206Nu26563 Corrective order and request for cancellation of penalty surcharge payment order

1. The river management company;

2. Macker stock company;

3.A physical part of a stock company;

4. Partnership Co., Ltd.;

5. The Han RiverM Co., Ltd.

6. Foods Co., Ltd.;

7. A food company;

8. New name of the stock company;

9. Domination Inc.; and

10. Stock company; and

11. Fostering of stock companies;

12. Plusty Co., Ltd.;

13. Representation for a stock company;

14. Goods of stock company;

15. Gold field Co., Ltd.

16. Korea Development Association, an incorporated association;

Fair Trade Commission

June 26, 2008

July 24, 2008

1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The disposition listed in the attached Table 1 issued by the Defendant as Resolution No. 2006-217 on September 28, 2006, September 28, 2006, and the name of the remaining plaintiffs' company is also omitted, which is "stock company";

B. The disposition listed in the attached Form 2 attached hereto, as a resolution, in respect of the Plaintiff Choker, Choker, Choker, Choker, and Flush, as set forth in the Decision No. 2006-218;

C. The disposition listed in the attached Form 3 attached hereto, as a decision No. 2006-219 against Plaintiff Chhos, Makis, and Chhos.

D. Each disposition listed in attached Form 4 issued by the Resolution No. 2006-220 against the Korea Association of Korea (hereinafter referred to as the “Plaintiff Association of Korea”) which is an incorporated association shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

1. Eligibility and general status of the plaintiffs;

The rest of the plaintiffs (hereinafter referred to as the "Plaintiffs Company for convenience") and the National Agricultural Cooperative Federation (hereinafter referred to as the "Agricultural Cooperatives Federation") are those engaged in the raising, processing, and selling of the chills, which are stipulated in subparagraph 1 of Article 2 of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Fair Trade Act"), and the general status is as shown below.

In Table 1, the general status of the Plaintiff Company and the Agricultural Cooperatives (as of December 31, 2004)

(unit: 1 million won, name)

A person shall be appointed.

The Plaintiff Association is an organization established on June 10, 1987 for the purpose of improving the distribution structure of chickens and the improvement of the quality of chickens and promoting the public health and the promotion of livestock industry. As of May 16, 2005, the members of the Plaintiff Association are 157 members of the Plaintiff Association: (a) the Plaintiff Association is an organization which is established for the purpose of improving the quality of chickens and meat and for the purpose of promoting the public health and livestock industry; (b) the total number of members of the Plaintiff Association is 157 members of the Dombalology (17 members), gold processing business operators (10 members), Domal Livestock raising business operators (23), and feed farmers. The Plaintiff Association has a separate office and full-time employees in addition to the organization of officers such as the president, vice-chairpersons, directors, and auditors, and the Plaintiff Association establishes and operates a general assembly, board of directors, integrated management subcommittee, gold processing subcommittee, and the Plaintiff processing subcommittee as shown below attached Table 2.

Table 2 (Units: million won, and Names)

A person shall be appointed.

2. Structure and current status of the market;

A. The characteristics of the chickens industry are as follows: (a) since the supply and demand of agricultural and livestock products are infinite as general agricultural and livestock products are infinite, the price of the supplied goods falls below or falls below a little amount; (b) the freezing storage value falls rapidly; (c) the storage period in the new meat does not exceed seven days; and (d) the conversion of the frozen goods into the freezing is not allowed under the current Food Sanitation Act; and (e) it is difficult to keep them in a long-term storage. Therefore, the Korean-style industry is a typical low-value industry at the same time as a backward industry.

B. The operators who participate in the production and processing of the structural chickens in the Doc meat market are classified into the owner of the Do’s land and the owner of the forest road. As of 2005, there are about 17 Dockeys, including the Plaintiff company, and about 40 Dockeys. The owner of the Dockeys in the field of production and processing of the Dockeys in the Dockeys market refers to the operator who integrates and manages the Docling, processing, sale, etc. in the raising of the Dockeys, and the owner of the forest road fraternity refers to the operator who owns only the Dockeys and receives only Dockeys at the request of the collection of mountainous districts, etc.; 2) the owner of the Dockeys in the field of production and processing of the Dockeys in the field of the Do, in accordance with the entrustment contract, provides all kinds of materials, such as bottles, feeds, feeds, and faters, with the average price of the plaintiff 10.

