All appeals are dismissed.

Costs of appeal shall be borne by each party.

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

1. Plaintiff’s ground of appeal

A. As to the existence of the agreement of this case, the court below determined that the Plaintiff agreed to purchase the drug at the successful bid price from another wholesaler who had engaged in transactions with the existing pharmaceutical company and to transfer the price to the wholesaler at the time of receiving the price from the hospital (hereinafter referred to as "doing transaction"), and that the delivery method was conducted for about one year from around 2007 and about 2008 (hereinafter referred to as "the agreement of this case"), and that even if there was no significant change in the bid price of the above hospital in the above hospital for the purchase of the drug in 2007 and 2008 (hereinafter referred to as "tender of this case"), it was reasonable to view that the agreement of this case was reached even after considering the following facts, the agreement of this case was reached.

Examining the record in light of the relevant legal principles, the above determination by the court below is just, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence.

B. In order to determine whether the relevant market definition constitutes an unfair collaborative act as provided in each subparagraph of Article 19(1) of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act (hereinafter “Fair Trade Act”), the first issue is the object of the transaction in a particular business area where competition relation may be at issue.