All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

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

1. Damage caused by an illegal bidding collusion refers to the difference between the successful bid price formed by the collusion act and the price formed in the event there was no collusion (hereinafter referred to as “provisional competition price”). The virtual competition price shall be calculated by the method of excluding only the increase in the price caused by the collusion act while maintaining the other factors for price formation in the relevant market where the collusion act occurred while maintaining the other factors for price formation;

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da18850, Jul. 28, 2011). This is a virtual price that is not a price actually existing, and thus, it is difficult to presume by adopting the most objective and reasonable method in light of the type of collusion in the relevant case, among various economic analysis methods, such as a method of comparing prices before and after collusion (in the case of ex post facto comparison method) or standard market (in the case of standard market comparison method), or a method of measurement and economics, etc.

When there are several different appraisal results with respect to the same matter, unless there were errors such as that the appraisal methods are contrary to logical and empirical rules or are unreasonable, the adoption of any one of the appraisal results is, in principle, within the discretionary power of the fact-finding court.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2002Da30275 delivered on September 24, 2002, etc.). 2. A.

The judgment below

According to the reasons, the following facts are revealed.

(1) In order to purchase electric power vessels, the Plaintiff calculated the price based on the production cost on its own, and subsequently determined the estimated price and conducted the bid accordingly.

The Defendants participated in the Plaintiff’s bid for the purchase of electric power lines and engaged in collusion from August 1998 and from August 200 to September 2007.

On May 4, 2012, the Fair Trade Commission issued a corrective order against the Defendants on the ground of such collusion.