In a case where the Fair Trade Commission ordered correction and payment of penalty surcharges on the ground that Gap corporation et al. provided excessive economic benefits by setting sales commission rates at lower than normal transaction prices while selling bread to their large stores, etc., the case holding that the above corrective order, etc. was lawful.

In a case where Gap corporation et al. ordered Gap corporation et al. to take corrective measures and pay penalty surcharges on the grounds that Gap corporation et al. supplied excessive economic profits by setting sales commission rates at lower than normal market prices while selling bread in a specific purchase transaction with Eul's affiliates to their large-scale stores, etc., the case holding that the corrective measures, etc. are lawful on the ground that Gap's trading of Eul corporation's sales commission rates at lower sales commission rates constitutes a transaction on significantly favorable terms compared to normal sales commission rates, and that Eul's trading of Eul's sales commission rates at lower sales commission rates constitutes a transaction on the related market to which Eul belongs, and that the risk of impeding the market function, such as "excluding competitors" or "the

Articles 23(1)7 and (3), 24, and 24-2 of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act; Article 36(1) [Attachment Table 1-2] 10 of the Enforcement Decree of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act

New World Co., Ltd. and two others (Attorney Provisional-chul et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Fair Trade Commission (Attorney Choi Han-hoon, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

February 14, 2014

1. Of the corrective orders listed in paragraphs (1) through (4), the part that exceeds KRW 159,00,000 to the Plaintiff New World Co., Ltd., in excess of KRW 159,653,00,000 for the Plaintiff Co., Ltd., and the part that exceeds KRW 1,653,00,000 for the Plaintiff Co., Ltd, among the corrective orders listed in paragraphs (1) through (4) above (attached Form 1), shall be revoked, respectively, and the part that exceeds KRW 1,653,00,000 for the Plaintiff Co., Ltd., Ltd., and the part that is about the Plaintiff Co.,

2. The remaining claims of the Plaintiff World Co., Ltd. and Empt are dismissed.

3. Of the costs of lawsuit, the portion arising between the Plaintiff New World Co., Ltd. and the Defendant is ten minutes, and the remainder between the Plaintiff New World Co., Ltd. and the Defendant is ten minutes, and the remainder between the Plaintiff Emart Co., Ltd. and the Defendant is nine minutes, and the remainder between the Plaintiff Emart Co., Ltd. and the Defendant is assessed against the Defendant, respectively.

The defendant's corrective order and penalty surcharge payment order stated in attached Form 1 (attached Form 1) No. 2013-039 of the decision of February 25, 2013 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

(a) Current status;

1) Current status of the subsidizing entity

① Until April 30, 2011, Plaintiff New World Co., Ltd. operated Emart stores (type discount stores) and Embrate stores (SM State 1) and operated seven new department stores as of April 1, 2012.

② On May 1, 2011, Plaintiff Emart Co., Ltd. was divided into companies from New World Co., Ltd., and operated Emart sales and Emart sales. The Emart sales were operated until February 29, 2012, and Emart sales reached 135 stores as of April 1, 2012.

③ On March 1, 2012, Plaintiff Ebridte Co., Ltd. transferred the store division from Ebrine Co., Ltd. to Ebrine, and operated 72 stores as of April 1, 2012.

④ The Plaintiffs (hereinafter “stock company”) was a business proprietor under Article 2 subparag. 1 of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act (hereinafter “Act”), and “new global business group to which the Plaintiffs belong” was designated by the Defendant as a business group subject to the restriction on mutual investment on April 1, 2012.

2) Current status of applicants

① A shipbuilding hotel (hereinafter referred to as “ship hotel”) was established on August 8, 1967, and was incorporated into a business group on April 16, 1997, and runs a tourist hotel business. The major shareholders of a shipbuilding hotel as of April 2012 are as follows.

15,306,234 98.78% non-party 168,814 1.09% of the equity ratio of the voting shares held by the voting shareholders included in the main sentence

② The shipbuilding hotel beer Co., Ltd. established on January 5, 2005, and was incorporated into a business group of the New World Group on February 1, 2005, and on May 1, 2010, the transfer of the business category of “bekia” operated by the shipbuilding hotel, and changed the trade name on January 4, 2012 to New World EsBE (hereinafter “SBE”). The major shareholders and financial status as of April 2012, 2012, are as follows:

Non-party 2 (ju 2) 800,000 45.0% of the shares of the voting stockholders held by the voting stockholders included in the main sentence, which are 90,000,000 40.0%

2) Nonparty 2

Table (units: 2007 2008 2009 2010 2010 201 201 49,152 51,617 44,732 68,2333 86,098 29,094 28,064 18,639 40,567 56,567 567 8,775 23,5214,570 14,570 27,6529,743 122,931 134,136,627,757, 256, 56384,4654,5639,574,9654,974,654,675,64,652,652,652,743

EsBen sells brote, Esbrote, brote, brocon, brocon, brocon (including partial brocon 3), brocon, and other food beverages within the store of new global department stores, and approximately 82.3% of the sale is generated in transactions with the Plaintiff’s new world and Este.

