National Student Uniform Development Council and 20 others (Law Firm Sepyeong, Attorneys Masung-si et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Fair Trade Commission (Attorney Kim Jong-hun et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

August 18, 2004

1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

Each corrective order listed in the separate sheet No. 1, 2, and 3 against the Plaintiff’s National Council for the Development of Uniforms of Students issued by the Defendant No. 2001-083 of June 7, 2001, and the penalty surcharge payment order listed in Paragraph 4 of the same Table against the Plaintiffs, respectively, shall be revoked.

1. Basic facts

The following facts may be acknowledged by adding up the whole purport of the pleadings to the statements of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 16 (including each number), and Eul evidence Nos. 17, and any part of the examination results on Gap evidence Nos. 9-30, 37 and plaintiff's exchange for the plaintiff's own conciliation is not believed, and there is no other counter-proof.

(a) The organization of the National Council on the Development of Students' Uniforms Market and the general situation thereof;

(1) As of the end of 200, schools with about 95% of the total number of students as of the end of 1987, where the student uniforms were restored, are obligated to wear various materials and the uniforms of the students as of the end of 200. The market scale is estimated to be 30,000 won on the basis of the consumer price, since the annual demand volume exceeds 1.25 million new students of middle and high schools, and approximately 250,000 students enrolled in the purchase and re-purchase, respectively.

(2) The supply of student uniforms is replaced by the brand products of Nonparty SK Global Co., Ltd., one parent company, and one new company (hereinafter “three company”) that manufactures and sells student uniforms and the products of general small and medium enterprises (hereinafter “three company”). The recent increase in the market share of three students due to the increase in the preference of brand products. In 2000, in the case of the third company, the non-party SK Global Co., Ltd and one parent company occupy the share of at least 50% on the basis of the sales volume and consumer price. In the case of the Seoul metropolitan area of the student uniforms manufactured through the subcontractor, the third company sells the student uniforms to consumers via the subordinate company’s agency in sequence. In other areas, the new company takes the form of trading and sales with agents immediately without trading the total number of the student uniforms manufactured through the subcontractor, and most of the general small and medium enterprises directly manufacture and sell them to consumers.

(3) A student uniform is a product that the student must inevitably purchase, and is diverse for each school depending on the materials, sheeting items (nart, etc.), design, etc. of each school. Unlike ordinary fashion that is naturally close to the entire competitive condition due to the division of sales area into other areas where it is impossible to sell other areas. As such, it is relatively easy for the regional cartel to be relatively easy. Moreover, since the sales are generated for a short period of one month due to the overcoming two times during the wintering period, the manufacturer or distributor has a characteristic of the market structure that less costs to monitor the performance of the car cartels are incurred.

(4) However, as the student uniforms are gradually elevated, the number of consumers' complaints has increased. Accordingly, the parents' association designated the student uniforms as the principal body and used the so-called joint purchase to purchase the student uniforms or to purchase them through open tendering for the students who want to jointly purchase. In the case of joint purchase, the price of the uniforms would be one hundred thousand won in the case of Dong Uniforms as of 2000, and 40,000 won in the case of the summer Uniforms, which would be the half of the price of the three company products. On October 198, 1998, the joint purchase through bidding at the Dowon Middle School located in Daegu as of the starting point was activated nationwide.

(5) A approximately 20 representative of three directors and regional agencies aggravated business environment, such as the proliferation of joint purchase as above, which led to the aggravation of business environment as seen above, the three members of the sales team and three members of the group of three members of the group of members of the group of members of the group of members of the group of members of the group of three members of the group of members of the group of members of the group of members of the group of members of the group of three members of the group of members of the group of members of the group of members of the group of members of the group of members of the group of members of the group of members of the group of members of the group of members of the group of members of the group of members of the group of members of the group of members of the group of members of the group of members of the group

(6) The following: Three promoters composed of 20 members of the three total board and 20 members of the organization, as indicated in the Table:

The current status of promoters and executive officers of the Central Council:

본문내 포함된 표 ？ 3사의 유통업체별 지 역 별 계 SK 글로벌 제일모직 새한 서울 인천 경기 부산 경남 대구 경북 대전 충청 광주 전남북 - 발기인 7 7 6 5 3 4 3 2 3 20 임원 창립시 3 2 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 8 2000. 11. 8. 이후 4 3 4 4 2 1 1 1 2 11

* At the meeting of the Central Council on November 8, 2000, one of the vice-chairpersons was additionally elected at the meeting of the Central Council, and the officers were reinforced by 11.

