The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. As to the allegation in the grounds of appeal as to the reported price collaborative act

A. As to the establishment of a collaborative act with reported price (ground of appeal Nos. 1 and 2) 1), the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act (hereinafter “Fair Trade Act”) provides for “Fair Trade Act”

Article 19(1) of the same Act prohibits “agreement on an act of unfairly restricting competition.” The essence of the agreement lies in not only the express agreement but also implied agreement among two or more enterprisers. As such, it cannot be deemed that there exists an external agreement consistent with the acts listed in the subparagraphs of the above provision. However, it can be deemed that there was an agreement in a case where circumstances to recognize the reciprocity of communication among business operators are proven (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Du17421, Nov. 28, 2013). Meanwhile, the court determined that the fact-finding was not true in accordance with logical and empirical rules based on the ideology of social justice and equity (Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act; Article 202 of the Civil Procedure Act). The determination belongs to the exclusive authority of the fact-finding court (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Du17421, Mar. 23, 2016).

) Each quarter (one month, April, July, and October).