(iii) the current status of the relevant market;

(1) Current status of beer market.

May-to-be brand, such as Paris Franchise, Crobener, luice, new laver name, etc. and tribane brand, Ebnba, Nynba, Nynba, Lynba, Lynba, Lynba brand, etc., participate in the behian market as a competitor.

Table (units: KRW 2008 2009 2010 2010 2010 9,621.6 41,621.6 1,871,871 4.0 4,5134.317,947 47.5 mass 47.5 mass 5,523.6,092 22.6,563 20.7,7920 7,798 8,798 20.7 (ju 6,0034.59, 0034.11, 7034, 175, 307, 1307, 47, 207, 1306, 47, 47, 206, 47, 47, 47, 205

Note 4) (4)

Note 5) (4 G)

Note 6) Other

(2) Current status of the skin market.

The three brands of the skin vava, Dominos, and viricks occupy most of the skin market, and the market and majority of the main companies, such as the skin land and the wave sponis, are expanding the market of the skin company. Since the Republic of Korea was introduced into the store for the first time in 1994, the human spopcoco Korea in large scale, a corporation, Inc., established at the discount store of the skin, respectively.

B. A specific purchase transaction between the plaintiffs and EBN 7)

1) The Plaintiff’s New World, Earb (Symb in Earbry Burial)

① While engaging in a specific purchase transaction with SBB, which sells beerb bread, the Plaintiff’s sales commission rate for 22% in 2005, 2007, 22.5% in 2007, 22.7% in 2008, and 22.8% in 2009, the sales commission rate for 21.8% in March 2010, and 20.5% in March 201, the Plaintiff Emb continued to reduce the sales commission rate for 205% in 205 Embb.

Table 205-2006-2007 2008 2009 from February 3, 2010 to February 201111-201.5 to September 25, 2012: 222.5% from New world 22.7% 22.8% 21.8% 20.5% from 20.5% from 20.5% from 20.5% from 20.5% from 20.5% from 20.5% from 20.5% from 20.5% from 20.5% from 201

Note 8) 2011.4

② From March 2011 to April 201, 201, Plaintiff Emypt operated a Emypt store from the following day to September 25, 2012, the sales amount generated from the Emypt store (attached Form 2) is as indicated in the corresponding column.

2) The plaintiffs (brine Ebrine Ebrine store Ebrine B&C store)

① On May 201, the Plaintiff New World reduced the sales commission rate of the store to 22.8% on July 22, 2009, and 21.8% on March 2010, 2010, the sales commission rate of the store was changed to 10% on the brand called “Ebrithy Ebrithy Ebrithy Ebrithy Ebrithy” with the brand called “Ebrithy Ebrithy Ebrithy Ebrithy Ebrithy”. Plaintiff Ebrithy Ebrithy Ebrithy Ebrithy Ebrithy, with the sales commission rate of the store located in Ebrithy Ebrithy Ebrithy Ebrithy Ebrithy Ebrithy Ebrithy Ebrithy, with the following sales commission rate of the Plaintiff Ebrithy Ebrithy Ebrithy Ebrithy.

Of July 2010.7, 2010.7 to April 201, 2011.5 to February 3, 2012 to September 25, 2012, the table contained in the main sentence, 22.8% of the new world 22.8% of the 21.8% of the 10% Eypt 10% of the Eypt 10% of the Eypt 10% of the table in the main sentence.

② From July 2010 to April 201, 201, Plaintiff Eypt from the following day to February 2012; and Plaintiff Eypt from the following day to September 25, 2012, while Eypt’s Eypt’s Eypt is operated by Eypt from the following day to September 25, 2012, the sales amount generated from Eypt’s Eypt’s store is as indicated in the corresponding column.

3) Plaintiff New World (Empire store) (Empire store)

① The Plaintiff New World applied the sales commission rate of 1% from July 2010 to SBE, while selling “the recipient” (hereinafter “the recipient”) by selling e-art stores and selling “the recipient” (hereinafter “the recipient”), but adjusted the fee rate of 5% from March 201.

② During the period from July 2010 to February 2, 2011, Plaintiff New World is operating a marina store, the sales amount incurred at the store is as specified in the corresponding column (attached Form 2).

4) The Plaintiff New World (Skina World Department Store in the New World Department Store)

① The Plaintiff New World reduced the sales commission rate of 22% from August 8, 2009 to 15%, while making a specific purchase transaction with Esbenna (ship hotel up to April 2010) that sells food beverages by selling them in the head office of the New World Department Store and selling them in the brand of “Skkyaton” (hereinafter “Skaton”), and also applied the sales commission rate of 15% from March 2009 to September 8, 2009, respectively.

② From August 8, 2009 to September 25, 2012, Plaintiff New World is the head office of the New World department store; from March 2009 to September 25, 2012, the New World department store Busan Busan Center; from September 25, 2009 to September 25, 2012, and from September 2009 to July 201, the sales from the New World department store (attached Form 2) generated from the New World department store while operating each of the Gangnam Points.