(7) Promoters attending the inaugural general meeting are selected as regional contact books and after November 1998.

The 67 regional councils were constituted throughout the country. The regional councils were composed of 67 regional councils, including the Plaintiffs, with a focus on regional contact policies, and agreed on the issues of work, and reported the results thereof to the Plaintiff Central Council and three companies. Meanwhile, the Plaintiff Central Council was punished by having three companies, among three companies and three companies, for those companies violating the resolution of the Central Council or the Regional Council, terminate the total sales or agency contract.

(b) Fact of conduct;

(1) Determining, maintaining, or changing the selling price;

(A) On 199 and 200 Dong Uniforms and Happinesss, immediately before the decision on the sale price of Dong Uniforms was made with three support, the Plaintiff’s Central Council shall hold a meeting to which 20 members, including the Plaintiffs, excluding the Plaintiff’s Central Council, and the rest of the Plaintiffs from among the Plaintiffs (names and major activities are indicated in attached Form 1; hereinafter the same shall apply) participate, such as the date and time of the 199 and 2000 Dong Uniforms and Happinesss, and the 20 members, from among the Plaintiffs, shall hold a meeting to maintain the student uniform price at a certain level according to regional characteristics, as described in attached Table 2, including the contents of the agreement in attached Form 2.

(B) Accordingly, the nationwide regional council under the control of the Plaintiff’s Central Council decided to jointly determine and sell student uniforms by region, such as the attached Form 3, according to the above instruction, encouragement, and inspection activities of the Plaintiff Central Council and three companies.

(2) Interference with business activities

(A) Joint purchase interference;

① As seen earlier on October 1998, the Plaintiff’s Central Council sought measures to prevent the joint purchase of students at a low price in the student uniform at the Daegu Dowon Middle School via a bid by the parents of students, and sought the response measures to block the spread of joint purchase with three defective students. On January 26, 1999, the Plaintiff resolved to jointly respond to three companies through the regional consultative council, etc. at the time of bidding, and to make a resolution to oppose the bidders.

② In accordance with the decision, direction, and recommendation of the Plaintiff’s Central Council and three copies, the respective regional councils adopted a resolution to block or interfere with the joint purchase activities, such as the entry in attached Table 5> As a result, on April 28, 199, the regional councils decided to block or interfere with the joint purchase activities, and as a result, on February 5, 2001, up to February 5, 2001, the joint purchase was to be avoided or delayed by acquiring the principal or participating enterprises or by reducing the price of the school or participating enterprises at a certain level.

(b) Restricting the provision of stolen or promotional items;

On November 13, 1998 and the 17th of the same month, the Plaintiff’s Central Council, along with three copies at the establishment stage, agreed that the agencies shall prohibit or refrain from providing personal belongings provided to customers who purchase student uniforms and promotional items provided to consumers who purchase student uniforms. On December 31 of the same year, at the 3rd of the team leader conference, the Plaintiff agreed to suspend the provision of any articles and to impose sanctions on the violating agencies. Accordingly, the national regional council passed a resolution to prohibit or refrain from providing personal items, such as the Plaintiff’s Central Council and three copies, as described in attached Table 3, according to the direction or recommendation of the Plaintiff’s Central Council and three copies.

(C) Determination of shop occupants and fees

On January 26, 199, the Plaintiff’s Central Council shall pay not more than 13% the sales fee of the department store while the head of the third team team of January 26, 199, and if it is not accepted by the department store, a resolution was passed to jointly refuse the sales fee of the department store, and the regional council decided not to jointly sell the department store as stated in attached Table 3, respectively.

C. Grounds and contents of the defendant's disposition

The Defendant decided that a regional council should determine the selling price by holding several meetings with three companies to present the method or criteria for determining the selling price of school uniforms. The act of checking the result constitutes “the act of determining, maintaining, or changing the price” as stipulated in Article 19(1)1 of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act (hereinafter “Fair Trade Act”); and also the act of prohibiting or restricting agents’ participation in the activities of joint purchase of school uniforms promoted by the parents’ association, etc.; and the act of prohibiting or restricting agents’ participation in the activities of providing goods and promotions and sales store sales store sales store sales store sales store sales store sales store sales store sales store sales store sales store sales store sales store sales company's free business activities by three companies, which interfere with or restrict the business activities of other enterprisers or business activities,” as stipulated in Article 19(1)8 of the Fair Trade Act, and thus, it constitutes a violation of Article 26(1)1 of the Fair Trade Act, Article 27(1)1 of the Fair Trade Act and Article 28(2)4 of the Fair Trade Act’s order of the Fair Trade Act.

