[1] The criteria for determining whether the act of selling goods, including subordinate goods, constitutes an act of combined sale

[2] In determining whether the combination and sale of main goods and subordinate goods fall under Article 3-2 (1) 3 of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act, whether the act of abuse of market dominant position requires the value of subordinate goods as a requirement for establishing the act of abuse of market dominant position (negative), and the standard for determining whether the purchase enforcement is recognized

[3] Whether a compensatory value is required as a requirement for the establishment of moasting in unfair trade practices under Article 36(1) [Attachment 1] 5(a) of the Enforcement Decree of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act (affirmative)

[4] The case holding that in a case where an enterpriser who has the monopoly market dominant position in the PC operation system market sells PC operation system with the PC operation system, such combined sale constitutes an act unfairly interfering with the business activities of other enterprisers among abuse of market dominant position under the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act, an act which is likely to considerably undermine the interests of consumers, and an act which constitutes a sale from among unfair trade practices

[5] Where a victim who suffered loss due to a violation of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act seeks compensation against the violator, the burden of proving the causation between the violation and the occurrence of loss (=victim)

[6] The case holding that a proximate causal relation between the combination sale and the loss cannot be acknowledged in a case where a market dominant enterpriser claims compensation for damages by asserting that he suffered losses from liquidation of the Mesens business due to the combination sale of PC operation system and Mesens

[1] In determining whether an act of selling goods, including ancillary goods, constitutes a combination sale, the principal goods and subordinate goods shall be determined based on the current status of supply of subordinate goods or transaction practices in the subordinate goods industry, but if the subordinate goods are not sold or used as a single unit, it shall be deemed that the subordinate goods are separate goods.

[2] In determining whether the combination and sale of main goods and subordinate goods constitutes an act unfairly interfering with the business activities of other enterprisers under Article 3-2 (1) 3 of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act (hereinafter “Fair Trade Act”), the Fair Trade Act and the Enforcement Decree of the same Act do not stipulate that consumers purchase subordinate goods for consideration in order to establish the abuse of market dominant position. According to Section IV (d) of the Fair Trade Commission’s notification, Article 3-2 (1) 3 of the Fair Trade Act and Article 5 (3) 4 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, which unreasonably obstruct the business activities of other enterprisers, among the abuse of market dominant position, the act of unfairly impeding the business activities of other enterprisers is defined as “an act of unfairly impairing the business activities of other enterprisers,” and it is not a case where the business activities of other enterprisers are made difficult, and it is not a case where the sale of goods are restricted to “the free transaction activities of the other enterprisers,” and thus, it is not a case where the other party is forced to purchase the goods under Article 36 (1)5) of the Enforcement Decree of the Fair Trade Act.

[3] According to Article 36 (1) [Attachment 1] 5 (a) of the Enforcement Decree of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act, among unfair trade practices under Article 23 (1) 3 of the Act, the term "act of unfairly allowing the buyer to purchase other goods or services in light of normal transaction practices while supplying one's own goods or services to the other party to the transaction," and the term "purchase" is premised on the commercial nature of "sale" among unfair trade practices in that it takes the premise of the commercial nature of purchasing goods.

[4] The case holding that in a case where an enterpriser who has the PC operation system market dominant position in the PC operation system market sells the PC operation system including the PC operation system, which is the main product, and the PC operation system, and the PC's separate product, which is the subordinate product, are combined and sold, and thus, the act of unreasonably impeding other enterprisers' business activities among abuse of market dominant position under the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act, and which is likely to seriously undermine the interests of consumers and the unfair trade practices, it falls under the PC operation system

[5] Under the proviso of Article 57(1) of the former Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act (amended by Act No. 7315 of Dec. 31, 2004), the liability of violation of the Fair Trade Act and the liability of selective claim for tort under the Civil Act were recognized, and Article 56(1) of the current Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act (hereinafter “Fair Trade Act”) change the burden of proof against intentional or negligent act to the violator, the liability of violation of the Fair Trade Act is the liability of tort. In addition, in order to calculate the victim’s amount of damages by applying Article 57 of the Fair Trade Act, it shall be proved that the damage occurred due to the violation of the Fair Trade Act, and the content of the above provision shall not be interpreted to relieve the burden of proof of causation between the illegal act and the damage. Accordingly, the victim who intends to exercise the right to claim damages in accordance with the general principle of tort liability must prove the causation between the illegal act and the damage

[6] The case holding that a proximate causal relation between the combination sale and the loss cannot be acknowledged in a case where a market dominant enterpriser claims compensation for damages by asserting that he suffered losses from liquidation of the Messenger business due to the combination sale of PC operation system and Messenger

[1] Article 3-2 (1) 3 and 5, and Article 23 (1) 3 of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act / [2] Article 3-2 (1) 3 of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act, Article 5 (3) 4, and Article 36 (1) [Attachment 1] subparagraph 5 (a) of the Enforcement Decree of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act, criteria for examination of abuse of market dominant position (Notice No. 2002-6). d. 3. / [3] Article 23 (1) 3 of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act, Article 36 (1) [Attachment 1] 5 (a) of the Enforcement Decree of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act / [4] Article 3-2 (1) 3 and 5, Article 23 (1) 3 of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act, Article 5 (1) [Attachment 7] subparagraph 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act, Article 5 (1) and Article 5 (3) 4) of the former Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act / [6 (1) of the Monopoly Regulation Act

Plaintiff (Attorney Kim Yong-sung et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

[Plaintiff-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Attorneys Han Han-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellee)

May 14, 2009

The plaintiff's claim against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The Defendants jointly and severally pay to the Plaintiff 30,000,000,000 won with 20% interest per annum from the next day of the final delivery of the copy of the instant complaint to the day of full payment.

1. Basic facts

A. The general status of the Plaintiff and Defendants

1) Raw height

The plaintiff is an Internet venture business that started to develop the "scambling" program, which was established on June 12, 1996, and applied the scambling-based technology, and started to provide the scambling service in Korea from November 1998.

2) The Defendants

Defendant Microfrate (hereinafter “Defendant Microfrate”) is a corporation established under the laws of the United States of America, and is a company that develops, manufactures, and sells various software products, such as server operation systems, personal computers (hereinafter “PCs”), media server programs, etc. The Defendant Microfrate Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Korea”) is a local corporation of the Republic of Korea where Defendant SP owns 100% shares, and is in charge of the Korean translation work of programs developed and produced by Defendant SP and sales in the Republic of Korea.

The general status and sales of the Defendants are as shown in [Attachment 1] through [Attachment 3] below.

[Attachment 1] The general situation of the defendants ("$" means US currency; hereinafter the same shall apply)

(as of June 2004)

m. 35,34,00,000 US$ 36,835,000,000 for software development and sale on April 1, 1975, and 8,168,000,000 for Korea SP 48,030,000 for software sale and trade in September 198, 150,000 for 23,037,000,000 for 8,749,000,000 for 8,749,000,000,000 for full-time employees of the net income for the net income for the sales of major businesses as of April 1, 1975.