(c) Corrective order and penalty surcharge payment order;

The Defendant: (a) premised on the premise that the Plaintiffs provided excessive economic benefits by setting the sales commission rate of the Plaintiff’s stores at a lower price based on ordinary market prices, the Plaintiff’s new global department store, Busan Center store, and Gangnam store, and the Plaintiff’s new world store’s sales commission rate at a lower price in light of ordinary market prices, the Defendant ordered the Plaintiffs to take corrective measures under paragraphs (1) through (4) and (5) as stated in the instant specific purchase transaction order as of February 25, 2013 (attached Form 1), and to pay penalty surcharges under paragraphs (1) through (4) and (5); (b) the Plaintiffs and EbB (in the case of Vietnam store, by April 2010) store, the Plaintiff’s new world store, and the Plaintiff’s new world store’s respective sales commission rate at a lower price.

[Evidence] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Relevant statutes;

[Attachment 3] The entry is as follows.

3. Judgment on corrective order

(a) Innba sales;

1) Formation of support act

A) Normal sales commission rate

In order to constitute a transaction under substantially favorable conditions under Article 23(1)7 of the Act, “the difference between the benefits and the consideration” in the transaction in question must be remarkably more favorable than the arm’s length price. Here, “the arm’s length price” means the transaction price formed in a case where the economic benefits identical to the economic benefits the applicant and the applicant have been provided by an independent party in a similar situation such as the time, type, size, period, credit condition, etc. of the economic benefits that have been provided between the applicant and the applicant (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Du11268, Dec. 7, 2006). The arm’s length price can be calculated in such a manner that is deemed reasonable in light of the substance and practice of the transaction (see Article 4(3) of the Enforcement Decree of

Therefore, in order to determine whether the sales commission rate applied to the sales commission rate applied to the store by the Plaintiff New World and Eypt is significantly favorable to EbB, the normal sales commission rate should be determined first. Thus, according to the statement in the evidence No. 1, it can be acknowledged that the sales commission rate of an enterprise, other than an affiliated company, operated in the store in the Ebart store in the similar form, such as store, fixed manpower placement, product characteristics, i.e., a stone manufacturing sales method, a specific purchase transaction, etc. (hereinafter “independent company”) is 23.3 to 23.8% as follows.

The name of the ticket company (main 10) contained in the main sentence shall be from March 2010 to February 2011, 2011 to February 2012 from February 2012 to February 2012, 2013 to February 23.3% from February 2013 to February 23.3% from 23.3% from 23.3% per creativeized per 23.3% 23.4% from 23.8% C&C 23.3% from Doz, 23.3% from Doz 23.3% from February 2013.

10)Name of enterprise

In addition, according to the statements in Eul evidence Nos. 3 and 4, when considering the sales commission rate, etc. of the independent company of the same and similar type of business that has no special relationship in the defendant's investigation process, the non-party 6 of the plaintiff Lee E-art made a statement that 23% of the sales commission rate of the store is appropriate, and the plaintiff New World made on February 6, 2009 to raise the sales commission rate from March 1, 2009 to February 28, 2010 to 22.8% of the sales commission rate, taking into account the balance between the cooperative companies in other sectors, it can be acknowledged that the plaintiff Lee E-art prepared the "case of the change in the contract terms of 209 (Evidence No. 3)" to the effect that the sales commission rate will be increased from 22.7% to 23% of the 2008 to 20% of the sales commission rate, but attempted to increase the 0.1 p.

In light of the aforementioned trends of the previous sales commission rate, the 23% increase plan, and the situation that there was no be a beer store for the operation of an independent company compared with the store, and that there was no inevitable comparison with the gymnas and the gymnas in the gymnas store, etc., it is reasonable to view that the normal sales commission rate of the store in the gymnas store is 23%.

이에 원고 신세계, 이마트는, 인스토어 베이커리 업계의 판매수수료율은 13 ~ 25% 사이에서 형성되고 있기 때문에 23%가 정상판매수수료율이 아니라고 주장한다. 살피건대, 갑 제1, 29, 30, 37호증, 갑 제38호증의 1, 2의 각 기재, 이 법원의 씨제이푸드빌 주식회사, 주식회사 파리크라상, 한화역사 주식회사에 대한 각 사실조회 결과에 의하면, ① 다른 대형할인점인 홈플러스와 롯데마트에도 각 그 계열회사로서 인스토어 베이커리 업체인 아티제블랑제리와 롯데브랑제리가 입점하여 있고 각 그 판매수수료율이 22% 및 21.5%인 사실, ② 서울민자역사에 입점한 파리바게뜨, 뉴코아아울렛 강남점, 산본점, 농협하나로마트 모현점에 입점한 뚜레쥬르 등 특수관계 없는 프랜차이즈 베이커리 업체들의 판매수수료율이 16 ~ 21% 수준인 사실, ③ 기업형 슈퍼마켓인 지에스슈퍼마켓에 입점한 따삐오 베이커리의 판매수수료율은 22 ~ 25%, 같은 홈플러스익스프레스에 입점한 믹스앤베이크의 판매수수료율은 20 ~ 25%, 같은 킴스클럽마트에 입점한 빵꿈터의 판매수수료율은 18 ~ 20%인 사실을 인정할 수 있다.