2. Relevant statutes;

○ Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act

Article 2. The definitions of terms used in this Act shall be as follows:

4. The term "enterprisers' organization" means an association or a federation which is organized by two or more enterprisers for the purpose of increasing their common interests, regardless of its form or federation thereof;

Article 19 (Prohibition of Dun Unfair Collaborative Acts) (1) No business entity shall agree with another business entity to jointly engage in any of the following acts that unfairly restrict competition (hereinafter referred to as "unfair collaborative act") by contract, agreement, resolution, or any other means:

1. Fixing, maintaining or changing the price;

8. An act practically suppressing competition in a particular business area by hindering or restricting the business activities or business activities of other enterprisers.

Article 26 (Prohibited Activities of Enterprisers' Organization) (1) No enterprisers' organization shall commit any of the following acts:

1. Unfairly restricting competition through an act falling under any subparagraph of Article 19 (1);

3. Unreasonably restricting the business contents or activities of member enterprisers (referring to an enterpriser who is a member of the enterprisers' organization; hereinafter the same shall apply);

Article 27 (Prohibited Measures by Enterprisers Organization)

(1) The Fair Trade Commission may impose upon the relevant enterprisers' organization a penalty surcharge not exceeding five hundred million won in the event of a violation of any of the subparagraphs of Article 26 (1).

(2) The Fair Trade Commission may impose upon an enterpriser involved in practices violating any subparagraph of Article 26 (1) a penalty surcharge not exceeding the amount obtained by multiplying the turnover determined by Presidential Decree by five percent: Provided, That in cases of absence of the turnover, etc., a penalty surcharge of not exceeding five hundred million won may be imposed.

○ Enforcement Decree of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 17564 of March 30, 2002)

Article 61 (Standards for Imposition of Penalty Surcharges) (1) The classification of penalty surcharges under Article 6 (Penalty Surcharges), 17 (Penalty Surcharges), 22 (Penalty Surcharges), 24-2 (Penalty Surcharges), 28 (Penalty Surcharges), 31-2 (Penalty Surcharges) and 34-2 (Penalty Surcharges) of the Act shall be as shown in the attached Table 2.

[Attachment 2]

9. Criteria for the imposition of penalty surcharges under the provisions of the Acts related to the violation of the table in the main sentence; 10. Within 5/100 of the budget amount for the year in which the violation of the enterprisers' organization under Article 26 (1) of the Act ends;

3. Details and judgment of both parties

(a) Contents of the assertion;

(1) The defendant's assertion

The Defendant asserted that the instant disposition was lawful on the ground of the foregoing disposition. However, during the instant lawsuit, the Defendant added and amended the applicable provisions of the law regarding the constituent company’s act of interference with its business activities to Article 26(1)3 of the Fair Trade Act, among the acts of interference with Plaintiff’s business activities, and asserts that the instant disposition is lawful upon the application of the aforementioned applicable law, even if some errors were found in the application of the initial applicable law.

(2) The plaintiffs' assertion

The plaintiffs asserts that the disposition of this case should be revoked because it is illegal as well as the illegal grounds for the individual act.

(A) The Plaintiff’s Central Council was found to have suffered damage to the local agents due to irregularities, such as unfair price increases by some agencies in Seoul, Gyeonggi-do, and excessive payment of goods, and it was merely a friendship group voluntarily created without the involvement of three companies, and thus, it did not have any substantive nature as an enterprisers’ organization. In addition, the Plaintiff’s Local Council was not related to the Plaintiff’s nature as the Plaintiff’s Central Council, as it was the biological group of the entrepreneurs in each region where the Plaintiff’s Central Council was established, or the regional agencies association of each region where the Plaintiff had been located before the establishment of the Central Council. Accordingly, even if the business owners belonging to the Regional Council committed a violation of the law, it cannot be deemed as the act of the Plaintiff’s Central Council, and from other perspective, the instant disposition that reported the violation of the law of the Regional Council as the act of the Plaintiff’s Central Council was unlawful.

