201Du939 Corrective Order, etc.

Seoul High Court Decision 200

Fair Trade Commission

Seoul High Court Decision 2000Nu1418 delivered on December 28, 2000

March 14, 2003

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

Article 19(5) of the former Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act (amended by Act No. 5813, Feb. 5, 1999; hereinafter referred to as the "Act") establishes the fact that two or more enterprisers are committing an act falling under any of the subparagraphs of Article 19(1) of the Act, and that it is "an act practically restricting competition in a particular business area", the fact that it is "an act practically restricting competition in a certain business area" is not proven, it is presumed that the enterprisers have agreed to perform such a collaborative act without the need to prove the circumstances in which the enterprisers' express or implied agreement or understanding should be presumed, but it is presumed that the enterprisers have agreed to perform such collaborative act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 9Du6514, 6521, Mar. 15, 2002; 200Du1386, May 28, 2002; 200Du6167, May 28, 2002).

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged the facts based on the evidence employed, and found that the rate of increase in prices was 9.9% of the domestic beer supply market at the end of 197, and found that there was no agreement on the increase in prices by the National Tax Service's price increase in the three separate methods such as price increase in the three separate methods, and thus, it did not affect the conclusion of the judgment on the increase in prices by the National Tax Service's price increase in the three separate methods such as price increase in the three separate methods, but the above provision on the increase in prices by the National Tax Service's price increase in the three separate methods of consultation with the National Tax Service's price increase in the three separate methods such as price increase in the three separate methods, but the above provision on the increase in prices by the National Tax Service's price increase in the three separate methods such as price increase in the three separate methods of consultation with the National Tax Service's price increase in the National Tax Service's price increase in the three separate guidelines.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Cho Il-young

Justices Jo Hee-dam

Justices Lee Hong-hoon

Justices Son Ji-yol