The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the ground of appeal No. 1, the lower court determined that the agreement in this case was made only after the date following the bidding in 2006, and thus, the bidding in 2006 did not have the effect of restricting competition that affects or is likely to affect the decision of successful bidding price, etc. by reducing competition among bidding participants.

The judgment below

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and there is no error of law such as misunderstanding of legal principles as to competition-restricted restrictions, misunderstanding of reasoning, omission of judgment, violation of the rules of evidence, etc.

2. As to the ground of appeal No. 2, the Fair Trade Commission may impose upon an enterpriser who has committed an unfair collaborative act a penalty surcharge calculated based on the sales of relevant goods or services sold in a particular business area during the period of

[Attachment 2] Article 22 of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act; Article 9(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act (Amended by Presidential Decree No. 23864, Jun. 19, 2012); Article 61(1) [Attachment 2] of the former Enforcement Decree of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act (Amended by Presidential Decree No. 22160, May 14, 2010)

2.(a)

In the calculation of related sales, the range of related goods is to be determined in consideration of the type and nature of goods which are directly or indirectly affected by the violation, trading area, trading partner, trading stage, etc.

The court below held that the agreement in this case is not subject to the tender in 2006, but cannot be deemed to have caused competition restriction in the bidding in 2006, and thus, the defendant's measure to include the sales revenue from the bidding in the relevant sales for calculating the penalty surcharge is unlawful.