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 existence of the instant agreement and action

A. “Agreement” under Article 19(1) of the former Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act (amended by Act No. 7315, Dec. 31, 2004; hereinafter “Fair Trade Act”), which is prohibited by Article 19(1) of the same Act, is the essence of the communication among two or more enterprisers. “Agreement” includes not only explicit agreement but also implied agreement (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Du19298, Nov. 14, 2013).

The court below, based on its adopted evidence, presented a review report on the price strategy of the Em-M (hereinafter “EM”) on June 8, 2004 by Em-M (hereinafter “EM”), Es Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “SK”) through April through May 2, 200, the materials comparing the average price of the Plaintiff, Eskex Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “S”), EsK (hereinafter “Plaintiffs et al.”) with the price at the same date of EM (hereinafter “three companies, including the Plaintiff, etc.”) and the price at the same time. The above price comparison materials are the same as “price comparison materials by competition” prepared by E.S., so the content of EM materials is at least the same as the “Plaintiffs’ price reduction materials” at least the price reduction at least 20,000,000 won and at least 40,000,000 won, and the market price at each of the above e.g., 14,204. retail markets.

4. 1. The above discount width as of January 1.