Provided, That where there is a shortage of livelihood supplied by a breeding farmer, the owner of the Domal system in which the Domal land is located shall purchase the Domal chill from the general farmer.

Most of the companies in the field of Do-based land are small and medium enterprises and the sales amount of less than KRW 100 billion is less than 5%. The most representative company in the field of Do-based land-based land-based land-based small and medium enterprises are less than 385.3 billion in sales amount in 2004, but the net profit per party is only 13.4 billion in sales amount.

(c) Status of products by type of relevant chickens and meat;

Domestic chickens market is divided into the galb, galb and processed meat market according to the variety, size, price, use, etc. of the raw chickens.

도계육은 통상 1.6년의 부화 및 사육기간을 거친 무게 1.5kg 전후의 생닭을 도계장에서 1차로 손질한 상태의 무게 약 1.0kg, 가격 2,500원(2005년 평균 공장도가격)의 신선육을 의미하고, 이는 주로 통닭, 닭볶음탕 등의 용도로 소비된다. 이러한 도계육은 가공형태 및 수요처의 요구에 따라 통닭, 부분육, 절단육, 염지육 등으로 나뉜다. 삼계육은 통상 2개월의 부화 및 사육기간을 거친 무게 1.0kg 미만의 생닭을 도계장에서 1차로 손질한 상태의 무게 약 0.5kg, 가격 1,600원(2005년 평균 공장도가격)의 신선육을 의미하고, 이는 대부분 삼계탕으로 소비된다.

The meat processed products refer to ham, sa, sa, and other saved products made of chickens as raw materials, and normally, the saves are produced through the reprocessing stage after mooring the saves at the saves.

The bio-processed chills used in the Dominal land are different from those of the breeding farmers. The production and supply of each product market and the demand company are divided. The Dominal land is treated by the 17 affiliated companies producing the Dominal meat. The Dominal land is produced only by the business operators such as the plaintiff low-forest, the Dominal, the Dominal, the Dominal, and the Dominal, and the Dominal and processed products are produced and handled by the plaintiff small-scale, the man, the Dominal, the Dominal and the agricultural cooperatives, etc. in possession of the processing facilities.

In 2004, the result of Korean chickens was 49,9770,000,000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000003) for Dom-based 87.4% of the company affiliated with Dom-based land accounts for 87.4% (in particular, the total share of Dom-based 4 market share is 42.8%) of the company of the Plaintiff Association of the Korea Land-based Association, members of the Plaintiff Association of Korea occupy 78.8% of the total share of Dom-based Dom-based Dom-based Dom-based Dom-based Dom-based Dom-based Dom-based Dom-based Dom-based Dom-based Dom-based 3 occupy 60.4% of the members of the Plaintiff Association.

(unit: Number of thousands, per cent)

A person shall be appointed.

The market size of domestic chickens and processed meat products is approximately KRW 173.1 billion (as of 2005, approximately KRW 78.2 billion (45%) as shown below, and the freezing products account for KRW 78.2 billion (45%), KRW 76.6 billion (4%), and KRW 18.2 billion (1.0%), and approximately KRW 60 small and medium enterprises take part in the market.

Table 4 Market share by company, processed meat products, and product (based on the sales amount in 2005) in the column of the Table 4.

(unit: 00,000 won, per cent)

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

The chickens is distributed in general agencies, chain headquarters, discount stores, and department stores, group meals, etc., and the agents, chain headquarters, group meals, etc. among the supply amount of chickens accounts for about 70% and about 30% of the discount, and large-scale distributors, such as department stores, etc.

