Defendant 1, et al.

Park Ji-be

Attorney Lee Dong-soo et al. and 12 others

Defendant 1 Co., Ltd. shall be punished by a fine of KRW 100,000,00; Defendant 2 Co., Ltd.; Defendant 3 Co., Ltd.; Defendant 4 Co., Ltd.; Defendant 5 Co., Ltd. shall be punished by a fine of KRW 150,00,000; and Defendant 6 Co., Ltd. shall be punished by a fine of KRW 120

The Defendants are not guilty in violation of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act due to the formation of joint contractors among the facts charged in the instant case.

Defendant 1, Defendant 2, Defendant 3, Defendant 4, Defendant 5, and Defendant 6 are business operators who are corporations for the purpose of each construction business.

A business entity shall not agree with another business entity to jointly determine, maintain, or change the price of a large construction project by contract, agreement, resolution, or any other method to jointly determine, maintain, or change the terms and conditions of the transaction of goods or services, or to determine the terms and conditions of the payment of the price of the goods or services, or to restrict competition, or make any other business entity engage in such conduct on March 11, 2003, the "the Construction Convention for the Extension of the subway 7 Line" entered into between Seoul Special Metropolitan City and Incheon Metropolitan City and Seocheon-si, and the "Public Notice of the Execution Plan for the Large Scale Construction Project" on March 25, 2004 at the request of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City on August 16, 2004, the Public Procurement Service shall not engage in an act of unfairly restricting competition, such as an act of restricting competition, such as an act of restricting the area where the transaction is conducted or the counterpart to the transaction, etc.

1. The Defendants conspired to:

Defendant 2: (a) from February 204 to May 7, 200; (b) the two separate bidding methods of Defendant 1 corporation or 7; (c) the two separate bidding methods of Defendant 1 corporation’s bidding process, including the above 00 construction sections, which were located in Jongno-gu Seoul; (d) the two separate bidding methods of Defendant 1 corporation or 25 employees of the above 1 corporation; and (e) the two separate bidding methods, which were the employees of Nonindicted 26 and 28 of the above domestic business headquarters; and (e) the two separate bidding methods of Defendant 3 corporation’s bidding process, including the above 40 construction sections; and (e) the two separate bidding methods of Defendant 1 corporation or 6 corporation’s bidding methods, which were the employees of the above 5 corporation; and (e) the two separate bidding methods of Defendant 1 corporation or 6 corporation’s bidding methods, which were the employees of each of the above six construction sections; and (e) the price of each of the above six construction sections, which would be reduced to prevent from participating in bidding.

2. Defendant 1 corporation:

On November 11, 2004, when the above non-indicted 25, who is an employee of the defendant, participates in the tender for the above 701 Section 701 project and submit the tender under the defendant's name with respect to his business, the company shall enter the amount equivalent to 80 percent of the bid price by the method of the original design which is virtually less likely to win the tender in the tender, and the defendant shall agree to submit a tender with the above non-indicted 1 corporation at an amount equal to or more than the above amount within the scope of the bid price. The above non-indicted 1 corporation shall acquire, maintain or change the price jointly with the other business operator for the purpose of preventing the defendant's bid, or to place unfair restriction on competition with the other business operator, such as the act of deciding, maintaining or changing the transaction conditions of service, or the act of restricting the other party to the tender, and accordingly, the above non-indicted 1 corporation shall submit the price of the tender at the price of the original bid at 1.47 billion won, 1.7 billion won or 209 billion won.

3. Defendant 2 Company:

On November 11, 2004, when an employee in charge of bidding, such as the above non-indicted 26, who is an employee of the defendant, participates in the above 702 construction section tender and submits a tender under the defendant's name with respect to his business affairs, the company shall enter an amount equivalent to 82-83 percent of the bid price by the method of the original design which is virtually less likely to participate in the tender at the above 702 construction section around the 1st of the same month. The company shall enter an amount equivalent to 82-83 percent of the bid price by the method of the original design which is substantially less likely to participate in the tender at the same construction section. The company shall also enter an amount of 1,54.3 billion won by the method of the original tender which is 1,54.3 billion won, and the defendant shall enter the above two 700 million won or more in the bid price to submit the bid price at the above 1,500 million won or more, which shall be 500 million won or more,00 million won.

