beta
Text
The Defendant’s corrective order and penalty surcharge 16,181,00.3.3.5 of the plenary session Resolution B (1) against the Plaintiff on March 5, 2015.
Reasons
1. The summary of the case and the facts premised on the case
A. The summary of the instant case is the Defendant’s corrective order and penalty surcharge payment order against the Plaintiff based on Articles 21 and 22 of the Fair Trade Act for the reason that the Plaintiff, who manufactured, imported, and sold C, violated the prohibition of unfair collaborative acts under Article 19(1)1 of the former Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act (amended by Act No. 11758, Apr. 5, 2013; hereinafter “Fair Trade Act”) by claiming that the Plaintiff violated the prohibition of unfair collaborative acts under Article 19(1)1 of the former Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act and the revocation of the corrective order and penalty surcharge payment order against the Plaintiff on March 5, 2015 against the Plaintiff by asserting that the unfair collaborative act was not established, or that the exclusion period for the part for which unfair collaborative act was established was illegal.
[Attachment 2] The relevant statutes are as shown in [Attachment 2]
나. 전제된 사실관계 【증거】 갑1과 변론 전체의 취지 ⑴ 당사자 ㈎ 원고, D㈜, ㈜E는 모두 C 제품을 제조하거나 수입하여 판매하는 회사로서 공정거래법 2조 1호에 정해진 사업자이고(이하, 원고를 포함하여 3개사를 ‘원고 등 사업자’라 하고, 주식회사의 경우에 ‘㈜’는 모두 생략한다), 국내에 C을 수입하여 판매하던 F와 G는 1998년 무렵 독일 C 업체인 H와 일본 C 업체인 I에 인수되어 원고와 D가 되었다.
㈏ 피고는 공정거래법 35조 1항에 따라 공정거래법 1조의 목적 달성을 위한 사무를 독립적으로 수행하는 것을 임무로 하여 국무총리 소속하에 설치된 독립행정위원회이다.
⑵ 시판용 C 시장의 구조와 현황 ㈎ C은 회전운동이나 직선운동을 하는 굴대(축)를 받치면서 정확하고 매끄럽게 회전하게 하여 마찰에 따른...