[Attachment 2] Sales, etc. (unit: US$ 200,000) of Defendant SP

The sales revenue of 22,956 25,296 28,265,265 32,187 38,835 operating income of 11,006 11,720,910 13,2179,034 net income of 9,4217,7217,7217,829,9938,168,168, 2004 sales revenue of 22,956 204 in the fiscal year included in the main sentence of this Act

[Attachment 3] Sales, etc. (unit: KRW 00,000) of Defendant Korea’s MSs

The sales revenue of 148,176 235,931 236,878 213,253,037 operating income of 233,037 operating income of 49,281 46,989 3,296-24, 363-10,835 net income of 40,665,754 12,431 34,976 8,74848,7488,74888,7488,748

B. Current status of the Messen market

1) The significance and main functions of the Messenger

The Messen program (hereinafter “Messenger”) is a program that realizes a Messenger’s dialogue within cyber space by exchanging letters on a real-time basis with the other party who is connected to the Internet via the Messenger, or exchanging files. The main function of the Messenger’s Messenger’s Messenger’s Messenger’s Messenger’s Messenger’s Messenger’s Messenger’s Messenger’s Messenger’s Messenger’s Messenger’s Messenger’s Messenger’s Messenger’

2. Current status of Messenger

From July 1997, the Defendants began to supply “mN” in the Republic of Korea. From October 2001, the Defendants separately supplied “SK Communications”, and from January 2003, the SK Communications Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “SK Communications”) supplied the Metetra. From January 2000, the Metecom supplied the Meteger’s Medger’s Medger’s Medger’s Medger’s Medger’s Medger’s Medger’s Medger’s Medger’s Medger’s Medger’s Medger’s Medger’s market share at the time of February 200, the following communication (hereinafter “the following communication”) was changed to “YNN.” and finally changed to “the next Medger’s Medger’s 30 years Medger’s Medger’s Med.

[Attachment 4] The current status of the Messenger as of March 2009

The number of net users of the betting order (1) (1) net user share (1), 201, 214.7 34.67 5.27 2, 14.08 3 4,7683 1.59 4 400,983 400 40,9812 1.245 291,81,819 132,90,000 6 132,7280,000 6 132,7280,000 40,000 40,000 30,00 1,000 41,7280,000 47 41,637,940,000 1,50,000 1,000 41,7280,00 1,000 30,014

net employer 1) Number (names)

Redach Note 2) (1) (2)

At source: the last note of March 2009, Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Courients”)

3) History of the Messenger market

The domestic Messen market can be divided into three stages of introduction, expansion, and maturity maturity based on the quantitative size of users of Messengers.

A) Introduction period (from 1996 to 1999)

In the early 1996, the users of the instant Messenger used the instant Messenger’s program provided by foreign business operators, including the U.S. Lirburis and Lael (AOL), and used the Plaintiff’s Messenger’s Messenger’s Messenger’s Messenger’s Messenger’s Messenger’s Messenger’s Messenger’s Messenger’s Messenger’s Messenger’s Mes, which was sent from February 199 in the second half of 199, the Defendant’s Messen’s Messen’s Messen’s Messen’s Messen, Drger’s Messen’s Messen, Kwikkset’s Messen’s NiM’s Messen’s Mes.

b)Extended (2000 to 2002)

The increase of Internet and super-high speed Internet users, the increase in the Messenger's number of Messenger, and the competition situation of the Messenger's market was rapidly changed, and the market size was increased.According to the results of the survey conducted by the Information and Communications Policy Institute and the net ballast Korea, the Messenger's use rate of Messenger's Messenger's Messenger's Messenger's 16% in November 2000, 25.8% in January 2001, 2001, 29.9% in February 2001, 209, 33.8% in March 201, and 40.4% in April 201.

C) Maturity (after 2003)

Since 2003, the increase in the number of users of the Messenger has been increasing. This seems to have been based on the fact that the Internet and the super-high speed Internet users have almost spreaded for a considerable period since the introduction of the Messenger service, there are many users of the Messenger, and that there are less new entry operators in the Messenger market.

4) Combined sales by the Defendants’ Messenger

From September 15, 200 to October 2001, the Defendants sold the PC operation system, including mN, to the window Me, from September 15, 2000 to October 2001. Since October 8, 2001, the Defendants sold the PC operation system, including the window, to the end (hereinafter collectively referred to as “the combined sales act of this case”).

(c) Disposition by the Fair Trade Commission and its subsequent proceedings;

1) Deliberation process

주식회사 다음은 2001. 9. 5. 피고들이 윈도우 XP에 메신저를 끼워팔기함으로써 메신저 시장의 경쟁을 제한하고 있다고 주장하면서 피고들을 공정거래위원회에 신고하였다. 공정거래위원회는 이에 대하여 심의하던 중 2004년 4월경 피고들이 윈도우 서버 운영체제와 윈도우 미디어 서비스(Windows Media Service, 이하 ‘WMS’라고 한다)를 결합하여 판매한 행위와 윈도우 PC 운영체제와 윈도우 미디어 플레이어(Windows Media Player, 이하 ‘WMP'라고 한다)를 결합하여 판매한 행위를 직권으로 인지하고 2004. 6. 10.부터 이 사건 결합판매행위 및 WMS, WMP 결합판매행위의 위법성에 대해서도 직권으로 심리하기 시작하였다. 리얼네트웍스는 2004. 10. 28. 공정거래위원회가 윈도우 서버 운영체제와 WMS를 결합판매한 행위에 대하여 직권으로 인지한 내용과 동일한 취지의 신고서를 공정거래위원회에 제출하였다. 이후 공정거래위원회는 2005. 7. 13.부터 같은 해 10. 26.까지 모두 7차례에 걸쳐 심의를 개최하였다. 그러던 중 리얼네트웍스는 2005. 10. 13., 주식회사 다음은 2005. 11. 11. 피고들과 각기 합의를 하여 공정거래위원회에 대한 신고를 취하하였으나, 공정거래위원회는 신고 취하에 관계없이 심의를 계속하여 2005. 12. 7. 피고들의 결합판매행위들에 대한 최종 결정을 하고, 2006. 2. 24. 피고들에 대하여 제2006-042호로 전원회의 의결을 하였다.

2) Summary of the Fair Trade Commission’s disposition

On February 24, 2006, the Fair Trade Commission determined that the combined sale of this case by the Defendants constituted an abuse of market dominant position under Article 3-2 (1) 3 of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act (hereinafter “Fair Trade Act”), Article 5 (3) 4 of the Enforcement Decree of the Fair Trade Act, and Article 202-6 of the Fair Trade Commission Notice No. 4 of March 4, 2002, the criteria for examination of abuse of market dominant position under Article 3-2 (1) 5 of the Fair Trade Act (unfair interference with the business activities of other enterprisers) and the latter part of Article 3-2 (1) 5 of the Fair Trade Act (unfair interference with the interests of consumers), the latter part of Article 23 (1) 3 of the Fair Trade Act, Article 36 (1) [Attached Table 1] 5 (a) of the Enforcement Decree of the Fair Trade Act, and imposed a penalty surcharge of KRW 27.23 million on Defendant 0,000,000 on Korea,000.

A) After 180 days from the date of the corrective order, the Defendants may not supply the goods by combining the window server operation system and the mms.

B) After 180 days from the date of the corrective order, the Defendants shall sell and distribute mmsms in an independent way from the window server operation system, and shall not engage in any act that is likely to undermine the independence of msms sales and distribution.