4. Defendant 3 Company:

On November 12, 2004, when an employee in charge of tendering, such as the above non-indicted 28, who is an employee of the defendant, participates in the tender of the above 703 construction section and submits a tender under the defendant's name with respect to his business affairs, the company shall, on the 5th day of the same month, respond to the amount equivalent to 82 percent of the bid price by the method of the original design tender where the bid is substantially less likely to be successful in the tender, and the company shall agree with other enterprisers to jointly determine, maintain or change the price of the service, to obtain or change the terms and conditions of the transaction of the service, to restrict competition, to restrict the transaction area or the trading counterpart, and accordingly, the non-indicted 32 shall at the same time submit an agreement with the defendant to enter the tender of the above 703 construction section above in an unfair bid price of 1,5240,300,000 won, which shall be the price of the tender to 200,000,0000 won.

5. Defendant 4 Company:

On November 12, 2004, when the above non-indicted 29, who is an employee of the defendant, participates in the tender for the above 704 construction section and submits a tender under the name of the defendant with respect to his business affairs, that the company shall enter an amount above the amount notified by the defendant by means of the original design bid with less than 704 construction sections around the same month. On the 1st of the same month, the company shall enter an amount of money in the tender with the non-indicted 33 which applied for the participation in the same construction section at the same time on the 5th of the same month. The above company shall also enter an amount of money less than the amount notified by the defendant by the method of the original design bid with less than 30 billion actual possibility of winning the tender at the price of the tender, and shall inform the above non-indicted 4 corporation and the non-indicted 33 corporation of the defendant in advance at the price of the above 800 million won, and shall present the price of the tender to the non-indicted 4 corporation and the defendant's tender price of the same 809.

6. Defendant 5 Company:

On May 3, 2005, when an employee in charge of tendering, such as the above non-indicted 30, who is an employee of the defendant, submitted a tender by participating in the tender for the above 705 construction section under the defendant's name with respect to his business affairs, the company shall, on April 27, 2005, respond to an amount of at least 85 percent of the bid price by the method of the original design bid where the possibility of actual successful bid is low, with the above company and the defendant's bidding agreement for the successful bid, to jointly determine, maintain or change the price of the service, to obtain or change the terms and conditions of the transaction of the service, or to restrict competition, and accordingly, the above non-indicted 34 corporation shall enter into an agreement with other enterprisers at a fair bid price of at least 87.1,448 billion won, which is 85 billion won, and shall at the same time submit an alternative bid price of at least 105 billion won, which shall interfere with the above bidding price of 1.75 billion won.85 billion won.

7. Defendant 6 Company:

On May 3, 2005, when an employee in charge of bidding, such as the above non-indicted 31, who is an employee of the defendant, submitted a tender under the defendant's name by participating in the above 706 construction section tender with respect to his business affairs, the company will accept an amount equivalent to 89 percent of the bid price by the method of the original design bid with less actual possibility of successful bid, and the company will make a so-called "satis bidding" agreement with another enterpriser for the successful bid of the above company and the defendant to jointly determine, maintain or change the price of the service, to acquire or change the terms and conditions of the transaction of the service, or to restrict competition, and accordingly, the above non-indicted 4 corporation conspired with the above 706 construction section under the defendant's name and submitted a tender with the non-indicted 4 corporation to participate in the above 706 construction section tender with the above 706 construction section.475 billion won at the price of the original tender, and at the same time, the defendant submitted an agreement with other enterprisers for tender with the same 17078.7.7.7.7.74 billion

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Nonindicted 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 48, 26, 57, 57, 58, 28, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 64, 29, 65, 67, 68, 69, 25, 70, 71, 73, 74, 75, 778, 79, 31, 88, 38, 388, 388, 38, 48, and 67;

1. A written accusation;

1. Each statement;

1. Each investigation report;

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

Each Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act (Article 70, Article 66(1)9, Article 19(1)1, 2, and 4 of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act (Article 30 of the Criminal Act), Article 98(2), and Article 95 subparag. 1 of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry (the point of operating bidding prices)

1. Commercial competition;

Articles 40 and 50 (Punishments 2-7 at the time of sale, and 2-7 as a violation of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act with heavier punishment) of each Criminal Code

1. Aggravation of concurrent crimes;

Article 37 (former part), Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Code

In full view of the characteristics of subway construction works, in particular, it is practically impossible for a single construction company to simultaneously bid two or more construction sections, and large alternative design cost up to 3 to 5% of the construction cost in advance for alternative design tendering, the Defendants’ respective bid rates and the degree of successful bid price, etc., the amount of fine as ordered shall be determined.