However, the sales commission rate of the Home Plers and the Bar Bar cannot be calculated on the basis of the calculation of the normal sales commission rate, since it is not related to the independent company. ② Sales commission rate applied to the franchise business entity located in Seoul C Crracks, etc. cannot be readily determined as to whether there is a similar situation with the transactional share, personal guidance, and sales. It cannot be said that the normal sales commission rate is not the normal sales commission rate. ③ In the case of the business entity located in another company Sracks market, it is difficult to compare the sales commission rate with the same line in the case of the business entity located in the company located in the company's company's company's company's company's company's company's company's company, it is difficult for

B) Apparentness

Plaintiff New World, Ear, even if 23% is the normal sales commission rate, the difference between the normal sales commission rate and the actual sales commission rate is 2.5%p (23%p-20.5%p). This is merely 10.86% (2.5%p/23%p) of the normal sales commission rate. Under legal principles, it is a trade under substantially favorable terms where the difference between the normal sales commission rate and the normal sales commission rate exceeds 16% to 20.5%, and therefore, it is argued that it does not constitute a trade under substantially favorable terms to which the sales commission rate is reduced to 20.5%.

In determining whether or not “the provision of excessive economic benefits by providing or trading at a remarkably low or high price, or by providing or trading at a significant scale,” the determination should be made on a concrete and individual basis by comprehensively taking into account not only the difference between the payment and the consideration, but also the economic benefits arising from the scale of support transactions and the amount of support, the period and frequency of support, the timing of support, the economic situation at the time of support activities, etc. (see Supreme Court Decision 2001Du2935, Oct. 14, 2004).

① By reducing the sales commission rate of 20.5% from March 201 to September 25, 2012, Plaintiff New World and Earart set forth in [Attachment 2] 3,369,402,454 won (362,384,450 won + 3,007,018,004 won + [Attachment 2]). This is reasonable in light of the above EEN’s operating income and net income; ② an enterprise supplying breavel in Ear sales is not only Brenna, and the internal trading ratio between affiliates belonging to Earb, from September 22, 201 to September 25, 2012, the Plaintiff’s new sales commission rate is significantly less than 1,000 won, taking into account the following factors: (i) the Plaintiff’s domestic sales rate is considerably less than 16% of the sales rate; and (ii) the Plaintiff’s new sales rate is considerably less than 1,010.

2) Improperity of an act of assistance (the “unfair trade risk”).

In order to establish an unfair support act, an act of providing support must be performed unfairly. In determining whether an act of providing support to a business entity is unfair, the relationship with the support entity, the purpose and intent of the support act, the structure and characteristics of the market to which the support entity belongs, the economic benefits and the period of support due to the act of providing support, the degree of changes in competition ability of small and medium enterprises and other business entities, the trend of market share of the support entity before and after the support act, and the degree of market opening, etc., shall be determined by taking into account the following factors: (i) whether an act of providing support could interfere with fair trade by impeding competition in the relevant market or causing concentration of economic power; (ii) whether an act of offering support falls under the scope of unfair support (see Supreme Court Decision 201Du720, Mar. 12, 2004; (iii) whether an act of offering support falls under the scope of unfair trade order or the necessity of fair trade practice of a business entity.

(5) In light of the following circumstances, i.e., Nonparty 3’s 209 business operation rate of No. 1000, 700, 2000, 2000, 300,000,000,000 7,000,000,000 7,0000,000 20,0000,0000 20,000,0000,0000,0002,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00,000,000,000 7,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,002,02,000,02,06,02,02,06,02).

Accordingly, Plaintiff New World and Ear asserts that it is unfair because, under the EDAP policy, the sale of EDR stores whose sales commission rate is discounted, the sales was made in order to partly absorb the economic losses of EDR due to the rapid increase in raw material cost, under the circumstances where the sales was conducted dynamicly.

Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in evidence Nos. 5 and evidence Nos. 18-1 through 6, EDP policies were mainly made in the case of direct purchase with a right to price-fixing, and it was not well made in a specific purchase transaction where only sales commission was paid without a right to price-fixing, such as EDP policies. ② The reduction of sales commission rate was made to store some specific purchase stores, but this was limited to an event product for which the price-fixing was performed. However, considering the fact that the former product was continuously made from March 25, 2011 to September 25, 2012, the transaction period for which the price-fixing was the sales commission rate for EDB, and the non-party 5 of ED policies were continuously made for the former product from September 201 to September 25, 2012, and that there was no need to maintain a wide range of sales commission rate, such as raw material cost and personnel expenses, and that there was no need to establish a new ED or 201.