C) The Defendants may not supply the PC in combination with the window operation system, WMP, Messen (hereinafter “ssenger operation system”) that is newly released from 180 days after the date of the corrective order (hereinafter “the separated PC operation system”). However, in a case where the PC operation system provides users with substantial opportunity to get the MPP and Messenger’s competitive products by establishing “media media display service center”, “Mescoer center” in the Mesger operation system, the Messenger may supply the Messenger operation system and Messenger’s competitive products by combining the Messen and Messen, and the Messen (the covered PC operation system).

D) The Defendants should sell and distribute the PC and Mesen from the separate PC operation system after 180 days from the date of the corrective order, and should not engage in any act that is likely to undermine the independence of the sale and distribution of MF and Mesensens.

E) Within 180 days from the date of the corrective order to the users of the existing window PC operation system, the Defendants need to provide the service factorings containing competitive products at the expense of the Defendants to store and distribute them in CDs, and to provide “media media display service center” and “Mereer Center” that can receive competitive products through the window.

F) The spatial scope of the corrective order is the operation system of the window server and the window PC operated system supplied by the Defendants in Korea. The time range is ten years from the date of the corrective order.

The Defendants filed an objection with the Fair Trade Commission to revoke the entire disposition of this case on June 16, 2006. However, the Fair Trade Commission rejected the Defendants’ objection on the grounds that (i) the wind PC operation system and the wind PC operation system are separate products; (ii) combined sale of separate products; (iii) thereby compelling consumers to purchase the wind PC; and (iv) such unfair sale system cannot be deemed as normal trade practices; and (iv) the effect of increasing efficiency arising from the combined sale of this case is extremely low; (v) so, the combined sale of this case should be determined on the grounds that the Defendants’ specific reasons for the order to correct the sale of the PEM, such as the violation of Article 3-2(1)3 of the Fair Trade Act, Article 5(3)4 of the Enforcement Decree of the Fair Trade Act, Article 3-2(1)3 of the Fair Trade Act, the latter part of Article 23(1)3 of the Fair Trade Act, Article 36(1) [Attachment 1] of the Enforcement Decree of the Fair Trade Act.

3) The defendants' litigation progress and agreement with the following company, etc.

The Defendants were dissatisfied with the disposition of the Fair Trade Commission and filed an administrative litigation against the Fair Trade Commission on March 27, 2006 against the Seoul High Court No. 2006Nu8077, which sought the revocation, etc. of the disposition of the instant case, and the said court was leading to a pronouncement of judgment after deliberation for about one year and six months. However, the Defendants completely withdrawn the lawsuit against the Fair Trade Commission on October 10, 207, and agreed on the withdrawal of the lawsuit on October 17, 2007 by the Fair Trade Commission. Ultimately, the lawsuit filed by the Defendants was concluded as withdrawal of the lawsuit on October 17, 2007.

On the other hand, the following corporation reported the defendants to the Fair Trade Commission on September 5, 2001, and filed a lawsuit claiming compensation against the defendants as to April 12, 2004, the Seoul Central District Court 2004Gahap26626, which claimed that the defendants suffered losses from the combined sale of this case by the defendants, but on November 11, 2005, the defendants and the defendants agreed to USD 30 million in total, including the payment of USD 10 million with the defendants and the provision of advertising amounting to USD 10 million and the provision of opportunities to cooperate in the business of USD 10 million, and the lawsuit against the defendants was fully withdrawn on the same day.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute; Gap evidence 3, 5, 27; evidence 6, 11, 10, 390, 406, 407, 28-19; Eul evidence 1 and 2; the witness non-party 1 and 2's testimony; the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the parties' arguments;

(a) Original height;

1) Illegality of the combined sales act of this case

From September 15, 200 to October 2001, the Defendants combined mN PC operation system with the window Me, and sold the mN PC from October 8, 2001 to now. Since then, from October 8, 2001 to October 8, 2001, the mar PC operation system was combined with the window XP. This constitutes an abuse of market dominant position under the Fair Trade Act, which unfairly interferes with other enterprisers’ business activities, an act that is likely to unfairly undermine the interests of consumers, and an unfair trade act, which constitutes an illegal act among unfair trade practices.

2) Damages

From November 1, 1998, the Plaintiff began to provide the scam service in Korea through the “scambling” program. The Plaintiff’s scambling business was liquidated in March 2002 due to the Defendants’ combined sale of the scambling and disposed of the Plaintiff’s losses in accounting. The Plaintiff’s losses incurred therefrom amounting to KRW 26.1 billion, which was the price acquired after the Plaintiff, around February 2000 by the young children, who operated the scambling business at the same time as the Plaintiff, (i) KRW 24.96 billion, which was the value of the Plaintiff’s company calculated by the average scambling transaction of the Plaintiff’s stocks, (ii) KRW 31.65 billion, which is the economic value of one member, and (iii) KRW 22.2.2 billion, which is the Plaintiff’s corporate value measured by the scam analysis model.

3) A causal relationship

The above losses of the Plaintiff are caused by the Defendants’ act of combined sale, and the Defendants are obligated to pay 30 billion won and damages for delay in accordance with the amount of damages calculated as above to the Plaintiff.

B. The Defendants

1. Abuse of market dominant position and failure of unfair trade practices;

A. The distinction between mste N and Mestestes

mN Mes and Messenssen are completely different from software code, external appearance and function, and the combined sale of this case is not treated as the same Messenger in determining whether the combined sale of this case is unlawful.

B) An error in recognizing a separate product

The Defendants’ act of selling the PC operating system of PC, including mN, and selling the PC operating system of PC XP including PCs, is a lawful functional integration that added the function of PC operating system to the PC operating system to meet the general users’ convenience depending on technology development, consumers’ demand and market situation, and does not constitute an act of combining and selling separate products. In the past, even the existence of a separate product is a large case of developing it into a single product depending on consumers’ desire and market situation, whether it is a separate product under the Fair Trade Act ought to be determined in accordance with trade practices.

C) An error in recognizing the compulsory purchase

Article 36(1) [Attachment 1] 5(a) of the Enforcement Decree of the Fair Trade Act requires “purchase” as the requirement thereof. Thus, the concept of “purchase” under the premise of “purchase” is not established, and insofar as there is no fact that the Defendants forced consumers to purchase the Messens, it is not acknowledged that compulsory purchase is not acknowledged.

D) An error in recognizing competition-restricted (unfair)

(1) Characteristics of the Messen market

Since the number of file files is small and the number of users and special functions of providing them are different for each Messenger, many users are using multiple Messengers, and communications can be made only between the two parties with registered conversations different from telephone or facsimile. Therefore, network note 6) effect

A. The Messenger's conversion that mainly uses Messenger's Messenger's Messenger's Messenger's Messenger's Messenger's Mes

(2) In the actual Messen market, the Messenger's Messenger's Messenger's Messenger's Messenger's Messenger's Messenger's Messenger's Messenger's Messenger's Messenger's Messenger's Messenger's Messenger's Messenger's Messenger's Messenger's Messenger's Messenger's Messenger's Messenger's Messenger's Messenger's Messenger's Messenger's Messenger's Messenger's Messenger's Messenger's Messen.

2) Absence of causation

In accordance with the general principle of liability for damages under the Civil Act, the Plaintiff must prove that there was a causal relationship between the illegal act and the damage. First, the PC operation system does not use the Messenger, but the Messenger market does not have a network effect due to its unique characteristics, and no high effectiveness or fire has occurred. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Plaintiff decreased the Plaintiff’s use rate on the ground that the use rate of the Messenger increased. The Plaintiff was only a failure in the Messenger business due to the Plaintiff’s failure in competition with another Messenger businessman, the Internet community portal failure promoted by the Plaintiff, and the collapse of the Messenger company that occurred at the time of 200.