(d) Price-fixing structure;

(1) In the case of meat:

The price of the Dominal Land shall be calculated in accordance with the Dominal Land Price Determination Form 6 based on the cost of living and transportation, etc., and it shall be published on the website of the Plaintiff Dominal Land Association. Each Dominal Land Business Operator shall determine the discount by transaction partner in consideration of the situation of supply and demand of Dominal meat, such as the quantity secured on the basis of the above published price, the inventory status of transaction parties, and the order quantity, and shall determine individual and specific price of the Dominal Land according to the discount.

(2) Examining the price-fixing structure in the case of three-way land, it may be divided into the publication (public notice) price on the Plaintiff’s website and the distribution price actually supplied by the three-way affiliated companies.

The prices to be published on the homepage of the Plaintiff Association are the daily prices that serve as the basis for three-way transactions, and after obtaining approval from the president of the Association in order to publish the Tropical market prices from September 2000, it is to investigate the desired prices of five three-way affiliated companies from November 200 of the same year (Plaintiff Hhoe, East, Trop, Crop, gold, and gold) and to publish them in the current market prices, together with the daily living prices of 1 to 2 times per week (monthly or summary).

On the other hand, the distribution price is the actual transaction price adjusted by the discount from the above publishing price in consideration of the inventory situation of the customer such as the supplier and the discount store and the order quantity, and is traded at the price below 10-16% per each time of the above publishing price.

(3) Examining the distribution structure of processed meat products in the case of processed meat products, it is classified into an end-user, a discount store, a chain headquarters, and an intermediary wholesaler. In view of the distribution channel of the Plaintiff’s Had Forest, the product is 26% (22.8 billion won), a discount store, 25% (23.5 billion won), a chain headquarters, 20% (18.9 billion won), and an agency 15% (14.4 billion won) based on the sales amount. The company that produces processed meat products sells the processed meat products at a somewhat different price by transaction parties according to the terms and conditions of transaction, such as actual demand, discount store, and order volume, and the price of the processed meat products is set at a variety of prices depending on the size and type of the products sold.

3. Agreement on and execution of prices, etc.;

A. On March 10, 2004, pursuant to the agreement of the fourth president’s president such as the PlaintiffHa Ha Dog, the Plaintiff Dog Livestock Association organized a distribution subcommittee for seven officers, including Plaintiff Ha Ha Dog, on March 10, 2004. On March 25, 2004, the Plaintiff companies and the 15 companies, including the agricultural cooperatives, other than the Plaintiff Dog Y, shall convene several meetings by August 31, 2004 at the beginning of the distribution subcommittee meeting, and shall be influence each other for the next one year with respect to the transaction partners, such as department stores, discount stores, and flood market (trade agreement). The agreement was reached to raise a certain portion of the cost, which is a factor for determining the price of the Dog land, to set a minimum limit for living time (price agreement). The agreement was reached for the purpose of saving the supply and demand of the Dog land to save the Dog wal wal wal wal w.

On the other hand, at the meeting of the distribution subcommittee on April 14, 2004, the agenda items consisting of the increase of the expense necessary for the Do system and the publication of the price of the Do system, were presented, and the approval was passed by all the participating members (seven members). On April 26, 2004, the Plaintiff Association notified the project owner of the details of the determination and change of the market price of the Do system in writing (applicable number, calculation formula, applicable rate, and all expenses) as above.

B. On May 14, 2004, the president of Samyang-ro, Man-ro, Man-ri, and Dan-gu agreed to establish and operate 3rd-meter sub-committees in order to facilitate price stabilization by holding meetings on May 14, 2004, and by controlling the prices through the control of supply and demand of third-meters. After that, seven sub-committees, such as Plaintiff Cho-ro, Cho-ro, Cho-ri, Man, Cho-ri, Pho-ri, Pho-ri, and same-sexs were organized. The Plaintiffs agreed to publish their initial market prices on the website from June 4, 2004 to January 14, 2005, respectively. The Plaintiffs agreed to publish their initial market prices on the website as the basis of the agreement between Plaintiff Cho-gu and Cho-gu. In addition, the Plaintiffs agreed to publish their initial market prices on the website.

