The Dobong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Association of the Automobile Part Maintenance and Improvement Project (Attorney Park Yong-chul, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Fair Trade Commission (Law Firm Dcaro temperature, Attorneys Park Ho-ho et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant)

June 3, 2010

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The Defendant’s corrective order indicated in attached Form 1, which was issued by the Decision No. 2009-276 of December 16, 2009 against the Plaintiff, shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

The following facts may be acknowledged as either in dispute between the parties, or in each entry in Gap evidence 10 and Eul evidence 1 through 12, by integrating the whole purport of the pleadings:

A. Status and status of the plaintiff

(1) The Plaintiff is an organization established by an automobile parts maintenance business entity registered in Dobong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government for the purpose of promoting common interests and promoting friendship, etc., and constitutes an organization under Article 2 subparagraph 4 of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act (hereinafter “Fair Trade Act”).

(2) The Plaintiff’s general status is as

â………§ 1) The general status of the plaintiff

As of April 30, 2009

The monthly budget for the number of members for membership fees (2009) and the number of executives/standing employees of March 1, 1990 * The number of total assets/members of Dobong-gu branch at the time of subscription 168,000,000,000 won at the time of establishment of the tickets included in the main sentence

* The number of motor vehicle parts maintenance business (registered) of Dobong-gu is 136 persons in total, and 63 of them (unregistered (60), Associate Members (3) is not the plaintiff's member.

(b) Market structure and actual conditions;

(1) 자동차부분정비사업자는 타이밍벨트, 휄벨트 교환, 엔진오일, 밧데리 교환 및 부동액 보충작업 과정에서 폐엔진오일, 엔진오일용기, 자동차밧데리(폐산) 등의 지정폐기물을 배출하는데, 폐기물관리법상 사업장폐기물배출자인 자동차부분정비사업자는 당해 사업장에서 발생하는 폐기물을 스스로 처리하거나 폐기물처리업자 등에게 위탁하여 처리하여야 하고, 둘 이상의 일부 사업장폐기물배출업자는 각각의 사업장에서 발생하는 폐기물을 공동으로 수집·운반 또는 처리할 수 있다.

(2) Each sub-chapter of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Automobile Section Improvement Project Association (hereinafter “Seoul City Project Association”) including the Plaintiff (hereinafter “Seoul City Project Association”) entrusts the collection, transportation, and disposal of designated wastes to a designated waste disposal company under a contract with a designated waste disposal company in order to jointly dispose of the designated wastes, and uses the designated waste disposal company’s subsidies (or donations) as its operating expenses.

C. The plaintiff's act

(1) Conclusion of an entrustment contract for the collection, transportation, and disposal of controlled waste between the Plaintiff and the designated waste disposal company

The Plaintiff concluded an entrustment contract for the collection, transportation, and disposal of controlled waste with a designated waste disposal company, such as attached Table 2> and jointly collected, transported, and disposed of waste discharged by the members, and used it as operating expenses by receiving support money from such disposal company.

The current status of controlled waste collection, transportation, and disposal enterprises under Table 2.

As of April 8, 2009

A treatment method of a person handling a kind of waste contained in the main text, contained in the lubric gas treatment method in the lubric gas treatment business (main) ○○○, the oil refining industry (main), recycling (general incineration), ○○○○○ (representative of ○○○○) (representative of ○○○○) (representative of ○○○○) Recycling (other waste luxopter’s representative) recycling (○○○○○○○ (representative of ○○mec), ○○○ (representative of ○○○○) Recycling (representative of ○○○○), and other waste organic oil industry (main), ○○○○○○○ (representative of ○○ resource), the intermediate treatment (main) (representative of ○○○○○○ (representative of ○○mec) and other waste organic oil industry (main) (representative of ○○○○○ (representative of ○○○) (representative).

(2) Waste disposal by some members not through designated waste disposal companies

The non-party 1 corporation and the non-party 2 corporation operated a maintenance network service (the non-party 1 corporation and the non-party 2 corporation referred to as the "△△△") that supports business management and maintenance education by receiving franchise fees from the franchise maintenance business entity and allowing the franchise maintenance business entity to use the business mark, such as royalties. The plaintiff's member member member member member member stores of ○○ and △△△△△ to dispose of designated wastes through other waste disposal business entities, not designated wastes disposal business entities that the plaintiff entered into a contract.

(3) Expulsion of a member company not entering into a contract with a designated waste disposal company

(A) On July 3, 2008, the Plaintiff: (a) held a temporary steering committee; and (b) held three ○○ franchise maintenance business entities (hereinafter “○○ franchise stores”) on the grounds that the designated wastes were disposed of through other waste disposal business entities, other than designated wastes disposal business entities; and (c) decided to recommend △△△ franchise stores when four △△ franchise stores (hereinafter “△△ franchise stores”) process the designated wastes through other waste disposal business entities.

(B) Before the Plaintiff made a request for expulsion to the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Association, ○○ member stores voluntarily withdrawn from the Plaintiff.