3) As to the computation and verification of damages

The calculation of damages due to illegal acts shall be based on the lost profit according to the difference theory, but the plaintiff is calculating the amount of damages based on the company value.

① The computation of the amount of damages based on 26.1 billion won, which is the price that an infant, who had operated a Messen business at the same time similar to the Plaintiff, was next acquired after the corporation, is unreasonable in that it is not similar to the Plaintiff’s seacom, and that at the time of acceptance, the Plaintiff was before the collapse of the venture company.

② In March 200, the Plaintiff calculated the amount of damages on the basis of the average transaction price of Plaintiff’s shares based on the data on stock transactions, based on the average transaction price of KRW 24.96 billion. At that time, the Plaintiff’s share transaction price was determined based on the period when the venture company’s loss occurred at the time when the venture company’s loss occurred. It is unreasonable in that the Defendants’ combination sale began from September 200.

③ The computation of the amount of damages based on the economic value of 31.65 billion won per member is unreasonable in that it is not an important member but an actual user.

④ The computation of the amount of damages based on the 22.2 billion won measured by using a revolving analysis model is unreasonable in that there is a significant difference in the scale of the comparable Internet companies, the difference between the type of business and the characteristics of the company was not considered, and it was calculated based on ordinary interests, not on business profits.

3. Determination

(a) Definition of relevant markets;

In order to determine whether the Defendants’ act constitutes a violation of the Fair Trade Act, the term “specified business area” should be defined, which is to the extent that the Defendants’ act may affect competition among enterprisers. The term “related market” means a set of goods deemed to operate as an independent market in terms of price or quantity in assessing the competition situation of the market, and shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account the similarity of function and utility of the goods, similarity of price of the goods, purchaser’s perception of substitution, and seller’s perception of substitutability. The term “related geographical market” means the entire area where a representative purchaser of the area can convert purchase in response to a increase of meaningful price for a considerable period of time, although the price of the goods in question is specified in all other areas, and where a specific group of buyers exists in goods, area, or transaction stages due to the characteristics of the buyer or goods, a specific business area can be defined by such group of buyers.

In this case, the main product market is “general-use PC market” in that it is difficult to replace the PC operation system in which the non-(non-) PC operation system is used, and the two operation systems have been supplied by different business operators. The subordinate product market is “the PC operation system market” in that the use of the PC and the PC for general use is different, and consumers and consumers are different. The geographical market of the PC operation system, which is the main product, is “the world market” in that most of the PC operation systems sell the PC operation system on the condition of prices and transactions that are similar worldwide. The geographical market of the PC operation system, which is the main product, is “the world market” in that most of the PC operation systems are used domestically, and since the PC operation system has the characteristics of the service market, it is difficult to enter the market without localization.

(b) Whether the market dominant position is abused

1. Whether the defendants' market dominant status constitutes the defendants' market dominant status

According to Article 2 subparagraph 7 of the Fair Trade Act, the term "market-dominating enterpriser" means a business operator who can determine, maintain, or change the price, quantity, quality, or other terms and conditions of goods or services as a supplier or a consumer in a particular business area individually or jointly with another business operator. In determining this, the market share, the existence and degree of entry barriers, the relative size of the competitor, etc. shall be comprehensively taken into account. However, if the market share of one business operator is at least 50/100 in a particular business area, or if the total market share of not more than three business operators is at least 75/100, the market share is presumed a market-dominating business operator (Article 4 of the Fair Trade Act). On the other hand, the market share refers to the share of the goods or services supplied or purchased domestically by the relevant business operator for one year in the business year immediately preceding the business year in which the act of violation is completed, and if it is difficult to calculate the market share based on the amount of the market share, it may be calculated based on the quantity or capacity (Article 4(2).

According to Gap evidence No. 3, the defendants' market share calculated on the basis of the shipping volume of the domestic PC operating system of the defendants as listed below (the table 5), is 98.5% in 2000, 9.3% in 2001, 9.4% in 2002, 9.3% in 2003, and 9.3% in 2003, and the subsequent market share is confirmed to be at least 50% in 203. Thus, the defendants are presumed to be a market-dominating enterpriser.

[Attachment 5] Domestic PC Operation System shipment and market share (200 through 2004)

[Unit: Opening (unit)]

200 200 2002 2003 2004 Defendants' window 95/98,564,628 2,900 718,550 450 44,611 - 387,834 202,980 37,569 - 37,569 - 2,397,645 2,645 3,347,647, 647, 645 , 363, 347, 347, 397, 392,3939,3939,397,949,399,3963,97,949,3963,94,965,645 2,647,768

Provided, That the data of 2004 shall be predicted

Sources: Korea Institute of Software Promotion/(State) Korea IDC Data ( September 2004)

2) Whether Article 3-2(1)3 of the Fair Trade Act is violated

A. Whether the product is identical with the instant ms and the instant ms and the instant ms and the Defendant

In determining whether the combined sales of this case violate the Fair Trade Act, it is a matter of whether it can be treated as the same product as the mN Mes and Messengers.

Whether a product is the same product or not shall be determined in accordance with whether it is reasonable to treat the product as the same product from the perspective of enforcement of the Fair Trade Act, and it is reasonable to view that the two products do not require the same as the software code, external form, and function completely.

In full view of the purport of the argument in the statement in the statement in No. 3, although there are some differences as seen below, it is practically identical to the external appearance, it is possible to communicate between the user's account and the customer of the window, and in a case where the customer's account and the customer's friendly list are used in common, and in a case where the customer's account and friendly list is used in a certain case, it cannot be viewed as a different one, and the defendants are also treated as a single one, as well as in the case where the customer of the window is using the window, and there is a number of means to induce the malN's trading in the case where the customer of the malN is using the window, it can be acknowledged that the above two mals are actually handled as a single one.

A person shall be appointed.

Compared with the off-line type of the window and mN

The same external type

The left-hand Mes Mes Mes Mes Mes Mes Mes Mes Mes Mes Mes Mes Mes Mess Mes

The above facts are as follows. The Messen and Messenger are different from each other's function and name, and there is a difference between the Messenger and the Messenger's provision of Messenger's Messenger's Messenger's Messenger's Messenger's Messenger's Messenger's Messenger's Messenger's Messenger's Messenger's Mes, which

B) Whether a separate product is a separate product

Whether the main product and the subordinate product are separate goods shall be determined on the basis of the current status of supply of the subordinate product or transaction practices in the subordinate product industry whether the subordinate product is an essential component of the main product or whether the subordinate product is a separate product. However, it is reasonable to view that the subordinate product is a separate product if the subordinate product is not sold or used in a single unit because it is the main product and even with the subordinate product.

In light of the following circumstances: (a) the PC operating system, the main product of this case, functions to provide an environment where the user can efficiently implement the applied program by operating and managing the computer; (b) the PC operating system, which is the subordinate product of this case, gives and receives real-time letters with the counterpart connected to the Internet; or (c) it is a separate application program not closely essential to the PC operating system; (b) there are many business operators supplying the PC separately from the PC operating system; (c) in light of the transaction practices of the PC industry, the PC is supplied by the Internet generally; (d) it is not more functionally superior to the product that does not combine the PC operating system with the PC operating system; and (e) it appears that the PC operating system itself combined with the above two products and combined with the Defendants, and thus, it is reasonable to see that the Defendants’ integrated act, including the PC operating system, sold the PC products, and selling them to the PC, including the PC.

