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. As to the ground of appeal No. 2, Article 19(1) of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act (hereinafter “Fair Trade Act”) prohibits “agreement on an act of unfairly restricting competition”. The agreement includes not only explicit agreement but also implied agreement.

In this context, the essence of the agreement lies in the communication between two or more enterprisers, so it cannot be found that there was an agreement as a matter of course on the ground that there was an appearance consistent with the act listed in any of the subparagraphs of the above provision, but it can be deemed that there was an agreement in a case where there is a proof of circumstance to acknowledge the inter-connection

(2) On November 28, 2013, the lower court determined that: (a) the Plaintiff and H’s representative G and the Russing business entity agreed on the bid price of each of the instant collaborative acts with the business entity participating in the bidding process in the bidding process; and (b) based on the agreement between the Plaintiff and H’s representative G agreed on the bid price of each of the instant collaborative acts with the business entity participating in the bidding process; and (c) determined the final bid price of the joint contractors through consultation with the Plaintiff; and (d) the Plaintiff and H’s representative G and the Russ business entity agreed on the bid price of the joint contractors in the military supply process ordered by the Defense Acquisition Program Administration; and (e) the Plaintiff and H’s representative G and the Russ business entity agreed on the bid price of the successful bidder, the Russ business entity and the Russing business entity.

In light of the above legal principles and records, the above judgment of the court below is just, and there are errors in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the establishment of unfair collaborative acts under Article 19(1)8 of the Fair Trade Act, or rules of logic and experience.