1. Summary of facts charged

The summary of the facts charged against the Defendants of violation of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act due to the composition of joint contractors among the facts charged in the instant case is an entrepreneur who is a juristic person for the purpose of construction business, etc.

A business entity shall not agree with another business entity to jointly determine, maintain, or change the price of a large construction project by contract, agreement, resolution, or any other method to jointly determine, maintain, or change the terms and conditions of the transaction of goods or services, or to determine the terms and conditions of the payment of the price of the goods or services, or to restrict competition, or make any other business entity engage in such conduct on March 11, 2003, the "the Construction Convention for the Extension of the subway 7 Line" entered into between Seoul Special Metropolitan City and Incheon Metropolitan City and Seocheon-si, and the "Public Notice of the Execution Plan for the Large Scale Construction Project" on March 25, 2004 at the request of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City on August 16, 2004, the Public Procurement Service shall not engage in an act of unfairly restricting competition, such as an act of restricting competition, such as an act of restricting the area where the transaction is conducted or the counterpart to the transaction, etc.

1. Defendant 1 Company:

On December 30, 2004, an employee in charge of bidding, such as Nonindicted 25, etc., who is an employee of the defendant, participated in the tender for the above 701 construction section in the name of the defendant, and enters into a contract for the above 701 construction section with the Public Procurement Service delegated by the Seoul Special Metropolitan City, after winning the tender on December 29, 2004. From September of the same year, in order to participate in the tender for the above 701 Section, he has been preparing for bidding, such as the selection of a design service company from June of the same year to participate in the tender for the above 701 Section. In order to avoid the competition in the above 701 Section tender process, he shall enter into the contract for the above 701 Section, and shall enter into the contract with the public procurement agency or the public procurement agency with the defendant for the above 201 Section jointly with the other public procurement company or the other public procurement company to jointly enter into the contract for construction or supply and demand agreement with the defendant 12, who agreed to jointly cooperate with the above 141 and the other public procurement company.

2. Defendant 2 Company:

On December 30, 2004, when an employee in charge of tendering, such as Nonindicted 26, who is an employee of the defendant, participated in the tender for the above 702 Section 702 Section 29 of the same year in the defendant's name and entered into a contract for the above 702 Section 702 Section 702 Section 30 of the same year with the Public Procurement Service delegated by the Seoul Special Metropolitan City, the ordering agency, after winning the tender on December 29, 2004, the contract was made between the non-indicted 5 Co., Ltd., a competitor with an independent capacity to participate in the tender for the above 702 Section 702 Section 30 of the same year, and the contract was concluded with the public procurement agency with the public procurement agency to jointly enter into the contract with the public procurement agency with the public procurement agency and jointly enter into the contract with the defendant 27 Co., Ltd., the defendant 5 and the same consortium 27, which unfairly restricted the price of the above construction section or 501 of the contract.

3. Defendant 3 Company:

On December 30, 2004, an employee in charge of tendering, such as Nonindicted 28, who is an employee of the defendant, participated in the tender for the above 703 construction section in the name of the defendant, and participates in the bid for the above 703 construction section, and entered into a contract with the Public Procurement Service delegated by the Seoul Special Metropolitan City, the ordering agency after the successful tender on December 29, 2004. From March of the same year, in order to participate in the above 703 construction section tender on the date of August of the same year, he has been preparing for bidding, such as the selection of a designer, etc., from March of the same year, and was formed with the public procurement agency in the same manner as described in paragraph (1) and agreed to jointly enter into the contract with the public procurement agency and distribute profits at the ratio of each person's investment, and agreed to enter into the contract with the defendant, the above Nonindicted Co. 3 and the same consortium and the same consortium to the extent that it unfairly restricts the price of the above 703 construction section or its supply and demand jointly with another person.