C. According to the agreement related to the processed meat products, Plaintiff Hata, Mayer, Mayer, and Nonghyup constituted the meat processing subcommittee within the Plaintiff’s Association. From October 7, 2004 to March 9, 2005, at the working-level conference over five times, after exchanging information about the unit price and the level of sales incentive for products, such as Maddd (600g), Bad (1kg), Madro (1kg), and Switzerland (550g). During that period, the agreement was reached on the minimum selling price. During that period, the supply price of the above products was the minimum supply price (3,100-3,200 won, 1kg,50 won, Madrad (1g), 550g, 50g, and 300 won, the transaction partner and the company were set at a higher level than the transaction partner’s level).

4. The defendant's disposition of this case

(a) Disposition related to mooring (hereinafter referred to as "the First Disposition of this case")

The Defendant: (a) concluded that 15 companies, including the Plaintiff and the Agricultural Cooperatives, including the Plaintiff, set forth the lower limit of the cost and living cost, which are the elements of determining the price of the Dominal land as above; and (b) concluded an agreement on adjusting the quantity of delivery constitutes an unfair collaborative act under Article 19(1) of the Fair Trade Act; and (c) ordered the remainder of the Plaintiff companies, except the Plaintiff’s gold Cooperative, to take corrective measures and pay penalty in attached Table 1

The criteria and details of the Defendant’s penalty surcharge are as follows:

① In light of the fact that the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry has continuously implemented policies, etc. to adjust the demand and supply of chickenss and stabilize their prices since 1999, taking into account whether to impose penalty surcharges, and that the increase in some of the production costs of the foots is very low in the effect of raising them due to the fact or the person who will live his livelihood. Each company determines the price for each transaction differently depending on the price published by the Plaintiff Association, taking into account the quantity supplied, the inventory of the transaction parties, the order quantity, etc., the collaborative act in this case is likely to simultaneously cause competition-restricting effects and the effect of increasing efficiency, and it can be recognized that the participating companies did not recognize the illegality of the act in this case and that the effect of restricting competition and its ripple effects are not much significant. Accordingly, the penalty surcharges shall not be imposed on the Plaintiff Han RiverM, Danam Food, Maro Food, Dara Food, Dara food, e.g., e., e., seeding, fluc, fry, and agricultural cooperatives.

However, in consideration of the fact that the plaintiff Halim, Maner, Manman, Manbu, Manbu, Manbu's leading activities and monitoring each other's implementation, etc., a penalty surcharge shall be imposed because the possibility of criticism is high

(2) Basic penalty surcharges.

The imposition standard rate of 3.5% shall apply because it falls under the "serious violation".

Plaintiff Hlim: 142,414,00,000 Won X 3.5% = 4,984,490,000 won

Plaintiff Macker: 63,736,00,000 Won X 3.5% = 2,230,760,000 won

Plaintiff Caluriro: 32,518,00,000 won ¡¿ 3.5% = 1,138,130,000 won

Plaintiff Dong-ri: 66,300,000 won X 3.5% = 2,320,50,000 won

(3) The amount of the mandatory adjustment penalty surcharge is the same as the basic penalty surcharge.

(4) Voluntary mediation penalty surcharges.

The amount shall be reduced by 50%, comprehensively taking into account the following factors: (a) Plaintiff Halim, Macker, Cyle, Cylele, Bylele, Byle, Byle, Byle, Byle, Byle, the fact that the violation was voluntarily corrected, the government policy was committed as a dong, and the fact that the court's decision to authorize the composition was already issued, which could be deemed to lack financial capability,

Plaintiff Hlim: 2,492,245,000 won

Plaintiff Macker: 1,115,380,000 won

Plaintiff Caluribu: 569,065,000 won

Plaintiff Dong-woo: 1,160,250,000 won

(5) Determination of penalty surcharges.

The chickens project is a typical low value-added project, and the existence of the breeding farmer who raises chickens by concluding an entrustment contract with the company as well as the verticalized company in case of the imposition of a penalty surcharge. The occurrence of avian influenza at the end of 2003 and the sales of the breeding farmer were rapidly increased, which led to the damage of the breeding farmer at the same time, and even if some of the expenses were raised, the increase in the amount of unjust enrichment caused by the instant voluntary adjustment penalty surcharge may be reduced by 50%.

