The appeal is dismissed.

Costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the termination date of the collaborative act in this case (No. 2 grounds of appeal)

A. 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 action based on such agreement, “the date on which the unfair collaborative act ends” refers not to the date on which the agreement was concluded, but to the date on which the action based on the 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, the unfair collaborative act has been terminated for all enterprisers participating in the agreement.

In order to do so, enterprisers who participated in the agreement clearly reverse the agreement, and commit acts contrary to the agreement, such as reducing the price that would have existed without collusion in accordance with their independent judgment, or acts which are deemed to have de facto destroyed the collusion through repeated price competition, etc. among the enterprisers who participated in the agreement, such acts as continuing to continue for a certain

There must be circumstances to see (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2007Du12774, Oct. 23, 2008; 2016Du46113, Mar. 14, 2019). (b) The lower court, based on its stated reasoning, concluded the instant collaborative act by clarifying the intent of the Plaintiff to dissolve the multiple meetings explicitly with other contact Denmark business operators on January 25, 2014, by expressing that the Plaintiff would dissolve the instant collaborative act.

The decision was determined.

(c)

Examining the records in accordance with the above legal principles, the above determination by the court below is just, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, it violates logical and empirical rules.