beta
Text
The judgment below
The part against the Defendant is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.
The plaintiff.
Reasons
The grounds of appeal are examined.
1. Plaintiff’s ground of appeal
A. As to the ground of appeal No. 1, in light of the circumstances as indicated in its reasoning, the court below determined that the construction companies belonging to the previous KS construction consortium from January 2009 to April 200 constituted an integrated consortium composed of the plaintiffs et al. with respect to the instant 4 lecture projects by combining them with the existing modern construction consortium, and furthermore, the shares of the construction companies belonging to the integrated consortium with the lead of modern construction has been determined. In addition, the construction companies belonging to the Plaintiff et al. such as the Plaintiff et al., even though they were aware that all or part of the instant 4 cluster projects will be carried out as a financial project, they can fully recognize the fact that the Plaintiff agreed to participate in the instant collaborative act with a certain share share divided by construction companies.
In light of the records, the above judgment of the court below is just, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, the court below did not err by exceeding the bounds of the free evaluation of evidence.
B. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 2 and 3, whether a collaborative act restricts competition as provided by Article 19(1) of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act (hereinafter “Fair Trade Act”) should be determined individually by examining whether the collaborative act affects or is likely to affect the determination of price, quantity, quality, or other terms and conditions of trading by reducing competition due to the collaborative act, taking into account various circumstances, such as the characteristics of the relevant product, consumers’ standard for choosing products, impact of the relevant act on the market and enterprisers’ competition.
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2010Du10471, Jun. 14, 2012; 2012Du1773, Nov. 28, 2013). The lower court determined as follows.