[1] The method of determining whether a transaction constitutes “any condition significantly favorable” under Article 23(1)7 of the former Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act, and the meaning of the normal interest rate, which serves as the basis for determining whether a transaction constitutes “any condition significantly favorable”

[2] The case reversing the judgment of the court below that the interest rate for lending between the subsidizing entity and the subsidizing entity on the basis of the reasonable interest rate inferred and calculated by the Fair Trade Commission is significantly lower than the normal interest rate, on the ground that it did not consider the market interest rate by credit rating at the time of lending, the trend of its change, etc., on the ground

[1] Article 23(1)7 of the former Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act (amended by Act No. 7315 of Dec. 31, 2004) / [2] Article 23(1)7 of the former Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act (amended by Act No. 7315 of Dec. 31, 2004)

[1] Supreme Court Decision 2001Du2935 Decided October 14, 2004 (Gong2004Ha, 1845) Supreme Court Decision 2003Du15171 Decided February 10, 2006 (Gong2006Sang, 432) Supreme Court Decision 2004Du7610 Decided January 25, 2007 (Gong2007Sang, 349)

KS Telecom Co., Ltd. and two others (Attorneys Lee Im-soo et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Fair Trade Commission

Seoul High Court Decision 2004Nu4200 delivered on July 13, 2005

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. In determining whether a transaction constitutes a trade under substantially favorable conditions under Article 23(1)7 of the former Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act (amended by Act No. 7315, Dec. 31, 2004; hereinafter “the Act”), it shall be determined specifically and individually by taking into account not only the difference between benefits and consideration, but also economic benefits arising from the scale of assistance and the amount of assistance, the period of assistance, the number of assistance, the timing of assistance, the economic situation at the time of assistance, etc. In addition, comparing the actual applicable interest rate and the normal interest rate in a particular fund or asset transaction shall be determined based on a comprehensive consideration of not only the difference between benefits and consideration, but also the economic benefits, the period of assistance, the number and frequency of assistance, the economic situation at the time of assistance, and the economic situation at the time of assistance. 1.5% of the pertinent transaction shall be determined based on whether the transaction at issue may interfere with fair trade by restricting competition in the relevant market to which the applicant belongs, or by causing concentration of economic power.

2. 원심은, 원고 에스케이네트웍스 주식회사와 원고 에스케이씨 주식회사가 1999. 1. 30. 에스케이생명보험 주식회사(이하 ‘에스케이생명’이라 한다)에게 각각 450억 원을 무담보의 후순위특약으로 상환기한 2009. 1. 30., 이자율 연 13%로 정하여 대출한 행위(이하 ‘이 사건 1999년 후순위대출’이라 한다) 및 원고 에스케이텔레콤 주식회사가 2000. 10. 6. 에스케이생명에 500억 원을 무담보의 후순위특약으로 상환기한 2006. 4. 6., 이자율 연 11%로 대출한 행위(이하 ‘이 사건 2000년 후순위대출’이라 하고, 이 사건 1999년 후순위대출과 합하여 ‘이 사건 후순위대출’이라 한다)가 부당지원행위인지 여부를 판단함에 있어, 피고는 일단 당시 에스케이생명의 신용등급을 BB+등급으로 설정한 다음, ‘채권시가평가기준수익률표’에 BB+등급 무보증사모사채 수익률이 제시되어 있지 않자, 같은 수익률표의 BBB-등급 5년 만기 무보증공모사채의 수익률을 기준으로 삼아, 무보증사모사채의 금리 가산, 신용등급 BB+ 금리 가산, 후순위 금리 가산을 각 적용하여 이 사건 후순위대출의 각 적정금리를 유추·산정하였는바, 피고의 그와 같은 금리산정방식은, 이 사건 후순위대출이 유동성이 제약된 후순위대출로서 최소한 무보증사모사채의 수익률을 기초금리로 삼는 것이 가능하다고 보이는 점, 에스케이생명의 신용등급을 BB+로 평가한 것은 당시 상대적으로 자산상태가 좋은 것으로 평가되던 엘지증권 주식회사나 현대증권 주식회사의 신용등급이 각각 BBB, BBB-등급에 불과하였던 점에 비추어 부당하다고 볼 수 없는 점, 후순위대출의 가산금리 3%는 2003. 2. 현대카드 주식회사가 후순위사채를 발행하면서 적용한 인상금리인 2.37% 내지 2.67%의 사례를 기초로 당시와 이 사건 1999년 후순위대출 당시의 국고채 금리의 차이를 감안한 것인 점 등에 비추어 그 타당성을 인정할 수 있고, 그 방식에 따라 산출한 기준금리가 이 사건 1999년 후순위대출은 15.41%, 이 사건 2000년 후순위대출은 16.77%로 나타났으므로, 이 사건 후순위대출에 있어서의 적정금리가 실제적용금리보다 최소한 2-3% 높은 수준이었다고 본 피고의 조치가 부당하다고 볼 수 없다는 취지로 판단하였다.

3. However, in light of the above legal principles and records, it is difficult to accept the judgment of the court below that deemed the standard interest rate of the subordinated loan of this case that the defendant inferred and calculated at the normal interest rate level. In other words, in calculating the normal interest rate, the validity of the premise or applied value as well as the validity of the method should be ensured. According to the records, there is no clear circumstance to deem that the credit rate of KS life was B+ at the time of the subordinated loan of this case, and the defendant's ELD Securities Co., Ltd. or Hyundai Securities Co., Ltd., a life insurance company, is not identical with the company's character or fund operation method. Thus, it cannot be deemed reasonable to put the credit rating of KS life as B+ compared with the above company's credit rating. In addition, it is difficult to view the above standard interest rate calculated by analogy and calculation as the average profit rate of non-guaranteed bonds, non-guaranteed private equity bonds, BB+++, and it is difficult to view it as the normal interest rate of this case.

Therefore, in order to determine whether the interest rate applied at the time of the instant subordinated loan was significantly lower than the normal interest rate, the lower court should have deliberated on whether the above standard interest rate applied by the Defendant, which was inferred and calculated, was reasonable as the normal interest rate level, in light of other circumstances, such as the market interest rate by credit rating at the time of the instant subordinated loan and the trends in its change, and determined that the pertinent subordinated loan interest rate was considerably lower than the normal interest rate based on the result. However, the lower court determined that the pertinent subordinated loan interest rate was considerably lower than the reasonable interest rate by the Defendant only based on the method of calculating the reasonable interest rate established by the Defendant. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on calculating the normal interest rate, and failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs’ ground of appeal pointing this out without examining the remaining grounds

4. Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Nung-hwan (Presiding Justice)