C) Whether the purchase is forced or not

(1) Whether a cost is required

According to Article 3-2 (1) 3 of the Fair Trade Act and Article 5 (3) 4 of the Enforcement Decree of the Fair Trade Act, among abuse of market dominant position, the Fair Trade Commission's notification criteria for examination of abuse of market dominant position under Article 202-6 (4) of the Fair Trade Commission's notification provides that "an act of unfairly interfering with the business activities of other enterprisers" is specifically "an act of unfairly compelling disadvantage to the other party to the transaction" to make it difficult for other enterprisers to carry out the business activities.

However, in order to establish the abuse of market dominant position, the Fair Trade Act and the Enforcement Decree of the same Act do not stipulate that consumers purchase the subordinate goods for consideration. According to the above review criteria IV.3.4.3.3. (3), only the term “transaction” is defined as “transaction,” but do not limit it only to “the oil transaction.”

Therefore, contrary to the requirements for "heat sale" under Article 36 (1) [Attachment 1] 5 (a) of the Enforcement Decree of the Fair Trade Act, it is reasonable to deem that the fixed value of the subordinate goods is not an essential element for establishing the abuse of market dominant position, and that the Defendants are selling the Messen for compensation to consumers as seen in Article 36 (1) [Attachment 1] 5 (a) of the Enforcement Decree of the Fair Trade Act. Thus, the defendants' assertion cannot be accepted

(2) Whether enforcement is acknowledged or not

The issue of whether the coercion is recognized is determined depending on whether a separate purchase of the main goods and the subordinate goods is guaranteed by an independent choice on the transaction to the consumer who is the trading partner, based on the free will, but the possibility of the buyer's conversion to the transaction partner on the main goods is small.

On the other hand, the fact that the defendants' market share in the PC operation system is at least 98.5% is above the above fact, and the fact that the defendants sold a window Me or window XP and the defendants did not sell a window Me or window XP that does not contain the defendants' Messens, there is no dispute between the parties.

Therefore, regardless of whether consumers who purchased Mae or XP from the Defendants actually used the Defendants’ Messen, or whether it is possible to purchase Messenger from other companies, consumers were deprived of potential options to purchase Messenger separately at the time of purchasing Messenger Mae or XP. Therefore, consumers are forced to purchase Messenger due to the combination sale of this case.

D) Whether competition-restricted (unfair) is prohibited

(1) Facts of recognition

The following facts are acknowledged in full view of the statements in Gap evidence 3, 60, 263, 264, 266, 267, 269, 276, 276, 303 through 307, 375, 400, 402, 404, and 405, and Eul evidence 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings in the testimony of the witness class 2 and the witness class 2:

(A) The result of the market share of the Messenger, which was conducted in September 3, 2000 when the Defendants started to sell Messenger in Messenger Messenger Messenger Messenger Mesger Mesger Mesger Mesger Mesger Mesger Mesger Mesger Mesger Mesger Messenger Mesger Mes

[Attachment 6] Messenger market share (No. 2000. 12)

After the Messenger’s name contained in the main text, the Messenger’s Messenger’s Messenger’s Messenger’s Messenger’s Messenger’s Messenger’s Messen, and other use ratio (%) 14.9.7.37.1

Origin: Information and Communications Policy Research Institute and Report on Results of Analysis of Type of Internet User (No. 10 December 200)

(B) From September 200 to September 1, 2000, the result of the market share of the Mesengerger's Mesenger's Mesenger's Mesenger's Mesenger's Mesenger's Mesenger's Mesenger's Mesenger's Mesenger's Mesenger's

[Attachment 7] Messen market share (No. 8, 2001, September 2001)

The Messengers Messenger’s Messenger’s Messenger’s Messenger’s Messenger’s Messenger’s Messenger’s Messenger’s Messenger’s Messenger’s Messenger’s Messenger’s Messenger’s Messenger’s Messenger’s Messenger’s Messenger’s ( August 3, 2001) and other Messen’s Messen’s Messenger’

: United Nations Efio Korea ( August 2001), Mbrein ( September 2001)

(C) After that, the Defendants’ market share of the instant Messenger increased to 29.4% in August 2001, 2001, 39.4% in November 2001, 52.6% in February 2002, 62.1% in July 2002, and 61% in November 2002 as follows. Since the Defendants started to sell the instant Messenger by combining the Messenger with the Messenger, the Defendants increased further since October 201.

The Messenger’s Messenger’s Messenger’s Messenger’s Messenger’s Messenger’s Messenger

A person shall be appointed.

Sources: Data submitted following to a corporation ( September 30, 2004)

(D) In addition, according to the result of the survey conducted on April 2003 for the Messenger, 51% of the Messenger's Messenger's Messenger's Messenger's Messenger's Messenger's Messenger's Messenger's Mes

[Attachment 8] The ratio of the change of the Messenger used

The defendants' Mes Mes Mes Mes Mes Mes Mes Mes Mes Mes Mes Mes Mes Mes Mes Mes Mes Mes Mes Mes Mes Mes Mes Mes Mes Mes Mes Mes Mes Mes Mes Mes 1

The source: Courier Characters ( April 2003) among the data submitted by the Defendants ( June 10, 2004)

(E) On October 2003, according to the result of the survey that the Defendants requested the cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp

[Attachment 9] The influence of the combined sales of Messengers on the choice

commonly affected almost all the indications contained in the text, to which extent it had had a significant impact, and the total response ratio (%) 9.23.25.6 20.21.21.109 persons who had a total response ratio (%) 9.23.25.6 20.21.109

The source: Courier Characters (Law No. 11, 2003) among the data submitted by the Defendants ( June 10, 2004)

(F) As a result, from October 24, 2005 to December 2004, 2005, the Plaintiff’s name of professor at Singapore used the data that was the crypt character’s crypt from December 24, 2002 to December 2004. As a result, the Defendants’ combined sales of the crypt crypt cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp.

(G) In addition, as a result of the analysis of the data from February 1, 2007 to December 2004 using the data, the cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp and cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp

(H) According to the result of the survey conducted by the Vietnam site around July 2002, 200, 1.75 Messenger used by the Messenger at the time, and 1.4 Messenger was average according to the result of the survey conducted by the Messenger at the time, and 2.139 Messenger was average according to the result of the survey conducted by the Messengerger around March 2004.

(E) In April 2003, the Defendants’ response to the Defendants’ response from “performance factor” as indicated below was significantly lower than 47.2% compared to the case of other Messengers, and the response response was the highest 12.6% because of “the use of Messenger” by requesting the Messenger to the Messenger, which was the most important factor when the Defendants selected the Messengers for the 500 Messengers for the entire 500 Messengers.

[Attachment 10] The reason why the Messenger used in the Messenger (Multiple Selection, Unit : %)

The defendants' Messenger Messenger Messenger Messenger Messenger Messenger Messenger Messenger Messenger Messenger Messenger Messenger 279 Messenger 19 641 16 16 122.6 73.7 94.7 105 106 106 2. 47.2 47. 2. 116 8. 85. 70 on 70. 4, 705. 75. 87 4, 27. 10 Messenger Messenger Messenger Messenger Messen Messenger Messenger Messen Messen Messen Messen Messen Messen Messen Messen Mes.

