The appeal is dismissed.

Costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

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

1. As to the termination date of the collaborative act in this case (No. 2 grounds of appeal)

A. Where there was an agreement on price determination, etc. under Article 19(1)1 of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act (hereinafter “Fair Trade Act”), and the implementation thereof, the date on which the unfair collaborative act ends is the date on which the execution thereof ends.

Therefore, in order to terminate unfair collaborative acts, some enterprisers who participated in the agreement should express or implied declaration of withdrawal from the agreement with other enterprisers, and reduce the price level that would have existed without collusion according to their independent judgment.

In addition, the unfair collaborative act has been terminated for all enterprisers participating in the agreement.

In order to do so, enterprisers who participated in the agreement clearly reverse the agreement, and commit acts contrary to the agreement, such as reducing the price that would have existed without collusion in accordance with their independent judgment, or acts which are deemed to have de facto destroyed the collusion through repeated price competition, etc. among the enterprisers who participated in the agreement, such acts as continuing to continue for a certain

There must be circumstances to see (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2007Du12774, Oct. 23, 2008; 2016Du46113, Mar. 14, 2019). (b) The lower court, on the grounds of the circumstances stated in its holding, has continued to enter into an agreement, such as a specific price determination, with a continuous meeting, for the purpose of restricting competition until December 12, 2013, where the Plaintiff explicitly expressed his/her intent to withdraw from the multilateral conference.

It shall be viewed.