2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The defendant alleged the claim on June 3, 2020 B C.

C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “C”) is an enterprise that manufactures and sells the livers which are food, and is supplied with plastic containers used for the production of livers from August 2008 to November 2019 by the Plaintiff.

On November 7, 2019, the Plaintiff accepted C’s quality improvement, unit price reduction demand, etc. with respect to the Plaintiff, but C reported C to the Defendant on February 11, 2020 on the ground that it violates Article 23(1)1 of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act (hereinafter “Fair Trade Act”).

(B) On May 2020, the Defendant prepared a review report to the effect that “C’s demand for the reduction of the unit price, etc. to the Plaintiff is a measure chosen as part of restructuring and quality improvement in order to improve the aggravated management situation rather than intentionally excluding the Plaintiff at the market.” As such, C’s above act does not constitute a refusal of transaction under Article 23(1)1 of the Fair Trade Act.” Pursuant to Articles 47(1) and 53-2(1) of the Fair Trade Commission Rules on the Operation of Meetings and Case Procedure, etc. (hereinafter “Case Rules”), and the Plaintiff was notified of the instant measure by the Defendant around June 3, 2020.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Eul evidence No. 1, the purport of the entire pleading, and the purport of the lawsuit in this case, it is merely that the defendant's report under Article 49 (2) of the Fair Trade Act provides the defendant with a proviso to urge the defendant to ex officio refrain from investigating the facts of violation of the Act, and there is a specific claim that can require the reporter to take appropriate measures in accordance with the contents of the report.

Therefore, the defendant's measure of this case is an administrative disposition that is the object of appeal litigation.