(b) The sales of Ebrida B&C;

1) In determining whether an act of assistance is significantly favorable, first of all, the arm's length price should be determined. In light of the above fact that the arm's length price becomes the basis for a punitive administrative disposition such as a corrective order or a penalty surcharge, or the purport that the Fair Trade Act prohibits unfair assistance, in a case where the arm's length price cannot be found at the time of the pertinent transaction, and it is inevitable to estimate the arm's length price by various indirect data, and it should be determined by considering both the general economic and management situation at the time of the pertinent transaction and the uncertainty of future prediction, and it should be determined the real price that the ordinary transaction party would have made a universal choice by taking into account the general economic and management situation at the time of the pertinent transaction and the uncertainty of future prediction. The mere determination of all the circumstances at the ex post and at the time of the transaction, the arm's length price should not be determined based on the best price expected at the time of the transaction or at the price higher than the relevant transaction price. The burden of proof for the arm's length price exists to the defendant (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Du14666

2) Whether the normal sales commission rate in the marina store can be seen as the normal sales commission rate in the marina store

The defendant asserts that the normal sales commission rate of the store is 23% the same as that of the store in E-art store in E-art store. However, the store in E-art is located in E-art, a company-type Schlage, because the store in E-art is located in E-art, a large discount store, and there is a difference in his personal guidance, sales, etc. from the store in E-art store, the normal sales commission rate of the store in E-art store cannot be determined as the normal sales commission rate of the store in E-art store in E-art store. Thus, the defendant's above argument is without merit.

3) Whether the previous sales commission rate can be viewed as the normal sales commission rate

In addition, in full view of the purport of the argument in Eul evidence No. 7, the plaintiff New World takes into account the overall purport of the argument, which is, in the case of E.I.B., the company-type Schlage, and the company-type Schlage, that is, in the case of E.I.D., the most similar type of product and type of transaction to the store located in E.I.D., which is a large-scale discount store due to lack of stone food store, and applying the same sales commission rate as the store in E.I.D. (the rate of sales commission of 2.8% in E.I.S., 209, 21.8% in E.I.S. from March 2, 2010 to June 20, 201). However, E.I.D.'s sales revenue of E.C., which is merely 10% of the store, may reduce the sales commission rate of 21.28% prior to July 2010 or 218.

4) Whether the minimum normal sales commission rate can be seen as 15% or not

Then, the Defendant asserts that the minimum normal sales commission rate may be considered 15% considering the sales commission rate of Stoves companies that do not have any special relationship with the company-type Stoves, such as E-Stoves, such as E-Stoves, in full view of the overall purport of the pleadings, comprehensively taking into account the entries in E-Stoves No. 5-1 and 2 of E-Stoves, the sales commission rate of E-Stoves companies, such as E-Stoves sold to E-Stoves, is 15-18%, and E-Stoves’ sales commission rate of some companies, such as E-Stoves from E-S to 13%, E-Stoves, E-Stoves, E-Stoves, E-Stoves, E-Stoves, E-Stoves, and E-Stoves sales from E-Stoves sales companies.

However, in the case of Embrine store located in Embrine or another company-type Schlage, it is not possible to confirm the type of transaction, facilities, and the subject of the burden of human cost, etc., and, unlike Embrine Lbrine's fee rate, both are different depending on store and annual fee rate. Thus, it cannot be concluded that the above standard is a normal sales fee in the same industry, and there is no objective and reasonable ground to recognize that the minimum normal sales fee rate is 15%. Thus, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

5) Whether the applicable sales commission rate of 10% significantly deviates from the width of the normal sales commission rate

Furthermore, there is no evidence to support that the normal sales commission rate is 10% of the sales commission rate applied to the store by the Plaintiff New World and Earart in addition, even if it is impossible to specify the normal sales commission rate specifically.

(c) Burial of a victim;

1) Whether 5% of the sales commission rate after the increase can be seen as the normal sales commission rate

The defendant's argument that the normal sales commission rate of the plaintiff's stores in Emypt stores in the new world is 5%.

In light of the following facts: Gap's 6, 7, Gap's 9-1 and 3, Gap's 32, 36, 42, Eul's evidence 8, 16, 17, and the witness's testimony and arguments, the plaintiff's new market price was 0% of the average market price of 10% of the total market price of 10% of the total market price of 20% of the total market price of the 10th market price of the 5th market price and 10% of the total market price of the 10th market price of the 1st market price of the 5th market price. The plaintiff's new market price was 0% of the total market price of the 5th market price of the 10th market price of the 5th market price and the 1st market price of the 18th market price of the 18th market price of the 100 market price of the 1st market price.

In light of the above facts, under the circumstances where there is no comparable sales commission rate in the same industry, Plaintiff New World set 1% of the sales commission rate of the recipient store by reflecting the characteristics of the recipient’s goods, and it cannot be said that Plaintiff New World is 5% of the normal sales commission rate at the time of launch on July 2010 solely for the following reasons: (a) Plaintiff New World raised the rate of the recipient’s sales commission by 5% on March 201.

In this regard, the Defendant asserts that the Defendant had already known the Plaintiff’s new world that the raising of the fee rate of the recipient’s sales from 1% to 5% on February 201 through internal review was due to the Plaintiff’s own knowledge that the fee rate of the recipient’s sales was adequate, and that the arm’s length price of the recipient’s sales fee does not vary depending on the profits and losses of the recipient’s sales business, and that the normal fee rate should be considered as 5%.