(B) In order to determine the rate of violation of Article 26(1) of the Fair Trade Act, it is insufficient to say that the “agreement” was made to engage in unfair collaborative acts contrary to Article 19(1) of the Fair Trade Act, and there should be “act of unfairly restricting competition.” The act of the Plaintiff’s Central Council to jointly engage in an act under Article 19(1)1 or 8 of the Fair Trade Act with three companies, and the act of the instant disposition based on the participation of other Plaintiffs in the agreement is unlawful due to misunderstanding of legal principles.

(C) The Plaintiff’s Central Council constitutes an association established by meeting the requirements stipulated in each subparagraph of Article 60 of the Fair Trade Act, and thus, it is not subject to the Fair Trade Act without the Defendant’s approval. Thus, the instant disposition based on the Fair Trade Act is unlawful

(D) Even if the plaintiffs' act was unlawful, the amount of the plaintiffs' profit was not considered at all, and the order to pay the penalty surcharge in this case, which imposes a higher penalty than the total amount of the net income for the three-year period of the plaintiffs according to arbitrary standards without specifying what the plaintiffs' specific illegal act was committed, is unlawful as it deviates from and abused the limits of their discretion.

B. Determination on the legality of the disposition

(1) The relationship between the organization of the central council and the regional council

Article 2 subparag. 4 of the Fair Trade Act provides that "the enterprisers' organization" refers to a combination or federation thereof organized by two or more enterprisers for the purpose of increasing their common interests, regardless of its form. The 20 promoters composed of three members representing each distribution company and each region have deteriorated their business environment, such as the proliferation of joint purchase, shall hold a meeting for establishing the Central Council to jointly cope with them, and if the two members consisting of eight members including only the above-mentioned water supply company, the organization has established its own articles of association. The fact that the 67 regional council was formed, and the organization of the Central Council was engaged in its activities with the direction, encouragement, and inspection of the plaintiffs. As such, comprehensively taking account of the above 6-7 and 11's articles of association adopted by the Central Council, "the 20th regional council" and "the 3rd regional council shall be established with the aim of establishing the Central Council," and "the 4th regional council shall be established with the content of its business activities related to the establishment and sale of membership fees," and "the 6th regional council" shall be established.

(2) Activities of an enterprisers' organization

Article 26 (1) of the Fair Trade Act provides that "agreement" under Article 19 (1) of the Fair Trade Act shall not be sufficient to determine "prohibited acts of an enterprisers' organization." However, in order to establish the acts of an enterprisers' organization, there is a decision-making to the extent that it can be recognized as a whole as a member organization such as a general meeting, board of directors, executive council, etc., and a decision-making as a whole as an organization, and there is sufficient awareness that such a decision-making will be complied with by a member organization, and there is no need to implement such a decision-making. According to the above facts, the reason for the disposition in this case is that the Central Council has passed several meetings with three companies to determine the selling price of student uniforms, and it is not clear whether the acts of the plaintiffs' organization in this case were in violation of Article 19 (1) of the Fair Trade Act and its contents were carried out through a regional council, and therefore, it is not clear that the remaining acts of the plaintiffs' organization in this case were not related to the acts of the plaintiff 1's enterprisers in this case.

(3) Activities relating to the selling price;

(A) As acknowledged earlier, the Plaintiff’s Central Council held three and several meetings during the attendance of the Plaintiffs, and resolved to maintain the student uniform price at a certain level according to regional characteristics by presenting methods of determining or standards for the selling price of student uniforms, and inspected the situation and outcome of the regional council from time to time to time for the implementation of the resolution. This is an act of unfairly restricting competition between three company total sales or agencies as “an act of determining, maintaining, or changing the price” under Article 19(1)1 of the Fair Trade Act and “an act of determining, maintaining, or changing the price.”

(B) As to this, the Plaintiffs asserted that the Central Council’s 400 student uniform sales agencies with no representation from among the 400 student uniform sales agencies across the country, and that the 20 student uniform sales agencies were merely the friendship organizations created by the 20 student organizations, and that the resolution of the Plaintiff’s consumer price etc. was made by the Central Council, and that the said resolution would not have the effect of practically restricting competition in the student uniform market.