Origin: Courier Characters ( April 2003) among the data submitted by the Defendants

(j) Since December 2002, the market share of the Messenger market is as follows. The defendants' share of the Messenger is a Messenger with perfecter Messenger, and the Messenger's share is a Messenger with Messenger's Messenger's Messenger's Messenger's Messenger's Messenger's Messenger's Messenger's Messenger's Messenger's share

Messenger (unit: million won)

A person shall be appointed.

(k) The NAN started to provide the service from the end of 2002. At the early stage, 100 SPs offered 10 free sPs monthly and 100 sPs growth as above from a variety of professionalization events. After that, around August 2003, the Defendants obstructed the link between the Defendants’ Messen and the Messenger’s Messenger’s Messenger’s Messenger’s Messenger’s Messenger’s Messenger’s Messenger’s Messenger’s Messenger’s Mes, and around September 2003, NAN increased the number of users of NANs.

(T) At around 2004, the Defendants’ Messenger did not actively cope with the Plaintiff’s Messenger’s inconvenience, such as the Plaintiff’s Messenger’s Messenger’s entry error or connection with the Messenger’s Me

[Attachment 11] A list of inquiries about the defendants' errors of Korean input in the defendants' Messenssenger ( September 2004 and June 2005)

- If the number of inquiries exceeds 3,000;

본문내 포함된 표 등록일 내 용 조회수 04.9.25. msn 메신져 대화창에서 한글이 안 써져요. 7,402 04.9.29. MSN 메신저에서 한글타자가 안 되요. 7,891 04.11.18. 메신저msn한글이 안 쳐져요. 20,477 04.11.18. 메신저MSN에서 채팅할 때 한글입력이 안 되요. 도와 주세요. 4,177 04.11.19. MSN메신저에서 한글이 안 써지는 현상 4,523 04.11.22. 메신저MSN 한글 입력이 안됩니다. 또 실행하면 한 동안 응답도 없어요. 4,140 04.11.22. MSN 메신저에서 최근 발생하는 한글 입력 안 되는 문제 16,245 04.11.22. msn 메신저 한글이 잘 안 나와요ㅜ.ㅜ 4,727 04.11.22. msn메신저 사용하는데 한타가 안 되고 자꾸 영타가 됩니다. 4,015 04.11.23. 메신저msn 메신저를 사용하는데 한글로 전환이 안 되요. 6,559 04.11.25. 메신저msn에서 채팅할 때 한글이 안 써져요. 4,464 05.1.6. MSN 메신저 한글입력 오류에 대해서 3,965 05.1.16. 메신저msn하다 보면 한글이 나와야 하는데 영어로 바뀌어요. 7,277 계 95,862

Origin: NAVER

(m) In addition, in cases where the PC manufacturer additionally installs other company's Messenger other than the Defendants' Messenger already included in the PC operation system, the Messenger 9) cost and the Messenger 10 cost. In order for the PC manufacturer to install Messenger on the PC, the Messenger should pay a certain amount of cost to the PC manufacturer.

(2) Determination:

(A) Restrictions on competition (unfairness) regulated under the Fair Trade Act refer to cases where, due to the pertinent act, the degree of competition or the number of competitors has reduced or is likely to decrease to a significant level, and where it interferes with or threatens to interfere with legitimate competition by using inappropriate means of competition or impeding free decision-making by the parties to the transaction, other than the price of goods or services, so the illegality under the Fair Trade Act is sufficient to the extent that it is recognized as an abstract risk. In addition, competition to be protected under the Fair Trade Act is not “competitive by the market” and “competitive itself,” but “competitive itself,” and even if the result of the Defendants’ actual intent was not realized after the competition-restricting act by the Defendants, the illegality of the restriction on competition already occurred should not be determined.

In light of the above facts, the defendants' act of combining the Messenger's Messenger's Messenger's Messenger's Messenger's Messenger's Messenger's Messenger's Messenger's Messenger's Messenger's Mesger's Messenger's Messenger's Messenger's Messenger's Messenger's Messenger's Messenger's Messenger's Messenger's Mesger's Messenger's Messenger's Messenger's Messenger's Messenger's Messenger's Messenger's Mes' Messenger's Mes' Messenger's Mes.

(B) As to this, the Defendants asserted that since March 2005, the Plaintiff’s restriction on competition caused by the combination sales of the instant products is not recognized, since the Plaintiff’s act of selling the instant products was conducted on the following grounds: (a) considering the unique characteristics of the instant products market; (b) there was no network effect or high-speed effect; and (c) even if the Defendants engaged in the combined sales of the instant products, the Defendants did not have any fire-free phenomenon arising from the combination sales of the instant products.

However, as seen earlier, since August 200, the defendants' market share of the defendants started to sell mN after combining mN on the window, and around September 2001, the market share of the defendants increased over 1%. From October 2001, which began to sell mar in combination with mar XP, the increase of 61% of the marb in 2002, achieved the market share at around November 2002, and continuously recorded 1% in 2005, it is reasonable to view that it was caused by the network effect caused by the combined sales of the defendants in this case, and the fact that marb has no effect on the defendants' mar market share since around March 2005, it is not the basic effect on the marbling market share, and it is not the fact that marb has no effect on the mar market share since 2005.

(C) Furthermore, it is reasonable to interpret that the recording of the first share of the domestic Messen market since March 2005 was due to the special situation of the domestic Messen market, which originated from the following circumstances known in the above facts.

① At the early stage, NAV continuously secured the initial user floor using an excessive investment strategy called 100 free SP supply. However, the average number of actual users’ friendly list is less than one, and the proportion of users who exchange the letters with the Messen connected with the Messens, using a verssen, was only 37%. As can be seen, NAV used a lot of devices to use mssens offered free of charge rather than the inherent function of Messenssenssenssenssenssenssenssenssenssens.

② Around September 2003, 2003, the dyp and dyp were linked to the dyp and dyphere, and around 2004, the dyp’s “syphere home” service was also increased by the number of users of dyphere at the Internet community market with a view to the Internet community market. This was a strong dypphere to the extent that the dyphere users exceeded the generally accepted high speed effect in the hyp market, and due to such external market factors, the dyphere users increased.

(3) In addition, around August 2003, the Defendants cut off the interconnection between the Defendants and the other Messengers that enables communications between the Defendants and the Messenssenssenssenssenssenssenssenssenssens, etc., on the grounds of security issues, etc., it cannot be ruled out that some users who are dissatisfied with this, retired the Defendants from using the Messenssens

④ At around 2004, when using the Defendant’s Messenger, the error in Korean Messenger’s Messenger’s Messenger’s Messenger’s Messenger’s Messenger’s Messenger’s Mes were generated. Accordingly, the Defendants’ Messenger’s Messenger’s Messenger’s

In full view of all the above circumstances, the Defendants’ assertion cannot be accepted, since competition restriction is recognized due to the Defendants’ combination sale act.

3) Whether Article 3-2(1)5 of the Fair Trade Act is violated

We examine whether the Defendants’ combined sale of this case constitutes an act that is likely to unfairly undermine the interests of consumers.

It cannot be denied that there is an increase in consumer satisfaction due to the satisfaction of the demand of some consumers who want to include a variety of applied programs in the PC operation system by combining the PC operation system.