However, as seen earlier, applying the sales commission rate of Plaintiff New World is deemed to reflect the changed situation on the following grounds: (a) the characteristic as strategic entertainment goods; (b) the election commission rate of Plaintiff New World, which was a competitor at the time of July 2010, was not the subject of comparison because Plaintiff New World did not release the recipient’s goods; and (c) the possibility of occurrence of Plaintiff B’s deficit; and (d) at the time of raising the sales commission rate, at the time of raising the sales commission rate of Plaintiff New World, it is difficult to recognize the normal sales commission rate of the recipient’s stores as 5% solely on the above circumstances.

2) Whether the applicable commission rate of 1% significantly deviates from the width of the normal commission rate

In addition, there is no evidence that even if the normal sales commission rate is not specifically specified, there is no evidence that the rate of 1% applied to the store by the Plaintiff New World is significantly exceeding the range of the normal sales commission rate.

(d) Bekia salesroom;

1) Whether the average sales commission rate of the Netherlands store can be seen as the normal sales commission rate

As seen above, the Plaintiff New World maintained 22% sales commission rate at around August 8, 2005, and around March 2009, it applied the sales commission rate to 15% of the sales commission rate of the Vietnamese store located in the Busan Center. The Gangnam Points applied 15% of the same sales commission rate from September 8, 2009 to the same sales commission rate from September 8, 2009, and thereafter the head office reduces to 15% from August 8, 2009 to 15% from August 8, 2009.

Accordingly, the defendant's argument that the normal sales commission rate of the Plaintiff New World's New World Department Store head office, Busan City Center, and Blovak store located in Gangnam store is the same as that of the average sales commission rate of the de facto store (attached Form 2), which is the average sales commission rate (attached Form 2).

According to Gap evidence Nos. 1 and Eul evidence Nos. 12, the average sales commission rate of the delel store in the New World department store may be acknowledged, for the principal office, 25.4% in 2009, 24.9% in 201 and 24.3% in 201 and 2012, for the Busan Center, 209.2% in 2009, 20.2% in 201 and 20.7% in 201 and 20.7% in 202 in 2009, for Gangnam Points, 24.2% in 2009, 201 and 24.3% in 201 and 203% in 2011.

However, according to the facts that Gap's 10th 3, Gap's 11, Eul's 12th 13, Gap's 14, 17, 34, and 35, Eul's 10, 11, and 13th , and the testimony and arguments of non-party 7, it is possible to supply various kinds of food such as can be used or packaged within 0% of the above food in comparison with the 5th 5th 1st 5th 2th 5th 5th 5th 5th 5th 5th 5th 5th 5th 5th 5th 5th 5th 5th 5th 5th 5th 5th 5th 5th 5th 5th 5th 5th 5th 5th 5th 5th 5th 5th 5th 5th 5th 5th 5th 5th 5th 5th 1st 2th 5th 1st 2th 2th 5th 2th 2th 2th 3th 2nd 3.

According to this, Belovasca's average sales commission rate is not applicable to Belovasca's store, and there is no objective and reasonable evidence to calculate the normal sales commission rate of Belovasca's store, as well as the complex characteristics of Lesca, Carca, Belovasa, and Dedele's store have a large difference in its sales commission rate.

In this regard, the defendant asserts that the average sales commission rate of the Netherlands should be regarded as normal sales commission rate, since the plaintiff New World recognizes that it should have been determined on the basis of the dele store dealing with similar business type of the same story at the time of determining the sales commission rate of the dele store, and that the average sales commission rate of the dele store should be regarded as normal sales commission rate.

However, the separation, such as Deelon and Switzerland, is for the convenience of management, and it does not necessarily have the nature of the store or the same level of sales commission fee, and as seen earlier, there is a case in which the sales commission rate was applied or reduced at 15% for the detegra store or similar beer shop located in the first floor food room, as seen earlier, and the Plaintiff’s new world seems to have taken into account the sales commission rate. Thus, the above circumstance alone is insufficient to recognize the normal sales commission rate for the Megian store as the above 20.2-25.4%, which is the annual average sales commission rate for the detegra store, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, the Defendant’s above assertion is without merit.

2) Whether the previous sales commission rate can be seen as the normal sales commission rate

In addition, it is difficult to apply 22% of the previous sales commission rate of the head office of the new global department store to the normal sales commission rate of the head office, or to the Busan Center and Gangnam Points, in light of the following: (a) there is no evidence to prove that the Defendant has made every effort to collect the normal sales commission rate of other similar department stores that can be objectively compared; or (b) there is no evidence to prove that it has not been easy to obtain it; (c) there is no evidence to prove that the sales commission rate of the head office of the new global department store has been applied from March 2009 to September 2009 to 17).

3) Whether the applicable commission rate of 15% significantly deviates from the width of the normal commission rate

In addition, there is no evidence that even if the normal sales commission rate cannot be specified specifically, it is obvious that the 15% of the sales commission rate applied to the store in Blkia by the Plaintiff New World is significantly deviating from the width of the normal sales commission rate.

