The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

A. Article 19(1) of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act (hereinafter “Fair Trade Act”) provides that “No enterpriser shall agree with another enterpriser to jointly engage in any of the following acts that unfairly restrict competition (hereinafter “unfair collaborative act”) or allow another enterpriser to engage in such act, by means of a contract, agreement, resolution, or any other means, and refers to “the act of determining, maintaining, or changing the price” under subparagraph 1.

In addition, the main text of Article 22 of the Fair Trade Act provides that the Fair Trade Commission may impose a penalty surcharge not exceeding the amount calculated by multiplying the sales amount determined by the Presidential Decree by 10/100 on the relevant enterpriser when there is an act violating the provisions of Article 19 (1) of the Fair Trade Act. The main text of Article 9 (1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 23864, Jun. 19, 2012) refers to the sales amount of goods or services sold by the relevant enterpriser in a particular business area during the period of violation or the amount equivalent thereto (hereinafter “related sales”).

Meanwhile, Article 2 subparag. 8 of the Fair Trade Act provides that “a certain business area” refers to an area in which competition or competition relation may exist, or may exist, by the subject, stage or region of trade.”

In light of the contents, form, structure, and purpose of legislation of the relevant statutes, in order to determine whether it constitutes an unfair collaborative act under Article 19(1)1 of the Fair Trade Act, the competition relationship can first be problematic.