2014Du3655 Action for revocation such as a corrective order

New Life Insurance Corporation

Fair Trade Commission

Seoul High Court Decision 2012Nu2193 Decided January 23, 2014

July 24, 2014

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

The court below held that the first act is unlawful since the defendant's act of having agreed to set a specific interest rate or to reduce the scheduled interest rate on several occasions from 1998 to 2000 (hereinafter "the first act") and the act of exchanging information on future scheduled interest rate, etc. from 2001 to 2006 as a whole, and the first act of setting an individual interest rate (hereinafter "the second act") should be deemed to constitute a single act as a whole. However, even if the first act constitutes an unfair act, even if it falls under an unfair act, the second act is not constituted an unfair act due to the second act, and the second act is not constituted an unfair act due to the second act, and the first act is already terminated at the specified period of 2001, and since the defendant issued a corrective order and a disposition of imposition (hereinafter "the second disposition") against the first act after five years from the date of the second act.

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, such determination by the court below is just, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by misapprehending the legal principles on the number and termination period of collaborative acts.

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

A. “Unfair collaborative act” prohibited by Article 19(1) of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act (hereinafter “Fair Trade Act”) is an agreement on an act that unfairly limits competition. “Agreement” includes not only explicit agreement but also implied agreement. However, the essence of the agreement is that two or more enterprisers have contact with each other. As such, 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 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Du1365, May 16, 2014).

In addition, where competition enterprisers exchange information on major competitive factors, such as price, the exchange of such information may serve as a means for facilitating collusion or facilitating the execution of collusion by removing uncertainty on the decision-making of price, etc., and thus, it may serve as a significant symbol for the reciprocity of communication among the enterprisers. However, even so, the exchange of such information cannot be readily concluded that there exists an agreement on an act unfairly restricting competition solely on the basis of the fact of exchanging the information. Determination of whether there exists an agreement on an act unfairly restricting competition should be made by comprehensively taking into account all the circumstances, such as the structure and characteristics of the relevant market, the nature and content of the exchanged information, the subject and timing of the exchange of the information, the purpose and purpose of the exchange of the information, the degree of difference, the degree of difference between the external form, such as price and output, after the exchange of the information, the process and contents of the

B. On the grounds indicated in its reasoning, the lower court determined that the Defendant’s instant disposition, based on the premise that the Plaintiff committed an unfair collaborative act with another 15 life insurance companies, among the 15 insurance companies, including Samsung Life Insurance Co., Ltd., with a higher market share, was unlawful, on the grounds that it is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff engaged in an unfair collaborative act with the Samsung Life Insurance Co., Ltd., Hanan Life Insurance Co., Ltd., and Taean Life Insurance Co., Ltd., Ltd., with a higher market share; and (2) it cannot be readily concluded that there was an unfair collaborative act with price collusion between the remaining 12

In light of the aforementioned legal principles and records, the above determination by the court below is just. Contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by misapprehending the legal principles regarding the establishment of unfair collaborative acts, such as the agreement of collaborative acts, proof of communication, and the external appearance of the act, or by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations or by inconsistency with the logical and empirical rules

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Min Il-young

Justices Lee In-bok

Justices Park Poe-young

Justices Kim Shin