The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the end of the collaborative act Nos. 1 and 2 of this case (Ground of appeal No. 1)

A. In the event 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 thereon, the date when the unfair collaborative act was terminated means the date on which the act of implementation according to the agreement was terminated rather than the date on which the agreement was reached (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Du11275, Mar. 24, 2006). Such a legal principle applies likewise to the case where there was a bid collusion on the determination of successful bidder, successful bidder, bid price, bid price, etc. under Article 19(1)8 of the Fair Trade Act and the implementation based thereon.

In addition, whether the action based on bid collusion has been terminated should be determined individually and specifically for each case based on the contents of the agreement in question, comprehensively considering various factors such as the specific scope, mode, agreement, etc. of the intended action and the existence of the effect of restricting competition in accordance with the agreement.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2015Du37396 Decided May 28, 2015). B.

The lower court, based on its stated reasoning, determined that the first collaborative act of this case was terminated on February 11, 2010, and the second collaborative act of this case on March 17, 201, respectively.

C. Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the aforementioned legal principles and records, the above judgment of the court below is acceptable. Contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles regarding the termination of unfair collaborative act, or by exceeding the bounds

2. As to whether the prescription period for the disposition against the collaborative act Nos. 1 and 2 of this case has expired (ground of appeal No. 2)

A. The main text of Article 49(4) of the former Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act (amended by Act No. 11406, Mar. 21, 2012; hereinafter “former Act”) is Article 49(4).