2012 Gohap 1913 Compensation (as referred to in this paragraph)

1. Kim○○ (00000 - 00000)

Suwon-si Ho-dong Ho-dong 00

2. Branch○○ (0000 - 000000)

Bupyeong-gu Incheon Bupyeong-gu Gasan 1 Dong 0

3. Stamb○○ (0000 - 000000)

Kimcheon-si Kim Sol-dong 0

4.cheon-○○ (0000 - 000000)

At Silung-si Do ○ ○

5. Maximum○○ (00000 - 00000).

Kim Jong-si Kim Do-dong 0

6. ○○○ (0000 - 00000)

Yeung-si ○ ○

7. ○○○ (00000 - 00000)

Sung-nam-si Busan Metropolitan City ○ ○

8. Galone (00000 - 000000)

Gangnam-gu Seoul Westerndong 00

19.Glaver○○ (0000-0000)

Ansan-si Balyang-dong 00

10.Ga○○ (00000-0000)

Seoul Yeongdeungpo-dong 5 Gasan 00

11. ○○ (00000-0000)

Incheon Gyeyang-gu ○○

12. Prostitution○○ (0000 - 000000)

The Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Eastern ○ ○

13. ○○○ (0000 - 000000)

Daegu Seo-gu Merchant Dong 00

14. Park ○○ (0000 - 000000)

Sung-nam-si Subdivision-dong 0

15. Forwarding ○○ (0000 - 000000)

Ulsan-do Newcheon-dong 00

16. Kim○-○ (00000 - 000000)

Sacheon-si Sacheon-dong 0

17. Kim○-○ (00000 - 000000)

The members of Ansan-si, the High-dong 00

18. Jeong○○ (0000 - 000000)

Children ○○○ in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government

19. ○○ (0000 - 000000)

Seoul Jung-gu 1 Dong-dong 0

20.Glaver○○ (0000-0000)

Daegu Hagulsan 2 Dongsan 0

21.Sheet ○○ (0000-0000)

Seoul Gangseo-dong-dong ○

22. Kim○○ (00000 - 000000)

Busan Soksan 2 Dongsan 00

23. Kim○○ (00000 - 000000)

Young-si Tong Tong-dong 00

24. Kim○○ (00000 - 000000)

Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Nowon-dong 0

25. Kim○○ (00000 - 000000)

Jeju-si Nowon Nowon-dong 0

26.Mo○○ (0000 - 000000)

Seo-gu Daejeon Seo-dong 0

[Defendant-Appellant] Kim Jae-chul

Attorney Park Jong-chul, Park Jong-sung, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

1. ○ Electronic Co., Ltd.

Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Sodo-dong 0

Gu representative director

Law Firm Pacific (Law Firm Pacific)

Attorney Yoon Sung-chul, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

2. ○ Electronic Company;

Suwon-si Matan-dong 00

Representative Director ○○

Law Firm LLC (LLC) LLC, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Attorneys Jeong Sung, Lee Sung, Lee Dong-min, and Engine

March 4, 2014

March 18, 2014

1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

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

The Defendants shall serve each of the Plaintiffs KRW 530,000, respectively, and the service date of a copy of the complaint of this case.

5% per annum from the date of the judgment of this case to the date of the declaration of this case, and from the following day to the date of full payment.

20% Payment shall be made in 20% interest.

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendants are companies mainly engaged in the manufacture and sale of home appliances, information and communications apparatus, etc., and constitute business operators under Article 2 subparag. 1 of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act (hereinafter “Fair Trade Act”).

B. On March 21, 2012, the Fair Trade Commission, from June 2008 to September 2009, discovered the Defendants’ agreement to increase and maintain the supply price of laundry machine, flat TV, and Nompt PC (hereinafter “instant joint conduct”), and imposed upon the Defendants a penalty surcharge of KRW 44.64 billion, total amount of KRW 7 million.

C. At the time of the instant collaborative act, the Plaintiffs purchased TV or set-out computers manufactured by the Defendants.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (each number is included) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. Claim 1) Summary of the plaintiffs' assertion

The instant collaborative act is an unfair joint act prohibited under Article 19(1)1 of the Fair Trade Act.

As such, the Defendants are liable for damages under Article 56 of the said Act to each of the Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs suffered damages corresponding to the difference between unfair prices formed by the instant collaborative act and competition prices formed in the absence of the instant collaborative act, and 30,000 won among them are partly claimed as damages.

2) Determination as to the occurrence of damages

If the price of the goods or services (hereinafter referred to as "goods, etc.") has been increased due to illegal price collusion, the price that the buyer actually purchased and would have been formed in the absence of collusion (hereinafter referred to as "Virtual competition price") shall, unless there are special circumstances, not be a direct damage to the buyer.

In this context, the virtual competitive price is calculated by the method of excluding only the increase in prices due to the collaborative act while maintaining other factors for price formation in the pertinent market where the collaborative act occurred (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Da93790, Nov. 29, 2012).

Therefore, in light of the fact that the Defendants purchased the household appliances from the distributors who sell them to consumers, and that the Defendants, the manufacturers of household appliances, agreed to increase and maintain the supply price, which is the main contents of the collaborative act in this case, is no dispute between the parties concerned. Considering the distribution structure of the household appliances market and the consumer sales price determination system, it is difficult to deem that the supply price increase and maintenance are directly linked to the consumer sales price, which is the price sold to consumers in the distributors, and that in order to determine the occurrence and scope of the damages of the Plaintiffs, the computation of the household competitive price should be prior to the formation of the case without the collaborative act in this case. In light of the fact that there is no proof of the Plaintiffs on the virtual competitive price, the submitted evidence alone is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiffs suffered damages due to the Defendants’ collaborative act, which is not directly related to the transaction. Therefore, the above Plaintiffs’ assertion is no longer reasonable.

B. The plaintiffs' assertion of consolation money 1)

Since the plaintiffs who trusted and traded the defendants were suffering from mental suffering due to the defendants' tort, they should pay 500,000 won per capita to the plaintiffs as consolation money. 2)

Unless there are special circumstances to deem that mental suffering caused by property damage is serious to the extent that the compensation for property damage cannot be compensated by itself (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 96Da38971, Jul. 10, 1998). Thus, there is no evidence to deem that the Defendants, due to the instant collaborative act, lost their trust as a consumer, or caused a serious mental suffering to the extent that the compensation for property damage cannot be compensated by itself. Accordingly, this part of the claim is without merit without further review.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, all of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Justices Kim Hyun-tae

Judges Domins

Judges Kim Jae-sl