All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The defendant's claim was dated July 20, 2015.

1. The summary of the case and the facts premised on the case

A. The summary of the instant case is that the Plaintiff, the constructor, and other business entities jointly agreed in advance to determine the successful bidder and the bid price in the tender for the natural gas main pipe and the management office construction works ordered by the Korea Gas Corporation and the Plaintiff and the other business entities constituted an unfair collaborative act under Article 19(1)3 and 8 of the former Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act (amended by Act No. 11758, Apr. 5, 2013; hereinafter “Fair Trade Act”), and that the Plaintiff, who received the corrective order and the penalty surcharge payment order based on Article 21 and 22 of the Fair Trade Act against the Defendant, seek the corrective order and the revocation of the penalty surcharge payment order, asserting that the Defendant’s disposal of the part against the Plaintiff among the corrective order and the penalty surcharge payment order, the statute of limitations, or abuse of discretionary power, were unlawful

[Attachment 2] The relevant statutes are as shown in [Attachment 2]

나. 전제된 사실관계 【증거】 갑1, 2, 을4와 변론 전체의 취지 ⑴ 당사자 ㈎ 원고, 경남기업㈜, 금호산업㈜, 대보건설㈜, ㈜대우건설, ㈜대한송유관공사, 동아건설산업㈜, 두산중공업㈜, 삼보종합건설㈜, 삼성물산㈜, 삼환기업㈜, ㈜신한, 쌍용건설㈜, 에스케이건설㈜, 지에스건설㈜, ㈜태영건설, ㈜포스코엔지니어링, 풍림산업㈜, ㈜한양, ㈜한화건설, 현대건설㈜, 현대중공업㈜(이하 ‘㈜’는 모두 생략하고, 이들 22개 회사를 ‘원고 등 사업자’라 한다.)는 모두 건설업을 목적으로 하는 회사로서 공정거래법 2조 1호에 정해진 사업자이다.

㈏ 피고는 공정거래법 35조 1항에 따라 공정거래법 1조의 목적 달성을 위한 사무를 독립적으로 수행하는 것을 임무로 하여 국무총리 소속하에 설치된 독립행정위원회이다.

⑵ 천연가스 주배관 및 관리소 건설공사 개요 ㈎ 국내 천연가스 사업은 도매업자인...