Therefore, as seen earlier, the facts that the Plaintiff’s Central Council, which was established by the 20 promoters of each company and region, passed a resolution on matters concerning the selling price, etc. of school uniforms jointly with three companies whose market share exceeds 50% as of 2000, and was under the control of the regional council by the method of punishing the business operators who violate the contents of the resolution, at any time in order to implement the resolution. This constitutes an act of restricting competition in the student uniform sales market by preventing or restricting the free decision-making of prices, etc. according to its business strategies. Thus, the Plaintiffs’ above assertion is without merit.

(4) Interference with business activities

(A) According to the above facts, Plaintiff’s Central Council has interfered with Plaintiff’s participation in the joint purchase activities of school uniforms promoted by the parents’ association, etc., and this constitutes an act of obstructing or restricting the free business activities or activities of three members of the three companies, who are members of the three companies, as well as the free business activities or activities of ordinary student clothes producers and distributors who do not deal with the three companies, and also the act of Plaintiff’s Central Council passed a resolution to prohibit or restrict the agency’s offering of goods and promotional products, and whether the department store shop occupants are located in the regional council and implemented the contents of the resolution through the regional council constitutes an act of unreasonably restricting the free business activities or activities of three members of the three companies, which are members of the three companies, and the non-member companies belonging to the regional council.

(B) As to this, the plaintiffs asserted that the plaintiffs' oppose to the joint purchase of student uniforms is justifiable declaration of intent of three agencies, and thus, it cannot be deemed an act that restricts other enterprisers' business activities. However, if the third parties agree to jointly respond to the bidding at the meeting on January 26, 1999, the plaintiffs' Central Council shall conduct a signature campaign at the meeting on June 25 of the same year, shall consult on a joint response plan through at least six meetings, such as participating in the bidding in the name of the subcontractor, and a resolution to exclude the joint purchase in the name of the subcontractor, and the fact that the bidding is unnecessary or delayed through the regional consultative council is recognized as above. Thus, the plaintiffs' assertion on this premise shall not be deemed as legitimate declaration of intent of the rest of the plaintiffs participating in the bidding, including the plaintiffs' Central Council, and it is without merit.

(C) In addition, the Plaintiffs asserts that the resolution made by the Plaintiff Central Council on the prohibition of excessive and stolen goods, which exceed the statutory limit, is merely a legitimate act to rectify irregularitiess caused by excessive competition among the constituent enterprisers, and that the refusal to sell the department store is an inevitable option to ensure the normal sales performance of student uniforms agents in a situation where the department store stores increase the fees to up to 18% by taking advantage of their superior position, and thus does not constitute an act of unfairly restricting competition.

The purport of Article 26 (1) 3 of the Fair Trade Act provides that "an act unreasonably restricting the business contents or activities of member enterprisers" as prohibited acts of member enterprisers is to promote the common interests of member enterprisers. Thus, even if it is planned to impose a certain limit on the member enterprisers' business activities by the organization's decision in order to achieve its purpose, if the contents of the resolution are to excessively restrict the business contents or activities of member enterprisers and to the extent that it impedes fair and free competition among member enterprisers, it shall not be permitted (see Supreme Court Decision 2001Du175, Jun. 15, 2001, etc.). In this case, even if there was an irregularities as alleged by the plaintiffs as to the payment of free gifts, etc. between the agents, it shall not be permitted to allow the third company's general sales or agency's act of unfairly restricting the business contents or activities of member enterprisers, and it shall not be required that the student uniform sales or agency's act of selling the products, etc., and it shall not be considered that it constitutes a fair and free competition among member enterprisers.

(D) The plaintiffs asserted that even if they interfered with or restricted the business activities of the agents belonging to regional councils by the resolution of the measures to cope with joint purchase, the provision of private goods or promotional products, and the resolution of matters concerning the sales of department stores, such restriction constitutes an act of restricting the business activities of the member agents under Article 26(1)3 of the Fair Trade Act, and that this part of the disposition made by applying Article 19(1)8 of the Fair Trade Act is unlawful, although it cannot be viewed as an act of obstructing the business activities of other enterprisers under Article 19(1)8 of the Fair Trade Act.