However, based on the aforementioned facts, the following facts are revealed: (a) the Defendants, which possess more than 90% of the PC operating system market, combined sales of the PC operating system, using control in the PC operating system market, thereby infringing on the Defendants’ potential option of purchasing the PC operating system, which is a separate product from the PC operating system that they sell; and (b) the Defendants’ PC operating system already included the Defendants’ Messens in the PC operating system; (c) the Defendants’ incentive of purchasing the PC operating system, separate from the Defendants’ Messens, considerably reduced the Defendant’s incentive to put the PC in the PC in the PC; and (c) the effect of restricting competition caused by the combined sales, reduced technology innovation, thereby impairing consumers’ interests that can ultimately be gained through fair competition and innovation, it is reasonable to deem that the Defendants’ act of combining sales is likely to unreasonably interfere with consumers’ interests.

(c) Whether it constitutes unfair trade practices;

1) Whether a separate product is a separate product

As seen earlier, the fact that the PC operating system, the main product of the instant case, and the Messenger, the subordinate product, are separate products.

2) Whether purchase is forced or not

A) Whether a compensatory value is recognized

(1) Whether a cost is required

According to Article 36(1) [Attachment 1] 5(a) of the Enforcement Decree of the Fair Trade Act, among unfair trade practices provided for in Article 23(1)3 of the Fair Trade Act, the term “the act of unfairly compelling the other party to purchase other goods or services in light of normal transaction practices while supplying one’s goods or services to the other party to the transaction” is specifically defined as “the act of forcing the other party to purchase them from his/her own

According to the above [Attachment 1] 5 (a) of the above [Attachment Table 1], "purchase" means the act of having his or his or his or his or his or his or his or his or his or his or his or his or his or his or his or his or his or his or his or his or her designated business operator to purchase goods, and "purchase" is premised on the commercial nature of selling goods.

(2) Whether the value is recognized

In full view of each of the statements and arguments in Gap evidence 6-6, 86, 87, and 88, the average retail price of PC as follows has decreased from USD 190 in 194 to USD 800 in 2004 as a result of the survey on "the proportion of the cost of the window operation system in the PC from the PC in 2005" conducted at IDC in 2005, but the proportion of the PC's average retail price in the PC in the PC price has increased from USD 5% in 1994 to approximately 15% in 204. The defendants sold the PC's operation system as of September 17, 2004 to USD 279 in the United States, which is the defendants' operation system, to the domestic consumers. In particular, the defendants sold the PC's products to USD 408 in the Republic of Korea.

A person shall be appointed.

Considering the above circumstances and the fact that the development cost and production cost are naturally spent as the applied program, it is reasonable to view that the price of the PC operation system sold by the Defendants was set at a single price, including the price of other applied programs such as operating system and the Messen and Messen, and that the price of the Messenger is included in the price, and in substance, it is reasonable to deem that the Messenger’s price was included in the price, and that it was in fact forced consumers to pay the costs of the Messen

B) Whether enforcement is acknowledged or not

As seen earlier, the Defendants forced the purchaser of the PC operation system to purchase the Defendants’ Messengers by engaging in combined sales.

3) Whether restrictions on competition (unfairness) are applied

As seen earlier, the Defendants’ restriction on competition is recognized in the combined sale act of this case.

D. Whether a causal relationship exists

1) The issue of proof of causation

In light of the legislative intent of Articles 56 and 57 of the Fair Trade Act, the Plaintiff asserts that when the victim who suffered damage due to a violation of the Fair Trade Act seeks compensation against the violator, the burden of proving the causation should be mitigated. On the other hand, the Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff should prove the causation between the violation and the damage in accordance with the general principle of liability for damages under the Civil Act

In light of the proviso of Article 57(1) of the former Fair Trade Act (amended by Act No. 7315 of Dec. 31, 2004), the right to claim damages under Article 56(1) of the former Fair Trade Act (amended by Act No. 7315 of Dec. 31, 2004) shall not be asserted in a trial unless corrective measures under the provisions of this Act have become final and conclusive: Provided, That this shall not limit the lawsuit for damages under the provisions of Article 750(1) of the Civil Act, which recognized the liability for violation of the Fair Trade Act and the selective claim for tort under the Civil Act, and Article 56(1) of the Fair Trade Act provides that "if an enterpriser or enterprisers' organization has suffered damages by violating the provisions of this Act, the enterpriser or enterprisers' organization shall be liable for damages against the victim: Provided, That this shall not apply where it proves that the enterpriser or enterprisers' organization has no intention or negligence."

In addition, Article 57 of the Fair Trade Act provides that "if it is deemed that damage was incurred due to an act in violation of the provisions of this Act, but it is extremely difficult to prove the amount of damage due to the nature of the pertinent fact, the court may recognize a reasonable amount of damage based on the overall purport of pleadings and the result of the examination of evidence." Thus, in order to calculate the plaintiff's amount of damage by applying the above provision, it shall be proved that the plaintiff suffered damage by the combined sale of this case, which is a violation of the Fair Trade Act, and the contents of the above provision shall not be interpreted to relieve the burden of proof of causation between the illegal act and the damage. Therefore, it is reasonable to view that the plaintiff who intends to exercise the right to claim compensation in accordance with the general principle of tort

2) Summary of both claims

The Plaintiff asserted that the Defendants’ combined sales act of this case had a causal relationship between the Defendants’ combined sales act and the Plaintiff’s damage, while the Defendants asserted that there was no causal relationship between the Defendants’ combined sales act of this case and the Plaintiff’s damage, since the Plaintiff’s market share was increased, the Plaintiff’s market share decreased, and the Plaintiff’s market share was eventually liquidated around March 2002, and the Defendants had been recognized through a resolution of the Fair Trade Commission on February 24, 2006.

(iii) the board;

First of all, the Fair Trade Commission's resolution of February 24, 2006 that the combined sales of this case by the defendants constituted "an act unreasonably interfering with the business activities of other business entities" under Article 3-2 (1) 3 of the Fair Trade Act. However, this does not examine and resolve whether the business activities of a specific business entity were actually infringed due to the combined sales of the defendants, but the illegality under the Fair Trade Act is sufficient to be recognized as abstract danger. Thus, it cannot be deemed that the defendants' combined sales of this case was proved that the plaintiff's damage was caused by the combined sales of this case by the defendants.

Furthermore, the defendants' market share of the defendants since September 2000 after the defendants commenced the combined sale of this case was increased. The above facts are as follows.

However, evidence Nos. 1-1, 2, 3, 22, 26, 34, 47, 51, evidence Nos. 6-1, 11, 2, and 21-1, 6, 7, 16, and 50-1, 60-2, 2, 24, 7, and 15 of the evidence Nos. 1-2, 24, 7, and 15 of the evidence Nos. 6-1, 60-1, and 60 of the evidence Nos. 1, 28-2, 2, 3, and 4 of the evidence Nos. 1-2, the following facts are acknowledged in full view of each of the statements in the evidence Nos. 1-2

A) In September 198, the Plaintiff developed the soft Messenger, the first Messenger program in the Republic of Korea, from November 1998 to January 1, 1998, and launched the soft Messenger 1.0 Messenger from May 1999, and from February 200 to February 3, 200, the Plaintiff launched the soft Messenger 200 Messenger, and the number of its members was 350,000 around August 199, 440,000 around September 199, 550,200 around February 200, 1100, and 300,000 from January 3, 200 to September 19, 200.

