The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

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

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 cause any other enterpriser to engage in such act.” Article 19(1)9 of the same Act provides that “other than those referred to in subparagraphs 1 through 8, acts practically restricting competition in a particular business area by interfering with or restricting business activities or business activities of other enterprisers (including those who engaged in such act).”

B. Based on its adopted evidence, the lower court concluded that five combined cable broadcasting business operators including the Plaintiff (referring to multiple cable broadcasting business operators running in not less than two broadcasting zones, among those of the CATV broadcasting business operators; hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiffs, etc.”) agreed to provide support to program providers (hereinafter “PP business operators”) in response to the anticipated entry into the paid broadcast service market of the Internet multi-media broadcasting business operators (hereinafter “IPTV business operators”) so that the program provider may not supply a broadcast program to the service provider. On November 14, 2008, with respect to media which entered into a broadcast program supply contract with the service provider among the PP business operators, the lower court took a sanction to disadvantage the service provider in the manner of reducing the broadcast program while not providing the broadcast program to the service provider (hereinafter “instant agreement”).