Korea Aerospace Industry Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Change heat, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Fair Trade Commission (Law Firm Barun, Attorneys spring, Attorneys Kim Min-woo, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Radex Co., Ltd. (Attorneys Park Jong-chul et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

No supplementary participation shall be permitted by the defendant's supplementary participation applicant for this case.

The supplementary participation of the defendant shall be permitted by the defendant's supplementary participation applicant.

1. Basic facts

According to the records, the following facts can be acknowledged.

① The Defendant unfairly refused to supply satellite parts, such as an integrated computer, that only the Plaintiff can produce and supply in the Republic of Korea to the applicant for intervention (hereinafter “applicant”) in relation to the project of “multi-purpose satellite 3A supervision development” ordered by the Korea Aerospace Research Institute, and issued a corrective order and a penalty surcharge of KRW 270 million to the Plaintiff, on the ground that such an act constitutes an unfair trade practice prohibited by the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act (hereinafter “Fair Trade Act”).

② In the instant case, the Plaintiff sought revocation of the instant disposition while the Plaintiff’s refusal of supply does not constitute unfair trade practices.

③ The Plaintiff was deprived of the Plaintiff’s status as a preferred bidder due to the Plaintiff’s refusal of supply, and the Plaintiff was a business owner. The Plaintiff filed a civil lawsuit against the Plaintiff seeking damages due to the Plaintiff’s unfair refusal of supply and filed a lawsuit against Daejeon District Court 201Gahap14798, asserting that the Plaintiff suffered damages due to the Plaintiff’s unfair refusal of supply.

2. Applicant's assertion

When the disposition of this case is revoked, the plaintiff can again refuse to supply to the applicant, and the plaintiff's refusal to supply to the applicant is caused by the conclusion that the plaintiff's refusal to supply is not illegal, and the existence of the right to claim damages against the plaintiff can be denied in the above civil procedure filed by the applicant. Therefore, the applicant has a legal interest in the outcome of the lawsuit of this case. Accordingly, the applicant shall be permitted to intervene in the case

3. Determination

A. Relevant legal principles

A person who asserts that a right or interest is infringed upon or has an interest in the result of an appeal filed by another person as a result of the appeal lawsuit may participate in the lawsuit pursuant to Article 16 of the Administrative Litigation Act, or participate in assistance pursuant to Article 71 of the Civil Procedure Act (see Supreme Court Decision 9Du1519, Sept. 24, 2002). The term “interest” refers to legal interest and does not include a simple de facto interest or economic interest (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Du23873, May 29, 2008), and also refers to a legal interest, not a de facto, economic or emotional interest but a legal interest (see Supreme Court Decision 9Da12796, Jul. 9, 199, etc.).

B. Whether “legal interest” or “legal interest” exists

The lawsuit in this case is subject to adjudication as to the legitimacy of the corrective order and the imposition of penalty surcharge, and its effect is only included in the conclusion of the judgment, but is not included in the reasoning of the judgment.

In addition, the applicant cannot be identified again as the opposite contractual party, and the illegality of the plaintiff's refusal of supply is determined by the reasoning of the judgment in this case. Thus, the grounds asserted by the applicant alone are that the applicant may infringe on the actual and economic interest according to the result of the lawsuit in this case, or that there is a de facto and economic interest and that there is no legal interest nor legal interest.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, since the application for intervention by the defendant's supplementary participant is without merit, it is decided as ordered in accordance with Articles 16 and 8 of the Administrative Litigation Act, and Article 73 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Judges Cho Jae-ho (Presiding Judge)