1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the first instance court's judgment, except for adding the same contents as stated in Paragraph 2 to Paragraph 9 of the seventh decision of the court of first instance. Thus, it is acceptable to accept this as it is in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The status of the additionally increased person;

Ⅱ.1. Action 1. (referred to as the part recorded in the Plaintiff’s sexual activity in the context of the Disposition 1.) takes into account the following points:

At the same time, competition restriction is recognized because it is clear that the competition-restricting effects only arise in the bidding market for the ocean security net construction project, which is the relevant market, and that economic efficiency cannot be improved at all.

First, it is clearly admitted the intention of restricting competition in the bidding market of the maritime security net construction project, as the act of the respondent is to prevent the failure, to give orders at high prices, and at the same time, to divide revenues in the case of giving orders for the bid.

Second, due to the acts of the respondent, the bid has the same effect as the successful bidder by participating only one company without substantial competition, and the possibility that the successful bidder can be determined through competition has been excluded.

Third, in that the acts of the persons under review caused a state of infringing or threatening to infringe the interests of the ordering person by restricting competition in the bidding, the purpose of enhancing economic efficiency to be sought through the competitive bidding method is not to achieve. The fact that the Korea Fair Trade Commission issued a corrective order without imposing a penalty surcharge on the Plaintiff on the instant bidding, it is difficult to readily conclude that the Fair Trade Commission assessed the instant agreement as having no risk of impeding the fair enforcement of the competition.

Rather, it is true.