All appeals are dismissed.

Costs of appeal shall be borne by each party.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. Plaintiff’s ground of appeal

A. As to the existence of the agreement in this case, the court below determined to the effect that the Plaintiff agreed to purchase the drugs from the existing pharmaceutical company and transfer the price to the wholesaler according to the successful bid price if it receives the price from the hospital from another wholesaler who was excluded from the bidding (hereinafter “Plaintiff, etc.”) on June 13, 2006, which was the day following the bidding process at the Ulsan National University Hospital in 2006, and that the delivery method was implemented for about one year from around that time, after considering the following facts as a whole: (a) the wholesaler who was awarded a successful bid with the Masan Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Ltd.; (b) Dongnam Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd.; (c) Dongnam Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd.; (d) Donam Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd.; (d) Postal drug Co., Ltd.; and (e) Donam Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Plaintiff, etc.”) purchased the drugs according to the successful bid price price; and (e) the Plaintiff, etc., applied the agreement in this case.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and records, the above determination by the court below is just and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, there is no violation of the principle of free evaluation of evidence.

B. In order to determine whether the relevant market definition constitutes an unfair collaborative act as provided in each subparagraph of Article 19(1) of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act (hereinafter “Fair Trade Act”), a transaction is conducted in relation to a particular business area in which competition issues may arise.