Plaintiff Hream: 1,246,000,000

Plaintiff Macker: 57,000,000 won

Plaintiff Caluribu: 284,000,000 won

Plaintiff Dong-woo: 580,000,000 won

(b) Disposition related to scambling (hereinafter referred to as “instant Disposition 2”);

The Defendant: (a) deemed that the agreement was reached by the Plaintiff Clim, Macker, Cyle, Cyle, Cyle, Cyle, and Fyle, as above, that it constitutes an unfair collaborative act under Article 19(1) of the Fair Trade Act; and (b) issued a corrective order as stated in the attached Table 2 against the above Plaintiffs (However, as seen earlier, no penalty surcharge was imposed in consideration of the peculiarity of the cryle industry as seen earlier and the circumstances leading up to the above agreement).

(c) Disposition related to processed meat products (hereinafter referred to as the "third disposition of this case").

The Defendant: (a) deemed that the agreement was reached by the Plaintiff Catho, Catho, Catho, and Nonghyup on the minimum selling price of the catho processed meat products as above constituted an unfair collaborative act under Article 19(1) of the Fair Trade Act; and (b) issued a corrective order as stated in the attached Table 3 against the above Plaintiffs (However, as seen earlier, a penalty surcharge shall not be imposed in consideration of the peculiarity of the catho industry as seen earlier, the circumstances surrounding the agreement

D. Disposition related to the Plaintiff’s Gyeyang Livestock Association (hereinafter “instant Disposition 4”).

The Defendant: (a) deemed that the Plaintiff Association agreed with the business operators to jointly determine or increase the market price of the dominal land and the Dominal land through the internal organization above constitutes an unfair collaborative act under Article 26(1)1 of the Fair Trade Act; and (b) ordered the Plaintiff Association to take corrective measures as stated in the attached Table 4 against the Plaintiff Association (However, the Defendant did not impose penalty surcharges in consideration of the special characteristics of the Dominal land industry as seen earlier and the circumstances surrounding the agreement).

[Ground for Recognition] : Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence Nos. 1 to 47 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

II. Determination as to the legitimacy of each of the dispositions in this case

1. The plaintiffs' assertion

A. Common assertion in each disposition of this case

Since the market economy principle cannot be applied as it is to the agricultural and fishery products market, the provisions related to the Fair Trade Act on the premise that the market economy principle is applied as the principle should be excluded or refrain.

B. The "agreement on the withdrawal and supply adjustment" related to the first disposition of this case was based on the administrative guidance of the committee for the stabilization of the supply and demand of the agricultural cooperatives affiliated with the agricultural cooperatives entrusted by the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry, and thus, the Fair Trade Act cannot be applied pursuant to Article 58

The "Agreement on Restrictions on the Status of Trade" is merely a means to carry out a price-based agreement, and it cannot be said that it has an independent competition limitation or illegality.

The effect of restricting competition due to the agreement on the shipment volume adjustment, the agreement on restrictions on customers, and the agreement on price reduction is greater than the effect of restricting competition due to the price stabilization of the market, thereby preventing the collapse of the entire industry, thereby promoting balanced development of the national economy and promoting consumer welfare. Therefore, it does not constitute an unfair collaborative act.

Even if each of the above agreements constitutes unfair collaborative acts, considering that the effect of restricting competition is not significant and that there is almost little unjust enrichment, ordering the payment of penalty surcharge is deviating from and abused discretion.

C. The allegation regarding the second and third dispositions of this case

Considering the circumstances in which the Defendant did not impose a penalty surcharge (such as the nature of the chickens industry, the developments leading up to each agreement, and the scale of unjust enrichment), it is evident that there is no restriction on competition in the case of agreements related to scheat and processed meat products.

