The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

Article 19(1) of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act provides that “unfair collaborative act” prohibited under Article 19(1) includes not only explicit agreement but also implied agreement (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Du1239, Feb. 28, 2003). However, the essence of this is that two or more enterprisers have contact with each other. Thus, it cannot be deemed that there exists a appearance consistent with the existence of “unfair collaborative act” listed in each subparagraph of the above provision, and there should be proof of circumstances to recognize the reciprocity of communication among the enterprisers. The burden of proof is against the Defendant who ordered corrective measures, etc. on the ground of such agreement.

(2) The lower court determined that: (a) the construction project in this case is a large-scale construction project in the alternative bid method; (b) the tender background and nature of the construction project in this case, including where one construction is recommended to tender one construction section according to the policy judgment of the ordering authority; (c) the Plaintiff’s decision to participate in the tender for the construction project in other construction sections than four construction sections; and (d) the Plaintiff’s decision to participate in the tender for the construction project in this case, other than the Plaintiff and FF corporation; and (e) the Plaintiff did not adjust the construction sections with the FF corporation and the bid sections that selected the same construction section as the construction section desired, even though the Plaintiff was the Plaintiff, by maintaining the 4 construction sections bidding policy; and (e) it was difficult to find that there was a need to agree on the division of construction sections with other construction companies upon the risk of failure caused by the competition with the FF corporation, based on the evidence submitted by the Defendant.