The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the assertion of misapprehension of legal principles as to the termination period of unfair collaborative acts (ground of appeal No. 1)

A. Where there was an agreement on price determination, etc. under Article 19(1)1 of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act (hereinafter “Fair Trade Act”) and an action based on such agreement, the date on which the unfair collaborative act ends is the date on which the act of practice based on such agreement is terminated. Therefore, in order to terminate an unfair collaborative act, a part of an enterpriser participating in the agreement must express or implied declaration of intent to withdraw from the agreement to another enterpriser, and conduct an act contrary to the agreement, such as lowering the price level that would have existed without collusion according to its independent judgment.

In addition, in order to ensure that an unfair collaborative act is terminated with respect to all enterprisers who participated in the agreement, there must be circumstances to deem that the enterprisers who participated in the agreement clearly reverse the agreement, and each enterpriser’s act contrary to the agreement, such as reducing the price that would have existed without collusion according to their own independent judgment, or that the act in which the enterprisers who participated in the agreement was actually reversed through repetitive price competition, etc., continues to exist

(See Supreme Court Decision 2007Du12774 Decided October 23, 2008, etc.). B.

The judgment below

According to the reasoning, the Defendant jointly agreed on the increase in the base price of the Ah year lecture from February 2005 to November 2010 in accordance with Article 2013-021 of the plenary session’s resolution on January 29, 2013 (in the case of a corporation for convenience, the portion of “stock company,” among its corporate names,” shall not be indicated separately), Hyundai Hasco, ASEAN, ASEAN, and Mascco, and Mascco, respectively (hereinafter “the Ah year platform collaborative act”), the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff.