The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. 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 implementation based on such agreement, “the date on which the unfair collaborative act ends” is the date on which the execution based on such agreement ends.

Therefore, in order to terminate unfair collaborative acts, some enterprisers who participated in the agreement should express or implied declaration of withdrawal from the agreement with other enterprisers, and reduce the price level that would have existed without collusion according to their 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, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Du12774, Oct. 23, 2008). 2. Review of the reasoning of the lower judgment and the evidence duly admitted reveals the following circumstances. A.

Plaintiff, Dongyang Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “stock company” in its name) (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff, etc.”) from March 6, 2008 to March 6, 2008

6. Until July 1, 2008, through a meeting of the representative and the head of the business team, agreed to set the “waste asbestos reclamation standard price” as KRW 2.50,000 per ton of the waste asbestos reclamation standard applicable from July 1, 2008, and implemented it.

b.0.0 c.