[1] The criteria for determining whether a transaction constitutes "an act of interference with management to the other party to the transaction" and "an act of interference with management" under Article 23 (1) 4 and 5 of the former Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act (amended by Act No. 5235 of Dec. 30, 1996), Article 6 subparagraph 5, Article 7 subparagraph 1, and Article 7 subparagraph 2 of the Fair Trade Commission Notice (amended by Act No. 1995-6 of Jul. 8, 1995)

[2] Where the Korea Highway Corporation, a lessor, has decided to designate oil supply oil oil in a contract for the operation of a gas station on an expressway, whether it constitutes an act of abuse of superior position, which entails interference in management or competition-restricting effects (negative)

[1] In light of the purpose and contents of the regulation, the specific form, purpose, effect, etc. of the act in question, the characteristic and impact of the transaction goods, the circulation situation, and the position of the enterpriser in the market, etc., of Article 23 (1) 4 and 5 of the former Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act (amended by Act No. 5235 of Dec. 30, 1996) and Article 6 (1) 5 and Article 7 (1) and 2 of the Fair Trade Commission Notice (amended by Act No. 1995-6 of Jul. 8, 1995) as a type of unfair trade practices, and the exclusive dealing with detention should be recognized as either an abuse of superior position or an act of restricting competition.

[2] Considering the geographical characteristics of the restriction on entry and exit of gas stations on an expressway, the transaction goods of oil, the current situation and characteristics of the relevant market, the installation of gas stations on an expressway, and the developments leading up to the Korea Expressway Corporation, which is the managing authority, to enter into an operation contract on each individual gas stations, it cannot be said that the designation of oil oil supply oil supply oil supply oil supply oil supply oil supply oil in the operation contract entered into by the Korea Expressway Corporation constitutes an abuse of superior position and an unfair trade practice such as binding conditional trade which entails management interference or anti-competitive effects.

[1] Article 23(1) of the former Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act (amended by Act No. 5235 of Dec. 30, 1996), Article 36 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 15328 of Mar. 31, 1997) (see current Article 36), Article 6 subparag. 5 and Article 7 subparag. 1 and 2 of the Fair Trade Commission Notice (amended by Presidential Decree No. 1995-6 of Jul. 8, 1995) / [2] Article 23(1) of the former Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act (amended by Act No. 5235 of Dec. 30, 1996), Article 23(1) (see current Article 23(1) of the former Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act), Article 36 of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 15328 of Mar. 15, 1997), Article 36 subparag. 15 and 7 subparag. 6 subparag.

[1] Supreme Court Decision 96Nu9003 delivered on September 8, 1998 (Gong1998Ha, 2430) Supreme Court Decision 97Nu19427 delivered on June 9, 200 (Gong200Ha, 1657)

Postal Petroleum Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Chungcheong, Attorneys Yellow-tae et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Korea Highway Corporation (Law Firm Dong-dong Law Office, Attorney Ansan-soo, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

1. The term "the name of each party" means the name of each party, and the term "the name of each party" means the name of each party.

Seoul High Court Decision 98Na62031, 62048 delivered on May 18, 199

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant).

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. As to the assertion of misapprehension of legal principles as to unfair trade practices

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below held that even if the defendant concluded an operation contract concerning the oil station in this case on the expressway with the plaintiff and designated oil oil oil oil oil oil refining under the operation contract, it was aimed at guaranteeing the right of choice of the passengers on the expressway by learning oil oil oil oil supply oil on each route by taking into account the characteristics of the oil station on the expressway, as well as at the conclusion of the specific operation contract, the designation of oil refining by the defendant does not constitute an unfair trade act, since it was concluded under the condition that the defendant specified in advance matters concerning the designation of oil refining.

Article 23(1)4 and 5 of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act (amended by Act No. 5235 of Dec. 30, 1996; hereinafter referred to as the "Fair Trade Act") and Article 6 subparag. 5 and Article 7 subparag. 1 and 2 of the Notice of the Fair Trade Commission (amended by Act No. 1995-6 of Jul. 8, 1995; hereinafter referred to as the "Notice") shall be deemed to have the effect of restricting competition or being recognized in light of the intent, purpose, effect, and influence of the act in question in light of the purpose and content of the regulation.

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the record, in light of the characteristics of the place of restriction on entry and exit of the gas station on expressway and the characteristics of the goods related to oil, the situation and characteristics of the relevant market, the establishment of the gas station on expressway, and the circumstances leading up to the Defendant’s conclusion of the operation contract regarding each individual gas station, etc., it cannot be said that the Defendant’s designation of oil supply oil supply oil supply oil supply oil constitutes an act of abuse of superior position or an act of conditional transaction, etc. that entails the effect of restricting competition.

The decision of the court below to the same purport is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal. Supreme Court Decision 96Do2382 Decided April 25, 1997 alleged in the ground of appeal by the plaintiff, which found the defendant guilty of the facts charged that the defendant did not take corrective measures within a prescribed period despite having received a corrective recommendation from the Fair Trade Commission in relation to the operation contract of the gas station of this case, and the defendant did not directly judge whether the designation of oil oil supply oil of this case constitutes unfair trade practices. Thus, the above decision of the court below is not contrary to the above decision of the court below. The ground of appeal cannot be accepted.

2. As to the assertion of misapprehension of legal principles as to contract interpretation

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, when the defendant entered into the third operation contract of the gas station of this case with the plaintiff on January 31, 1996, the court below held that the defendant's designation of oil supply oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil refinery and its trademark indication as the supplementary intervenor (hereinafter "the supplementary intervenor") against the defendant should follow the conclusion of the judgment in the case where the main lawsuit of the provisional disposition application case against the defendant is finalized (Article 8 (1) of the contract), and the judgment against the defendant as of September 25, 1997 in the Seoul High Court 97Na848, the appellate court of the main lawsuit of this case, was sentenced to the judgment against the defendant as of September 25, 197, and the judgment became final and conclusive as the waiver of the defendant's appeal against the oil station of this case, it was justified in the judgment that the defendant designated the oil supply oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil of this case as the supplementary intervenor pursuant to the above agreement.

In light of the records, we affirm the judgment of the court below that the final judgment in the third operating contract of the gas station of this case is not the only final judgment after the final appeal procedure was completed or when the plaintiff led to the plaintiff, and thus the above appellate court's judgment which became final and conclusive as the waiver of the defendant's appeal also constitutes the above final judgment. It is not erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the interpretation of contract, the principle of trust and good faith and abuse of rights, the incomplete hearing, the violation of the rules of evidence, the violation of the rules of evidence, and the lack of reasons. The argument in the grounds of appeal as to this is not acceptable or acceptable.

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and all costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Han-gu (Presiding Justice)