The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1.(a)

If an administrative violation, which is the subject of a penalty surcharge, is established prior to the commencement of rehabilitation procedures for a debtor, is established, the right to claim a penalty surcharge is a rehabilitation claim even if the disposition for imposition thereof is subsequent to the commencement of rehabilitation procedures (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Du54193, Jan. 28, 2016). An unfair collaborative act under Article 19(1)1 of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act (hereinafter “Fair Trade Act”) is established only when there exists an agreement between the parties on the price determination,

Furthermore, considering the characteristics of rehabilitation procedures that regulate legal relations of many interested parties, rehabilitation claims should be classified according to objective and clear criteria with public-interest claims.

Therefore, if enterprisers agreed on price determination, etc. over several occasions before and after the commencement of a specific collusion executor’s rehabilitation procedure, even if there is no difficulty in evaluating the agreement as a whole with respect to other collusion executor than the enterpriser who commenced the rehabilitation procedure as one unfair collaborative act, it is reasonable to view that the collusion executor, who commenced the rehabilitation procedure, becomes a rehabilitation claim for the penalty surcharge for the agreement that had already commenced prior to the commencement of the rehabilitation procedure.

B. In addition, where the rehabilitation plan is authorized without reporting the right to claim a penalty surcharge, which is a rehabilitation claim, as a rehabilitation claim, and the rehabilitation claim becomes effective pursuant to the main sentence of Article 251 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act (hereinafter “Rehabilitation Act”), and the Defendant is prohibited from exercising its right to impose the penalty surcharge any longer.

Therefore, the defendant's imposition of tax after the rehabilitation plan approval is revoked is illegal as it is against law.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Du5159, Jun. 27, 2013). 2. The lower court, among the instant collaborative acts, imposes a penalty on the Plaintiff prior to the commencement of rehabilitation procedures.