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

A. On February 2017, the Plaintiff reported to the Defendant on the violation of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act (hereinafter “Fair Trade Act”) (hereinafter “Fair Trade Act”), including the determination of unfair subcontract consideration, unfair consignment cancellation, retaliation, and evasion of the Act on Fair Transactions in Subcontracting (hereinafter “subcontract”), and unfair collaborative acts, unfair trade practices, retaliation, etc. (hereinafter “instant violation”).

B. On May 23, 2017, the Defendant: (a) on the Plaintiff’s report on May 23, 2017, the notice of the decision on the commencement of review on May 23, 2017 under Article 12(1)3 of the Rules on the Operation of Meetings and the Procedure for Cases on the ground that the instant violation is not subject to the Subcontract Act (hereinafter “Case Rules”); (b) the relevant provision is written under Article 12(1)31 of the Rules on the Procedure of the instant case (No. 1 No. 28 pages); (c) but (d) the foregoing provision is merely an amendment of the Rules on the Procedure of the instant case (amended by the Fair Trade Commission Notice No. 2017-2, Apr. 14, 2017). Therefore, the Defendant is selected as above.

Article 2(9) of the Subcontract Act provides that a constructor under the Framework Act on the Construction Industry entrusts another constructor with all or part of construction works arising from his/her business, or a constructor entrusts another constructor with construction works prescribed by Presidential Decree. However, in the process of concluding the instant construction contract, the reporter and the reported person failed to prepare a written contract due to a disagreement between the intent of construction cost, etc., and there is no ground to deem that the instant report was made. Thus, the instant report cannot be deemed as a “construction” as provided by Article 2(9) of the Subcontract Act.