However, Article 26 (1) 3 of the Fair Trade Act separately prohibits an enterprisers' organization from unfairly restricting its business contents or activities. Thus, in order to constitute an act falling under Article 26 (1) 1 and Article 19 (1) 8 of the Fair Trade Act, an enterprisers' organization shall not engage in an act that interferes with or restricts the business activities of other enterprisers who do not participate in the collaborative act as its member enterprisers. However, the act of obstructing the joint purchase of student uniforms promoted by the National Council of Students' Associations constitutes an act that restricts the free business activities or activities of three company members as well as the free business activities or three company members, which intend to participate in the joint purchase of student uniforms, and the agency's act of restricting or restricting the free business activities or activities of the members or three company members, which belong to the regional council, and the defendant's act of obstructing the business activities of the plaintiff's central council is governed by Article 26 (1) 1 and Article 26 (1) 6 of the Fair Trade Act. Thus, the defendant's act of obstructing the plaintiff's activities is justified by Article 16 (1) of the Fair Trade Act.

However, barring any special circumstance, whether an administrative disposition is legitimate or not shall be determined on the basis of the ground at the time of the disposition, and it cannot be deemed that adding or modifying only the basis laws and regulations for the disposition to the extent that it does not change the specific facts specified at the time of the disposition is an addition to the new ground for disposition. In such a case, it is unnecessary for the disposition authority to determine the legitimacy of the disposition by applying the amended Acts and subordinate statutes after adding or modifying the specific facts specified at the time of the disposition (see Supreme Court Decision 87Nu603, Jan. 19, 198, etc.). Accordingly, Article 26 (1) 3 of the Fair Trade Act applies to the act of interference with business activities of members of the regional council of the central council of the Plaintiff during the lawsuit in this case against the member of the regional council of the central council of the Plaintiff, thereby revising the relevant applicable Acts and subordinate statutes

(5) Whether the Fair Trade Act is excluded

In order for the plaintiff's Central Council to constitute an association excluded from the application of the law under Article 60 of the Fair Trade Act, it shall be composed of small-scale enterprisers who are deemed necessary to meet all the requirements prescribed in each subparagraph of Article 60 of the Fair Trade Act, such as where persons other than small-scale enterprisers join the association. Further, the act does not constitute an increase in the price by restricting unfair trade practices or unfair competition. Here, the case of increase in the price includes not only the case of an active increase in the price but also the case of a decrease in the price that can not be passive reduced. However, according to the evidence adopted above, it cannot be seen that the above act of the plaintiff Bosung U.S., among the plaintiffs, constitutes a decrease in the total sales price of 17.8 billion won from November 1, 1998 to March 2001, and it cannot be seen that the above act of the plaintiff's Central Council cannot be seen as a small-scale one billion won from among the above acts of raising the price of expenses by small-scale enterprisers.

(6) Whether the penalty surcharge payment order is unlawful

Article 28 (1) [Attachment 2] of the Enforcement Decree of the Fair Trade Act provides that an enterprisers' organization engaged in prohibited acts of enterprisers shall impose a penalty surcharge not exceeding 5/100 of the budget amount for the year in which the violation ends; and that an participating enterpriser shall impose a penalty surcharge not exceeding 5/100 of the sales amount of goods related to the period of violation; and considering the whole purport of pleadings as to Eul evidence 1-2, considering the contents, period, degree and ripple effect of restricting competition; 5% of the budget amount as of March 2001 when the violation ends; 3% of the sales amount from November 1, 1998 to March 201, 201; and 2% of the total amount of the penalty surcharge as to the plaintiffs who participated in the Central Council's activities as officers of the Central Council; and 3% of the total amount of the penalty surcharge as of March 1, 2001, which is relatively small among the total amount of the plaintiffs' participation in the order; and 15% of the total amount of the plaintiffs' profits.

(7) Sub-committee

Therefore, the act of determining, maintaining, and changing the selling price of the Plaintiff’s Central Council shall be deemed to fall under Article 26(1)1 and Article 19(1)1 of the Fair Trade Act; the act of obstructing business activities of other enterprisers than constituent enterprisers among the acts of obstructing business activities shall be deemed to fall under Article 26(1)1 and Article 19(1)8 of the Fair Trade Act; and the act of obstructing business activities of constituent enterprisers falls under Article 26(1)3 of the Fair Trade Act; and the remaining plaintiffs except the Plaintiff’s Central Council shall be deemed to be the enterprisers who participated in the prohibited acts of the enterprisers’ organization under Article 28(2) of the Fair Trade Act; therefore, the disposition of this case based on Articles 27, 28(1) and (2) of the Fair Trade Act shall be deemed to be legitimate.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims seeking revocation on the premise that the disposition of this case is illegal are dismissed in all of the above grounds. It is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment List omitted]

Judges Mobile-Smoking (Presiding Judge)