(C) 1) Although the Plaintiff proposed that “the designated wastes will be disposed of through a separate disposal company instead of paying the amount of waste oil disposed of through the Plaintiff divided by the number of its members,” the Plaintiff held a steering committee on November 11, 2008 and decided not to accept the proposal of △△ member stores.

2) On December 1, 2008, the Plaintiff requested the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Association to order the proposal of △△ franchise stores. On December 11, 2008, the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Association held a board of directors on December 11, 2008 to order the expulsion of △△ franchise stores, and thereafter, decided to withdraw the said expulsion conditionally and to delegate all the authority to recommend △△ franchise stores

3) On January 13, 2009, the Plaintiff held a steering committee and decided that “△△ franchise stores’ membership qualification shall be suspended for three years from January 14, 2009 to January 13, 2012, and △△ franchise stores shall request the Plaintiff to sign on the Plaintiff’s requirements,” and on January 23, 2009, the Plaintiff signed a letter of performance of the attached Table 3> to △△ franchise stores and submitted it to the Plaintiff by January 30, 2009.

Table 3> Contents of the letter of performance requested by the Plaintiff

본문내 포함된 표 1. 도봉구지회 의결사항 - 일시 : 2009년 1월 13일(화) 운영위원회 - 징계 내용 : 조합원 자격정지 - 조합원 자격정지 : 조합원의 권리는 정지하고, 조합원의 의무는 이행한다. - 자격정지 기간 : 3년(2009년 1월 14일 ~ 2012년 1월 13일) 3. 지회의 요구사항 ㄱ. 폐유·고철의 공동처리 4.차후 지회 요구사항 불이행시 징계방법 ㄱ. 1차 : 경고 조치(1회 한정) - 문서화 발송 ㄴ. 2차 : 제명처리(회장단에서 모든 전권 위임하에 제명함) 5.지정폐기물 공동처리 일시 : 2009년 2월 1일부터 공동처리한다. (지회 폐기물처리업체 : (주)북부환경, 삼성자원) 본 △△ ()점은 도봉구지회에서 결정된 상기 내용에 대해 조건없이 철저히 이행할 것을 약속드리며, 본 회원은 도봉구지회 발전과 단체의 협력 및 단결도모에 솔선수범하겠으며, 차후 확인각서 내용을 불이행시 어떤 징계조치라도 받아들일 것을 약속드립니다. ？ 2009년 1월 14일 ？ △△ ( )점(인) 서울시자동차부분정비사업조합 도봉구지회 (인)

4) The board of directors held on March 10, 200, held on March 10, 2009, decided to order △△ franchise stores to comply with the above requirements by March 31, 2009, and the Plaintiff notified on April 9, 2009 that △△ franchise stores refuse to jointly dispose of designated wastes even after March 31, 2009, and the Seoul Cooperative notified △△ franchise stores that it was expelled as of April 1, 2009 (the Plaintiff demanded the member companies to dispose of wastes through the designated waste disposal companies and to remove ○ franchise stores and △△ franchise stores that did not comply with the request (hereinafter collectively referred to as the “instant act”).

D. The defendant's disposition

The Defendant issued a corrective order in attached Form 1, which decided December 16, 2009, pursuant to Article 27 of the Fair Trade Act, on the ground that the instant act constitutes “an act unreasonably restricting the business contents or activities of a constituent business entity,” which is prohibited by Article 26(1)3 of the Fair Trade Act, and issued a corrective order in attached Form 1 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(1) Waste disposal, such as waste oil, is merely a disposal of waste materials and by-products generated additionally in the course of conducting a partial maintenance business, and is not included in the business activities of the automobile section maintenance business, and thus, the act of this case, which the Plaintiff allowed its members to jointly dispose of designated wastes, did not unreasonably restrict its business activities.

(2) The Plaintiff’s members agree to jointly dispose of designated wastes on their own, and as long as such restriction does not harm the nature of the business of the members and realizes the larger interests of the members, it cannot be said that it impedes fair and free competition.

B. Relevant statutes

Attached Table 2 shall be as stated in the relevant statutes.

C. Determination

(1) Whether waste disposal is included in the automobile section maintenance business

This part of the plaintiff's assertion is not accepted because it is included in the business that is conducted repeatedly in addition to the main business such as waste disposal, such as waste oil, etc.

(2) Whether competition restriction on joint disposal of designated wastes is limited

As seen earlier, the Plaintiff forced a member company to jointly dispose of designated wastes, and ordered some of the member companies that do not comply with the joint disposal policy of designated wastes. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s member companies are likely to interfere with fair and free competition, such as blocking opportunities for free choice of the other party to the transaction, taking into account the unit price of designated wastes, waste disposal business capacity, etc., and thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is without merit.

(3) Sub-decisions

Ultimately, the instant disposition is lawful.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment 1]

Judges Ko Young-han (Presiding Judge)