B) However, as the number of young children appeared in the Messen market, the competition with other business operators began. According to the survey conducted on 17 days from October 28, 199 from web Messenia, which is a public opinion poll business entity, the Plaintiff’s market share was 9.6%, 14.7% for young children, 12.3%, 199, 20% of the Messenger’s Messenger’s Messenger’s Messenger’s Messenger’s Messenger’s Messenger’s Messen, and 3% of the Messen’s Messenssen’s Messen’s Messen’s Messen’s Messen’s Messenssen’s Messen’s Messen’s Messen’s Messen’s Messenssen’s Messen’s Messen’s Mes Mes Mes.

C) Examining the share of the Messenger market, which was examined in August 2001 and September 200 after 1 year from September 2000 when the Defendants started the combined sales of this case, compared to the market share in December 200 when compared with the market share, the share in the Messen case was not significantly changed, and in the case of Burdi, the share was rather increased.

D) Examining the Plaintiff’s sales order from the Plaintiff’s sales order, the number of visitors continued to increase from September 200 to December 2 of the same year even after around September 2000. The reason why the Plaintiff’s sales order decreased as a result of the sudden decrease in January 2001 is not a de facto decrease, but a result was mainly derived from the fact that the data management shortage was destroyed after February 7, 2001 and the number of visitors was not added.

A person shall be appointed.

E) Examining the Plaintiff’s trend of the connection with 1.2 B/L, there was almost no change from September 200 to January 2001, and a certain decrease resulted from the transfer of part of the connection with 1.2 B/L to B/L 200.

A person shall be appointed.

F) The Plaintiff’s corporate value measured according to the Plaintiff’s account book value, ordinary profit and return analysis model calculated according to the Plaintiff’s audit report from 1999 to 2002 is as follows.

[Attachment 12] Plaintiff’s Corporate Value

6,240,893,00 won, 202,894,00 won, 17,570, 250.00 won, semi-annual, 200 won, 6,982,948,000 won, 250.00 won, semi-annual, 27,837,01,00 won -1,300 won, 4,922,549,000 won, -1,301, 875,00 won, 389, 883,75,000 won, 601,75,700 won, 75,000 won -4,720,320,394, 2004, 2009, 2004, 2009,309, 2009, 2005 won, 2000

G) Examining the stock-related index in 200, the lower court recorded 10,502.8 of ITS/W&VC index as of March 10, 200, and 14,763.9 of software index as of December 26, 2000. However, the KOSDAQ index as of December 26, 200 was 525.8, ITS/W&VC index as of December 26, 200; 90.0.3 of software index as of March 200, there were so-called so-called “the collapse of venture goods” index as of March 10, 200, which fell with a large share price of the company listed on the Internet market. At that time, the Plaintiff was also facing the Defendants’ efforts to improve the management structure from early 200 to October 10, 200 to make up for 10% of the Defendants’ structural improvement related to the Internet, such as V&C index.

H) The Plaintiff sought entry into and departure from Hong Kong, etc. around December 1999, and sought Internet community portalization, which was the main goal through the alliance with portal companies around 2000, through the small-scale 200 projects, to strengthen the interconnection with other domestic and foreign project operators in the Republic of Korea and abroad through the small-scale 200 projects, and to develop the hybrid to be used in a device other than PC, but all of the aforementioned projects were failed as a result.

2) Meanwhile, the Defendant’s act of selling the instant Messenger, and the Defendant’s act of selling the Messengerger, and the Defendant’s act of selling the Messenger, and the Defendant’s act of selling the Messengerger, and the Defendant’s act of selling the Messenger, and the Defendant’s act of selling the Messenger, and the Defendant’s act of selling the Messenger.

In light of the following circumstances, ① the Defendants’ combination of 00 billion won and 00 billion won for 200 billion won for 20 billion won for 30 years for 20 years for 20 years for 20 years for 20 years for 3 years for 4 years for 200 years for 20 years for 20 years for 20 years for 20 years for 3 years for 200 years for 20 years for 3 years for 200 years for 20 years for 3 years for 200 years for 4 years for 200 years for 20 years for 3 years for 200 years for 4 years for 200 years for 20 years for 20 years for 20 years for 3 years for 200 years for 3 years for 200 years for 20 years for 20 years for 3 years for 200 years for 2 years for 200 years for 3 years for 200 years for 2 years for 2 years for 9 years for 2 years for 2 years for 2000 years for .

4. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants of this case is without merit to examine the amount of damages, etc., and it is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Cho Sung-sung (Presiding Judge)

1) The pertinent Messenger means a user who has used the pertinent Messenger for a certain period of time, and where the same user repeatedly uses the Messenger, it is not double

2) The share of the relevant Messenger is compared to the total number of users of the domestic Internet (32,307,171 presumption).

3) It is an Internet knowledge-specialized company that collects and analyzes data used by domestic Internet users and provides relevant information to domestic and foreign enterprises.

4) Although the Defendants asserted that it is not a combination sale but a functional integration, the Defendants’ assertion is also a combination sale in the part of the Defendants’ assertion for the use of consistent terms.

5) Pursuant to the Fair Trade Commission's corrective order dated February 24, 2006, since August 2006, the Korea Fair Trade Commission was divided into the Bururine including the Messenger and the Messenger removal Messenger.

6) The Messenger’s convenience increase as the Messenger increased or the number of Messenger’s Messengers installed on different computers increases.

7) The Messenger’s pre-use of the Messenger’s Messenger’s Messenger’s Messenger’s Messenger’s Messenger’s loss

Note 8) Access to Nitrates may be made available to the users registered in the list of Nitrates, and if the information of Nitrates is renewed, it will be known to Nitrates in real time, and the relationship between Nitrates may be added to Nitrates' friendships.

9) The cost of inspecting whether the PC works normally even in the case of loading a specific program

10) Expenses incurred in the course of the PC manufacturer’s ex post facto service, such as consumer counseling, when any error has occurred in connection with a specific software listed in the PC at the stage of the consumer’s use of the PC.

11) According to the statements in Gap evidence 3 and Nos. 6-369, Stz professor submitted a written opinion to the Fair Trade Commission at the time when the Fair Trade Commission deliberated on the combined sales activities of the Defendants, which are the winners of No. 3 and No. 6. The opinion states that “The effect of restricting competition caused by combined sales would impede technology innovation as follows: First, the enterpriser who established a dominant position in the relevant market by combined sales would have no incentive for his own technology innovation, thereby impairing technology innovation; second, the enterpriser would not benefit consumers; third, the exclusive business operator's motive for technological innovation is very limited; and third, the exclusive business operator's incentive for technological innovation will seek innovation at a low level to avoid competition, and thus, it would hinder technology innovation.”

12) The U.S. market analysis agency is the U.S. market analysis agency.

Note 13) On April 4, 2000, the U.S. District Court rejected the Defendant’s claim regarding the Defendant’s claim that “The price of the Internet Ilveler is free of charge, so it cannot be deemed that the Defendant’s purchase was made.” As to the Defendant’s claim, the U.S. District Court decided that the Defendant’s purchase of the software package containing the Internet Ilver, and thus, paid the price.

Note 14) one of the KOSDAQ-affiliated indices means an industrial index for the Internet, digital content, software, and computer service sector.