logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대법원 2017.05.30 2015두48884
시정명령및과징금납부명령취소
Text

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

Reasons

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

A. Article 22 of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act (hereinafter “Fair Trade Act”) provides for the scope of imposing a penalty surcharge not exceeding the amount calculated by multiplying the amount of sales determined by the Presidential Decree by 10/100 (in the case of absence of sales, 2 billion won) on a business entity that committed an unfair collaborative act by the Defendant.

According to delegation, Article 9(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act (hereinafter “Enforcement Decree of the Fair Trade Act”) provides that “Sales determined by the Presidential Decree” in the main text of Article 22 of the Fair Trade Act refers to the sales of related goods or services sold in a particular business area during the period of violation or equivalent amount (hereinafter “related sales”).” However, the proviso provides that “in the event of a bid collusion or any other similar act, it refers to a contract amount.” However, the meaning of “sales determined by the Presidential Decree” in relation to the imposition of penalty surcharges against a business operator who participated in the bidding collusion is clarified.

In addition, the penalty surcharge system for such unfair collaborative acts aims to achieve the administrative purpose of depriving of the illegal economic benefits obtained by such unfair collaborative acts and suppressing the unfair collaborative acts, and in particular, considering that the illegality of the bidding collusion and other similar acts are serious, it is introduced as a policy to impose penalty on the basis of the contract price in order to ensure the effectiveness of sanctions.

In this context, the teleological interpretation that takes into account the legislative intent and purpose, etc. is entirely excluded when examining the meaning of the "contractual amount", which is the basis for calculating the penalty surcharge for bid collusion and similar acts.

arrow