E. Sub-decision

Therefore, among the corrective orders in [Attachment 1] Nos. 1 through 4, the store-related corrective orders are lawful. However, the defendant's proof is insufficient regarding that the sales commission fee applied to the store in Ethy Ethy Ethy Ethy Ethy Ethy Ethy Ethy Ethy Ethy Ethy Ethy Ethy Ethye Ethye Ethye Ethye Ethye Ethye Ethye Ethye Ethye Ethye Ethye Ethye Ethye Ethye Ethye Ethye Ethye Ethye Ethyeye Ethye Ethyeye Ethyeye Ethyeyeye Ethyeye, and the sales commission fee applied to the store in Ethyey Ethyey Ethyey, without further determination on the illegality of each supporting act.

4. Judgment on an order to pay penalty surcharges

A. Whether partial revocation is revoked

The store-related corrective order of the Plaintiff New World and Eypt is lawful, but the order is also unlawful, as long as the order of correction related to the store, the store-related corrective order of the Plaintiff Eypt, and the order of correction related to the Plaintiff Eypt against the Plaintiff Eypt is unlawful, i.e., the part related to the store, and the part related to the store of the Plaintiff Eypt, excluding the part related to the store.

Meanwhile, in the event that the Defendant ordered the payment of a penalty surcharge for multiple violations when imposing penalty surcharge for an unfair support act, but there is evidence that only some violations are illegal and that the amount of penalty surcharge can be calculated based on some violations in the lawsuit, only the part corresponding to the amount of penalty surcharge for a part of the violation that was revoked due to an unlawful act may be revoked (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Du1483, Dec. 22, 2006).

However, according to the statement in Gap evidence No. 1, for the plaintiff's new world, the penalty surcharge for the plaintiff's new world is E.S., and for the four violations related to E.I.S. E. E. E. E. B. E. E. E. E. B. E. E. E. E. E. E. E. E. B. E. E. E. E. E. E. E. E. E. E. E. E. E. E. E. E. for the second violation related to E. E. E. E. E. E. E. E. B. E. E. E. E. E. E. E. E. E. E. E. E. E., E. “the sales commission for E.S.” was calculated by the same method as to two violations related to E.S. sales.

Therefore, the defendant's penalty surcharge imposed on the plaintiff New World and Emart is assessed on the ground that there are materials showing the amount of each violation and the basis for calculation, and thus, it is possible to only revoke the imposition of penalty surcharge on some violations.

B. Determination of penalty surcharges for the Plaintiff’s New World and Emart

(i)the amount of undue assistance;

From March 201 to April 201, 201, in the course of operating a marina store by the Plaintiff New World, the sales revenue generated from the store was KRW 14,495,378,00, and the sales revenue generated from the store from May 25, 2011 to September 25, 2012 is not a dispute between the parties, and if the sales revenue generated from the store is multiplied by 2.5% from the normal sales commission rate of KRW 23% less 20.5%, it is clear that the unfair subsidization amount is KRW 362,384,450, 3,007,01,004.

(ii)basic penalty surcharges;

The Defendant has discretion on whether to impose penalty surcharges on the Plaintiff’s violation of the law, and if the penalty surcharges are imposed, to determine the amount of penalty surcharges within a certain extent. The Defendant’s application of 40%, and 50% (it was amended from April 1, 2012 to 50% on the Defendant’s notice) by deeming the Plaintiff’s New World and Emart’s respective violations as “serious violations” is within the scope prescribed in Article 24-2 of the Act and Article 61(1) [Attachment 2] of the Enforcement Decree of the Act, and cannot be deemed as a deviation or abuse of discretionary power.

Thus, the basic penalty surcharge calculated by multiplying the above unfair support amount by the above imposition standard rate is 144,953,780 won (362,384,450 won x 40%) and the Plaintiff Emart is 1,503,509,002 won (3,007,018,004 won x 50%).

3) Voluntary mediation penalty surcharge (as from April 1, 2012 to the second adjustment penalty surcharge notified by the Defendant)

Therefore, the Defendant’s increase of 10% in the basic penalty surcharge is within the scope set forth in Article 24-2 of the Act and Article 61(1) [Attachment 2] of the Enforcement Decree of the Act, and cannot be deemed as a deviation or abuse of discretionary power, since it is within the scope set forth in Article 61(1) [Attachment 2] of the Enforcement Decree of the Act.

Thus, if the above basic penalty surcharge increases by 10%, the 159,449,158 won (144,953,780 won x 110%) and the 1,653,859,902 won (1,503,509,002 won x 110%) of the Plaintiff Earart are 1,653,859,902 won.

(iv) a penalty surcharge;

If the above voluntary adjustment penalty surcharge (the second adjustment amount) is reduced to less than KRW 159,00,000,000 for Plaintiff New World, and the imposition penalty surcharge is KRW 1,653,00 for Plaintiff Earart 1,653,00,000 for Plaintiff.

