characteristics of the goods, the scope of qualified consumers, the non-alternativeness of demand for the right to sell an apartment before the occupancy in the existing apartment or after the sale of the apartment, and the non-carbonity of the supply of a new apartment after the purchase of the new apartment in the area subject to the large-scale housing site development zone, etc., the new and old apartment can not be deemed to be larger than that of the purchase of the new apartment after the sale of the existing apartment or after the sale of the apartment, so the new apartment market of this case can be defined as the "new apartment market". In the case of an apartment sold by a large-scale housing site development zone project, it can be viewed as a small-scale apartment with various administrative, educational, and convenience facilities in the housing site development zone itself, taking into account the characteristics of the apartment complex with the residential essential and investment property at the same time. At the time of the sale of the apartment of this case, the related geographical market of this case is defined as the "small-scale

In light of the above legal principles and records, the above measures of the court below are just, and there is no violation of law such as incomplete deliberation or violation of the rules of evidence.

C. Whether it is substantially restricting competition

Whether the pertinent act is "competitive competition" in accordance with Article 19 (5) of the Act shall be determined individually by examining whether the pertinent act causes or is likely to cause impacts on the decision of price, quantity, quality, and other terms and conditions of transaction according to the intent of a certain enterpriser or an enterprisers' organization by reducing competition in a particular business area, taking into account various circumstances such as the characteristics of the pertinent product, consumers' selection standards, impact of the relevant act on the market and enterprisers' competition (see Supreme Court Decision 9Du6514, 6521 delivered on March 15, 2002).

The court below determined that the company of this case including the plaintiff of this case's apartment construction and apartment sales price in the same manner as the company of this case's apartment sales price and the price method are limited if the company of this case's apartment sales price and the price method are determined at the same level as the company of this case's apartment sales price are limited, so that the company can enjoy the profit which can not be enjoyed in the normal competition market and the company can return to the other company of this case's new apartment market of this case's related market of this case's new apartment market of this case's market of this case's case's new apartment market of this case's market of this case's 93% market share of the company of this case's new apartment market of this case's new apartment market of this case's market of this case's apartment of this case's case's 93% market share of the company of this case's new apartment market of this case's 650,000 won or more, or the company's act of this case's apartment price reduction is likely to substantially affect the new competition in the market.

In light of the above legal principles and records, the above measures of the court below are just and there is no violation of law such as incomplete hearing or violation of the rules of evidence.

2. On the second ground of Article 19(5) of the Act, when determining circumstances in which enterprisers, who are presumed to have agreed to engage in unfair collaborative acts under Article 19(5) of the Act, may destroy presumptions of agreement on unfair collaborative acts, a reasonable determination shall be made in accordance with the trade norms by comprehensively taking into account the characteristics and status of the market in the field of the product concerned, the characteristics and mode of the product, the distribution structure, the structure of pricing, the structure of prices, the impact on the market price, the position of each individual enterprise in the same trade sector, the impact of the price changes on the individual enterprise's operating income, market share, etc., the legitimacy of the business judgment, the degree of direct exchange of opinion, such as mutual meetings of the enterprise, the degree of probability that the agreement may be reached even without consultation, the experience of price reduction and legal violation, and the background of economic policy at the time, etc. (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Du8323, Nov. 23, 2006).

In light of the above legal principles and records, the court below rejected the plaintiff's assertion that the presumption of an unfair collaborative act was extinguished on the ground that the act of determining apartment sale price of the company in this case was conducted independently according to each company's business judgment without any agreement or necessity, or that there was no evidence to find that there was no circumstance to believe that it was not a collaborative act according to the agreement, and that the presumption of an unfair collaborative act was extinguished, the above disposition of the court below is just, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence or incomplete deliberation as otherwise

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Young-young

Justices Kim Gi-hwan

State Justice Cha Han-sung