[1] Requirements to establish an act of interference with the concurrent importation of a person holding an exclusive import right under Article 5 subparagraph 2 of the type of an act of unfair trade on concurrent importation, and the burden of proof on such act (=the Fair Trade Commission)

[2] The case holding that there is no proximate causal relation to the establishment of unfair trade practices between the act of a domestic exclusive importer and seller of benz vehicles, by tracking and investigating the chassis number of a vehicle imported by concurrent import, taking an application for an infringement on exclusive sales rights from benz companies, and the concurrent importer's failure to import benz automobiles

[1] Article 23 (2) of the former Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act (amended by Act No. 5813 of Feb. 5, 1999) and Article 36 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 1621 of Mar. 31, 1999) provide that the exclusive importer's right holder's act of unfair trade is likely to obstruct the foreign exclusive importer's exercise of rights by finding out the channel of purchase through the number of products, etc. of the foreign licensee's overseas trade owner's trade owner's overseas trade owner's trade owner's trade owner's unfair trade practice is one of the causes of unfair trade practice, and it is difficult to determine that fair trade practice is likely to interfere with the foreign exclusive importer's exercise of rights, as a result, if it is found that there is a concern that fair trade practice will interfere with the foreign exclusive importer's exercise of rights.

[2] The case holding that there is no proximate causal relation between the act of a domestic exclusive importer and seller of benz's automobile to trace and investigate the chassis number of a vehicle imported by benz and receive an application for an infringement on exclusive sales rights from benz company and the concurrent importer's refusal to receive and pay the amount equivalent to benz's overseas sales corporation, thereby making it impossible to import benz motor vehicle

[1] Article 23 (1) 5 and (2) of the former Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act (amended by Act No. 5813 of Feb. 5, 199), Article 36 (2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 1621 of Mar. 31, 199), Article 5 subparagraph 2 of the type of unfair trade (amended by Presidential Decree No. 1997-27 of Jul. 29, 1997), Article 26 of the Administrative Litigation Act / [2] Article 23 (1) 5 and (2) of the former Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act (amended by Act No. 5813 of Feb. 5, 199), Article 36 (2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 16221 of Mar. 31, 199), Article 26 (2) 97 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act

Hansung Automobile Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Sejong, Attorneys Osung-hwan et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Fair Trade Commission (Law Firm Gangseo-dong General Law Office, Attorneys Park Jae-hwan et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 99Nu389 delivered on April 6, 2000

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

1. Article 23(2) of the former Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act (amended by Act No. 5813 of Feb. 5, 1999) and Article 36(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 1621 of Mar. 31, 1999) provide that "an act of preventing a foreign owner of a foreign trademark right to supply products by finding out the purchase route through the serial serial number of products, etc. of the foreign owner of the trademark right to the foreign owner of the trademark right to whom the products are handled shall be one of the unfair trade practices falling under Article 23(1)5 of the same Act and Article 36(2) of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 1621 of Mar. 31, 199) and Article 5 subparagraph 2 of the same Act provides that the exclusive importer's act of purchasing products through the parallel import number, etc. shall prevent the foreign owner of the trademark right from handling the products to the foreign owner of the trademark right.

In addition, in the event that the act of an exclusive importer, such as the exercise of rights under a contract for exclusive import and sale, results in the parallel import obstruction, it is difficult to view that there is a risk of undermining fair trade immediately in the appearance of the act, and therefore, it is likely to impede fair trade. In this case, the existence of illegality shall be determined depending on whether it is likely to impede fair trade, by comprehensively examining various circumstances revealed in the individual matter, such as intent and purpose of the exercise of rights in question, price competition, degree of price competition, characteristics and market conditions of the subject product, status of the actor in the market, impact on parallel importer, etc.

2. The court below accepted the plaintiff's request for a correction order under the proviso to Canadian-Benz, after which the plaintiff had registered trademark rights in our country, the plaintiff's domestic monopoly import and sale agency of Oral Canadian-Cenz, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as "Merc Canadian-Cenz") and confirmed that the plaintiff's request for correction order under the above provision of Canadian-U.S. Canadian-U. Canadian-U.S. Canadian-U. Canadian-U. Canadian-U.S. Canadian-U. Canadian-U.S. Canadian-U. Canadian-U. Canadian-U.S. Canadian-U. Canadian-U. Canadian-U.S. Canadian-U. Canadian-U. Canadian-U.S. Canadian-U. Canadian-U. Canadian-U.S. Canadian-U. Canadian-U. Canadian-U.S. Canadian-U. Canadian-U. Canadian-U. Canadian-U.S. Canadian-U. Canadian-U.

3. We examine the fact-finding and decision of the court below, and there is no error in the misapprehension of the rules of evidence or the misapprehension of the legal principles as to unfair trade practices, as alleged in the grounds of appeal, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. Accordingly

4. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Justices Zwon (Presiding Justice)