5) Determination as to the Plaintiff’s assertion

Plaintiff New World and Ear asserted that the Defendant’s arbitrary adjustment penalty surcharge should be increased by 10% on the ground of active participation of its executives in the calculation of the penalty surcharge. However, according to the “Public Notice on the Imposition, etc. of Penalty Surcharge” (Notice No. 2010-6 of the Fair Trade Commission, Mar. 28, 2012) No. 3. b. 5, 2012, where a director or a senior executive of the company in violation directly participated in the violation, the amount of penalty surcharge shall be increased by up to 10/100, and such notification No. 4. 3. 9 and “Rules on the Operation, Encouragement, etc. of Fair Trade Compliance Programs” (Notice No. 2012-21 of Aug. 20, 2012) provides that an executive officer of the company in violation of this Act actively participated in the act of unfair trade program’s implementation of an exemplary design and operation of a fair trade program. However, the grounds for exclusion from the application of the penalty surcharge are as seen earlier.

C. Sub-decision

Therefore, the portion exceeding KRW 159,00,000 for the Plaintiff New World Co., Ltd. among the payment order of the penalty surcharge under paragraph (5) of the attached Table 1, the portion exceeding KRW 1,653,00,000 for the Plaintiff Emypt Co., Ltd., and the part concerning the Plaintiff Emypt et al. is unlawful.

5. Conclusion

Therefore, the part exceeding KRW 159,00 for the Plaintiff’s new world among the corrective orders listed in paragraphs 1 through 4 of Article 2, 3, 4, and [Attachment 1] of the Decree No. 1 through 5 of the Decree No. 2013-039 of Feb. 25, 2013, exceeding KRW 159,00 for the Plaintiff’s new world, exceeding KRW 1,653,00,000 for the Plaintiff’s Emypt, and the part concerning the Plaintiff’s Emypt as to the Plaintiff’s Emypt should be revoked as unlawful. Thus, the Plaintiff’s claim for Emypt and Emypt shall be accepted within the scope of the above recognition as reasonable, and the remainder shall be dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

[Attachment]

Judges Lee Jae-won (Presiding Judge) et al.

1) The term “upuper Group” refers to a small-scale retail store than a large-scale retail store and a large-scale retail store than a general discount store. On June 2009, the store first started its business.

2) Nonparty 1’s ancillary parent who controls a new World Business Group.

3) It refers to beer in the form of wholesale business with a large-scale production system.

Note 4) Four enterprises with the name of Paris, Stickju, Croveer, and Malar occupy the franchise business lux market, and the market share of Paris and Harineur as of 2010 shows about 94.6%.

5) The form of wholesale business with a large-scale production system is a beer, and four companies, such as showers, three-dimensional foods, green food, and Seoul Food, are leading the market.

6) It includes independent beer, stoves, and stoves, etc. directly produced and sold at hotels in hotels and in hotels.

Note 7) A transaction by which the supplier sells its products by selling a large retailer’s store and pays a certain portion of the sales to a large retailer in the form of sales commission.

8) On May 2011, 201, the lower rate of sales commission was determined, but was retroactively applied from March 2011.

9) The Gap evidence Nos. 1 (Written Decision) was 9, 10, 16, 23, 27, 27, 32, 34, 40, 41, 42, 47, 50 through 60, the amount of support transaction, the amount of support, the amount of support, the basic penalty surcharge, and the unit of voluntary adjustment penalty surcharge. The defendant revised it from the preparatory document dated December 19, 2013 to “the cost” and adjusted it to “the cost,” thereby propertyizing the difference between the sales amount by store, the normal sales commission rate, the applicable sales commission rate, and the discretionary adjustment penalty surcharge (However, it is the same as the result of calculating the amount of penalty surcharge imposed on less than a million won). The plaintiffs acknowledged all sales by each sales store set by the defendant as at the date of pleading on December 27, 2013.

Note 10) All these three companies have entered into a direct purchase (as a result, a large retailer directly purchased goods from a supplier and sold them), but was actually operated in a specific purchase form, and from March 2012, they are under operation by entering into a contract with a specific purchase.

11) The representative director of an affiliated company of a new World business group shall attend and take charge of information exchange, decision-making on important matters between groups, etc.

Note 12) Even if a normal sales commission rate is recognized lower than that recognized by the Defendant, if it is proved that the applicable sales commission rate is significantly lower than that, the corrective order will be lawful and the penalty surcharge will be lawful to the extent that is reduced.

Note 13) As part of the Stoves business that had been located in the management club, the Plaintiff Lee Ear acquired in 201 (Evidence No. 39).

14) In such cases, 10/100 of the amount of support transactions shall be deemed the amount of support and the penalty shall be calculated on the ground that it is difficult or impossible to calculate the amount of support.

Note 15) The term “deel” is a store of 2 to 3 square meters located in the food of a department store, which is operated to pack and sell specialized food for each store, or make it simple to drink.

Note 16) ABPKcom is a store that has acquired and operated a license from the headquarters of the U.S. Oralk.

Note 17) If the intention of support is clear, the degree of proof of the arm's length price will be alleviated.

18) The Defendant asserted that the date of preparation of the part, among the evidence of subparagraph 1, where the support of the new global business group was revealed among the evidence of subparagraph 1, is June 14, 2009, but there is no evidence to acknowledge it, and rather, it accords with the order of time to view it as June 14, 2010.