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

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

1. Whether a collaborative act restricts competition as provided by Article 19(1) of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act (hereinafter “Fair Trade Act”) should be determined individually by examining whether the collaborative act affects or is likely to affect the determination of price, quantity, quality, other terms and conditions of trading, etc. by reducing competition in a particular business area, taking into account various circumstances, such as the characteristics of the relevant goods or services, consumers’ selection standards for products, and impact on the market and enterprisers on competition.

On the other hand, Article 19(1)8 of the Fair Trade Act on bid collusion purports to protect not only the competition itself but also the competition in the process of running up to the bidding.

(2) On July 9, 2015, the lower court recognized the facts as indicated in its reasoning based on adopted evidence. (1) The Plaintiff is a business entity producing C with only a flexible production prior to entering the C market by the Plaintiff Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “E”). (2) The Plaintiff and the Plaintiff Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D”) fall under a single business entity in fact because it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D”) are operated independently. The Plaintiff, who has the exclusive production capacity of C, can enter into a negotiated contract by itself pursuant to the provisions of the Act on Contracts to Which the Local Government Is a Party, etc., even if the bid is failed due to the failure to participate in the bidding, ultimately, there is insufficient economic motive for the Plaintiff to participate in the bidding, and merely prevented the bid by writing out a competitive bidding on the ground of D.