4. Defendant 4 Company:

On December 30, 2004, at the Public Procurement Service, Nonindicted 29, an employee of the defendant, participated in the tender of the above 704 Section 704 Section in the defendant's name with respect to its business and entered into a contract for the above 704 Section 704 Section construction with the Public Procurement Service delegated by the Seoul Special Metropolitan City, the ordering agency after winning the tender on December 29, 2004. On November 1, 2004, it has been engaged in the preparation for bidding, such as the selection of a designer from July of the same year to participate in the tender of the above 704 Section 704 Section 7 Section 4 Section 4 Section 7 Section 50 Section 7 Section 4 Section 57 Section 4 Section 7 Section 57 Section 57 Section 57 Section 302 with the other public procurement agency or the other public procurement agency to jointly enter into the contract with the above public procurement agency or the other public procurement agency to jointly enter the contract with the defendant 6 Company and the other public procurement agency or the above terms and conditions.

5. Defendant 5 Company:

In the Public Procurement Service on August 18, 2005, the employee in charge of tendering, such as Nonindicted 30, etc., who is an employee of the defendant, participated in the tender for the above 705 construction section in the name of the defendant, and participates in the bid on the 11st of the same month, and entered into a contract with the Public Procurement Service delegated by Incheon Metropolitan City, the ordering agency, after the successful tender for the above 705 construction section. From April 27, 2004 to participate in the tender for the above 705 construction section, the public procurement agency was formed with the public procurement agency in the same manner as described in paragraph (1) and agreed to jointly enter into the contract with the defendant 7 joint supply and demand agreement with the public procurement agency in order to jointly distribute the proceeds at the ratio of their respective investment, and jointly enter into the contract with the defendant 18, Nonindicted 19, and Nonindicted 205 joint supply and demand agreement or agreement to restrict the above construction price jointly with the other public procurement agency or the other public procurement agency.

6. Defendant 6 Company:

On August 16, 2005, when an employee in charge of tendering, such as Nonindicted 31, etc., who is an employee of the defendant, participates in the above 706 construction section bidding in the name of the defendant, and participates in the bid on August 11 of the same year, and enters into a contract with the Public Procurement Service delegated by Incheon Metropolitan City, the ordering agency, after winning the tender on August 11, 2005, he was able to prepare for bidding, such as the selection of a designer, from February of the same year in order to participate in the above 706 section tender at the date of April 2, 2005, he was formed with the public procurement agency in the same manner as described in paragraph (1) and agreed to jointly conclude a contract with the Public Procurement Service to jointly participate in the construction work with the public procurement agency to distribute proceeds at the ratio of their respective investment, and agreed to jointly enter into the contract with the defendant 8 and the other public procurement agency or the other public procurement agency to jointly enter into the standard construction section or the other public procurement agency's agreement with the other public procurement agency.

2. Defendants’ assertion

The Defendants asserted that the Defendants concluded a contract for work jointly with the Public Procurement Service by forming a joint supply and demand organization as above, but this is to obtain a high score in the examination of qualifications in the bidding process in accordance with the relevant statutes, such as the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act, or the public notice of tender by the Public Procurement Service, and further to enhance efficiency in construction management and quality improvement, and to diversify risks through the formation of a joint supply and demand organization, and thus, the above organization of the joint supply and demand organization is a legitimate act permissible by the law, and does not constitute an unfair collaborative act under Article 19 of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act.

3. Determination

(4) According to the above evidence, the Public Procurement Service provides that the number of members of the consortium shall be not more than two while allowing the joint supply and demand companies to enter into a contract through the formation of the consortium while ordering the extension of the Seoul subway No. 7 construction work, but it may be three if the regional companies are included. Furthermore, it may be recognized that the Defendants entered into a contract with the Public Procurement Service by organizing a consortium including the regional companies, and the Defendants may enter into such contract jointly with each other after participating in the tender. Further, Article 58 (Justifiable Acts and Subordinate Statutes) of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act provides that "The provisions of this Act shall not apply to lawful acts conducted by the public procurement agency or the enterprisers' organization in accordance with other Acts and subordinate statutes," and Article 25 (Joint Contracts) of the Act on Contracts to Which the State is a Party shall be concluded between the head of each central government agency or the public officials in charge of contracts with the public officials in charge of contracts who enter into a contract with the Government Agency and the public officials in charge of contracts who enter into the contract with the public officials in charge of contracts with the Government.

Therefore, since each of the above facts charged constitutes a case that does not constitute a crime, a judgment of innocence is rendered pursuant to the former part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.

Judges old-time