The appeal is dismissed.

Costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental statements in the grounds of appeal not timely filed).

1. In the event there was an agreement on price fixing, etc. under Article 19(1)1 of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act (hereinafter “Fair Trade Act”) and an action based thereon, it refers to the date on which the unfair collaborative act is terminated, not to the date on which the agreement was concluded, but to the date on which the action based on the agreement is terminated (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Du11275, Mar. 24, 2006). Such a legal principle applies to a bid collusion on the determination of successful bidder, successful bidder, bid price, etc. under Article 19(1)8 of the Fair Trade Act and a practice based thereon.

Whether a collaborative act based on bidding collusion has been terminated shall be individually and specifically determined on the basis of the content of the relevant agreement in consideration of various factors, including the specific scope and mode of implementation scheduled, the occurrence of the effect of restricting competition in accordance with the agreement, etc. (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Du37396, May 28, 2015, etc.). 2. The lower court, based on the circumstances stated in its reasoning, determined that the collaborative act of this case No. 1 was terminated on February 11, 2010; 2 collaborative act of this case was conducted on March 17, 201; therefore, Article 49(4) of the former Fair Trade Act (amended by Act No. 11406, Mar. 21, 2012; 206, before the commencement of the investigation into the instant collaborative act of this case under the premise that the Defendant’s investigation into the first and second collaborative act of this case was conducted on March 21, 2012; and