1. The Defendant’s KRW 184,249,398 and the Plaintiff’s annual rate from May 2, 2014 to June 22, 2017, and the following.

1. Basic facts

A. The defendant is a company engaged in manufacturing electronic equipment, etc., and the plaintiff is a person who engages in the business of surface processing, etc. of plastic products under the trade name of "B".

B. From April 2010 to May 1, 2013, the Plaintiff was entrusted with the manufacture of the cell phone parts by the Defendant and supplied the said work to the Defendant.

(hereinafter “instant subcontract transaction”). C.

On February 25, 2014, the Plaintiff reported the instant subcontract transaction to the Fair Trade Commission on the ground that the Defendant violated the Fair Transactions in Subcontracting Act (hereinafter “subcontract Act”).

On December 21, 2015, the Fair Trade Commission decided to prohibit the Defendant’s case of unfair subcontract transactions (No. 2014, No. 2367) that “the Defendant shall not, while entrusting the manufacture of painting work with respect to mobile phone parts, reduce the supply unit price at a uniform rate without justifiable grounds, or re-establish the same act as determining the subcontract price at a low price without any agreement with the subcontractor,” under Article 2015-424 of the Second Sub-committee Resolution 2015.

The main contents thereof are as follows:

From February 25, 2011 to May 1, 2013, the Defendant: (a) entrusted the Plaintiff with painting and painting work related to 48 models, such as C800 and C800 COVVRNT; and (b) examined the reduction of the unit price for items supplied by the subcontractor during each quarter; and (c) determined the subcontract price by applying the unit price at a uniform rate of 2 to 8% below the previous unit price.

In particular, examining the contents of the reduction of the unit price for each item of supply by item, it has been conducted more than 4 times during the period of violation of the law that reduces the unit price for each item, and the cumulative reduction rate for COV REREW/T products reaches 28.7%.

E. Accordingly, the defendant filed an appeal against the Fair Trade Commission seeking the revocation of the above disposition.