D. The argument regarding the disposition No. 4 of this case

The Minister of Agriculture and Forestry's failure to implement the example price system under the Act on Distribution and Price Stabilization of Agricultural and Fishery Products (hereinafter referred to as the "Agricultural & Fishery Products Act") is merely an illegal act that the Plaintiff Association performs the main duty on behalf of the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry.

2. Related statutes;

The entries in the attached Table 5 shall be as follows.

3. Determination

A. As to the common assertion in each of the dispositions in this case (excluding the application of the Fair Trade Act and its own proposal)

(1) Article 2 subparagraph 1 of the former Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act prior to the amendment by Act No. 5813 of Feb. 5, 1999 takes a specific method to list the scope of "enterprisers" subject to the Fair Trade Act, but it is reasonable to view that Article 2 (1) of the former Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act applies to all enterprisers engaged in business except for the reasons provided for in Article 58, 59, and 60 of the former Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act, since the amendment by Act No. 5813 of Feb. 5, 199 as of February 5, 199, to reduce the scope and types of conduct excluded from the application of the Fair Trade Act so that the Fair Trade Act faithfully performs the role of developing the market economy and spread the order in all economic areas.

(2) The plaintiffs asserts that the application of the Fair Trade Act to agricultural and fishery products and livestock products markets should be excluded or refrained in accordance with the so-called "the so-called implied exception theory", based on the fact that various systems (such as contract production, pricing, excessive production, producers protection, distribution agreement, distribution adjustment order, etc.) to protect agricultural and fishery business and livestock business operators through the adjustment of supply and demand and price stability of agricultural and fishery products and livestock products in the Agricultural Stabilization Act or the Livestock Industry Act.

Then, it is difficult to rely on the interpretation of the Fair Trade Act of Korea which differs from the U.S. Supreme Court precedents. Based on the argument that the Supreme Court precedents recognize it as an implied precedent, the Supreme Court Decision 2003Du11841 Decided September 9, 2005 (so-called "the case of the Jeju-do Tourism Association"). However, the contents presented by the above decision are as follows: (a) the act of price-fixing by the enterprisers' organization causes or threaten to cause impacts on free price determination by the enterprisers' organization due to the reduction of competition in a particular business area; (b) the act of determining, maintaining or changing the prices of "the act of substantially restricting competition in a particular business area" under Articles 26 (1) 1 and 19 (1) 1 of the Fair Trade Act, and thus, it is difficult to recognize that the above decision constitutes an unfair collaborative act with the aim of protecting the consumers from the application of Article 19 (2) 9 of the Fair Trade Act as an unfair collaborative act.

On the other hand, since Article 58 of the Fair Trade Act provides for the general grounds for excluding the "justifiable conduct conducted in accordance with other Acts or orders issued under such Acts", it is reasonable to approach the implied exclusion theory from the application of Article 58 in the application of the Fair Trade Act. However, the "justifiable conduct" referred to in the above provision is guaranteed by the enterpriser's exclusive status through the business or authorization system that is deemed reasonable to restrict competition due to the special nature of the pertinent business, while the business that requires a high level of public regulation from the perspective of public nature is a minimum act required to be performed within the scope of the order issued under other Acts or the relevant Acts (see Supreme Court Decision 2004304, Jan. 11, 2007). The provisions of the Agricultural Claim Act and the Livestock Industry Act cited by the plaintiffs do not constitute a law that specifically recognizes the exception of free competition in the above sense.

B. As to the argument regarding the first disposition of this case

(1) It is insufficient to recognize that the testimony of the witness A with respect to the agreement on the shipment volume adjustment was reached and implemented in accordance with the administrative guidance of the Committee on the Stabilization of Supply and Demand for Agricultural Cooperatives, which was entrusted by the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry by the said company, and agricultural cooperatives, etc., and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that the above agreement on the shipment volume adjustment was reached separately from the purchase storage through the agricultural cooperatives of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry due to the occurrence of the Avian influenza. It is also true that the above agreement on the shipment volume adjustment was reached between January 2, 2003 and February 2, 2003. See subparagraph 48 (including each number).

