All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against each party.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the Plaintiff’s grounds of appeal, “act of causing another business entity to engage in an unfair collaborative act” in the latter part of Article 19(1) of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act (hereinafter “Fair Trade Act”) refers to an act of inducing another business entity to engage in an unfair collaborative act, or other similar act.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2009Du1556 Decided May 14, 2009). Here, a “other business entity” subject to such an act is a business entity participating in the pertinent unfair collaborative act, and it does not have to be a sufficient business entity participating in the said unfair collaborative act.

After recognizing the circumstances as indicated in its holding, the lower court rejected the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff’s proposal was a specific teachers’ act that may cause the degree of resolution to participate in the bidding of the KLLLP Co., Ltd., and that the causal link between the Plaintiff’s proposal and the Plaintiff’s participation was severed.

Examining the aforementioned legal principles and evidence duly admitted, the judgment of the court below is just, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the teacher of an unfair collaborative act, or in exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence.

2. As to the Defendant’s ground of appeal

A. Articles 22 and 55-3(1) and (5) of the Fair Trade Act provide that a penalty surcharge may be imposed on an enterpriser who has conducted an unfair collaborative act within the extent not exceeding the amount obtained by multiplying the amount of sales determined by the Presidential Decree by 10/100 (in the case of absence of sales, 2 billion won), and the content and degree of the violation.