The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

Until the cancellation of a correction order by the Fair Trade Commission in interpreting the language and text of the former Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act (amended by Act No. 14813, Apr. 18, 2017; hereinafter “Fair Trade Act”), debt guarantees in violation of Article 10-2(1) of the Fair Trade Act are valid under private law once, and just like those of Article 10-2(1) of the Fair Trade Act are invalid under private law.

(1) In light of the aforementioned legal principles and records, the lower court’s determination that recognized the judicial effect of the instant monetary supplement agreement to the same purport is justifiable. In so doing, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the effective provision.

In addition, in light of the relevant legal principles and records, given that the instant monetary supplement agreement does not seem to be contrary to the principle of good faith or null and void as an anti-social legal act, the lower court did not err in its judgment by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the concept of justice and equity, the principle of good faith, and the validity of anti-social legal act

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.