(2) In light of the contents and nature of the agreement on restrictions on transaction partners as to the agreement on restrictions on transaction partners, it cannot be deemed that the said agreement has a means to reach an agreement on the price basis.

(3) We examine the assertion that common arguments in each agreement do not constitute an unfair collaborative act first of all. In light of the circumstances such as the fact that both the Plaintiff companies, which account for most of the share rates in the wholesale market, participated in and agreed on the adjustment of shipping volume, transaction restrictions, price increase, etc., and monitor and exchange information as to whether the agreed matters are observed, it can be recognized that the agreement leads to a very significant degree of restriction on competition in the wholesale market. On the other hand, even if considering all the arguments asserted by the Plaintiff companies, such as the peculiarity of the chilling industry and market situation at the time of each agreement, the effect of promoting the balanced development of the national economy, consumer welfare promotion, etc. is larger than that of the above competitive scheme.

Next, it is difficult to view that the amount of a penalty surcharge has been significantly reduced by the Defendant, taking into account the health room, the nature of each of the above agreements as seen earlier, the importance of the ripple effect, and the circumstances asserted by the Plaintiff Company (the final penalty surcharge imposed by the Defendant is less than 1% of the relevant sales amount), etc., in light of the fact that the Defendant already reduced the amount of the penalty surcharge.

C. The circumstances alleged by the Plaintiff Company in relation to the instant disposition, such as where the Plaintiff Company was merely making self-help efforts to overcome crisis situations, or where the price increase effect was not reached due to a person living together with respect to the allegation regarding the instant disposition Nos. 2 and 3, cannot be deemed as a reason affecting the establishment of an unfair collaborative act, even if it can be considered in light of whether to impose a penalty surcharge, etc.

D. As to the argument regarding the disposition No. 4 of this case

It is not possible to find a legal basis for the Plaintiff Association to exercise the authority to implement the example price system under the Agricultural Products Act on behalf of the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry.

II. Conclusion

Therefore, each of the dispositions of this case is legitimate, and all of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

The presiding judge and assistant judge;

Judges Anti-competence

Judge Conditions Governing Notes

1) The original trade name was H&P, Inc., and was changed to the current trade name on August 10, 2006.

2) The Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry has provided approximately KRW 1,02.6 billion from 191 to 1994 to ensure that each business operator and breeding farmer are affiliated with each other in order to encourage the stable development of the meat industry by integrating management efficiency through the integrated management and production of chickens and ensuring a certain amount of profit to those breeding farmers.

3) The remainder of 3.9% (1,9390,00 Saturdays) accounts for 3.9%.

4) Other companies are OEM.

5) Determination on the basis of the market price on the day preceding the day of sale by a local distributor is based on the market price of the local distributor. In general, the living price offered by the company is the living price on the day of the day by the company, after inquiring of the Plaintiff Choki, Choki, Chobu, Bhobu, Bhoby, Han RiverM, and Maro Food.

6) Price (1kg) = (living price + transportation cost)/ [water rate + manufacturing cost]

The cost of transportation is normally 40 won/km level.

The term "water rate" means the rate of new meat produced when a person plays one-math of livelihood.

The cost means the sum of the guidance cost, labor cost, material cost, sales and management cost, and other various costs, which is similar to the production cost.

7) Plaintiffs Halim, Manker, Mawro, Mawro, Maro Food, Mamaro Food, and Nonghyup participated in the first agreement on August 6, 2004 for the first time with the Plaintiff’s name, Plaintiff’s name, Magman’s name, Magman’s development, development, and flusium on April 14, 2004, Plaintiff Han River C&M participated in the first agreement on April 23, 2004, Plaintiff C&M in May 7, 2004, Plaintiff C&M in the Plaintiff’s Republic of Korea, May 28, 2004, and Plaintiff C&M in the Plaintiff’s Schedule on August 6, 2004.

8) Some of the reasons for the amendment of Act No. 5813 of February 5, 1999 are the reasons for the amendment.

9) The Plaintiff’s assertion that such exceptional causes constitute an unfair collaborative act should be proven.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.