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. As to the Plaintiff’s appeal

A. With respect to the existence of the agreement in this case, the court below determined that the Plaintiff agreed to purchase the drug at the successful bid price from another wholesaler who has avoided transactions with the existing pharmaceutical company and then received the price from the hospital (hereinafter “Plaintiff, etc.”) on June 13, 2006, which was the day following the bidding process at the Ulsan National University Hospital in 2006 and implemented it for about one year from that time, and that the Plaintiff agreed to transfer the price to the wholesaler according to the successful bid price at the time when the wholesaler purchased the drug at the successful bid price from the former wholesaler who has avoided transactions with the previous pharmaceutical company and received the price from the hospital (hereinafter “the above agreement”). The court below determined that the supply method was reasonable in view of the following circumstances, including the agreement in this case, even if there was no significant change in the bid bid at the above hospital in 207 and 2008 (hereinafter “the bid at issue”).

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and the evidence duly admitted, the above judgment of the court below is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to facts beyond the bounds 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 by each subparagraph of Article 19(1) of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act (hereinafter “Fair Trade Act”), the competition relation can first be an issue.