logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대법원 2016.08.24 2014두6340
과징금납부명령 취소청구의 소
Text

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

Reasons

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1.(a)

Article 22-2 of the former Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act (amended by Act No. 7315 of Dec. 31, 2004) and Article 35(2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 18356 of Apr. 1, 2004; hereinafter “former Enforcement Decree”) provide that a person who has reported an unfair collaborative act or has cooperated in the investigation of an offense by means of providing evidence shall be mitigated or exempted from a penalty surcharge.

However, in cases where two or more enterprisers are in a de facto control relationship, etc., the term "actual control relationship" in this context means a case where each enterpriser actually controls the remaining enterprisers, and there are no autonomy and identity of the remaining enterprisers, and each enterpriser cannot be deemed to be operated independently, in full view of the following: (a) the degree of ownership of shares among each enterpriser; (b) the degree and method of exercising influence in the decision-making; (c) whether the company concurrently serves as an executive officer; (d) whether the company concurrently serves as an executive officer; (e) awareness of the mutual relationship between the enterpriser in question; (e) the possibility of independent decision-making on the business territory; and (e) the process leading up to the application for joint reduction or exemption.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2012Du13962 Decided September 24, 2015). B.

The court below held that on April 20, 2005, when Honam Petroleum Chemical Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “ Honam Petroleum Chemical Co., Ltd.,” in its name; hereinafter referred to as “Co., Ltd.”) and Elzchemical possess 50% of the Plaintiff’s shares, the lower court held on April 20, 2005 that four synthetic resin products, such as Gonam Petroleum Chemical Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Co., Ltd.”) are of the price co., Ltd., 4 synthetic resin products.

arrow