The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

A. Article 22-2 of the former Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act (amended by Act No. 7315, Dec. 31, 2004; hereinafter “former Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act”) provides that a person who has reported an unfair collaborative act or a person who has cooperated in an investigation into an offense by means of providing evidence may be exempted from penalty surcharges.

However, since there is no specific provision regarding the method of such report and the provision of evidence, the act is not necessarily required to be done directly by the principal, and it is also allowed to take the method of acting as an agent or an agent.

Therefore, it can be allowed to report on the contents of the company's unfair collaborative act on behalf of another company while making voluntary reports on the company's unfair collaborative act.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2009Du8939 Decided September 9, 2010). B.

The lower court dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim seeking revocation of the instant penalty surcharge payment order on the ground that the submitted evidence alone exceeds the voluntary report on the Plaintiff’s unfair collaborative act, and it is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff filed a voluntary report on the Plaintiff’s act on behalf of the Plaintiff’s subrogation or agent, and that there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

C. However, we cannot accept the judgment of the court below for the following reasons.

(1) Comprehensively considering the evidence duly admitted, the following circumstances are revealed.

(A) Hyundai Petroleum Chemical Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “former Hyundai Petroleum Chemical”) commenced to manufacture and sell synthetic resin since 1988, but due to serious business deterioration, the sales process was conducted by creditor financial institutions, and it was below Honam Petroleum Chemical and ELP Co., Ltd.