1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the following amount ordered to be paid shall be revoked.

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant is a company that manufactures and sells milk products, beverages, etc., such as trial milk, fermentation milk, powder milk, chees, etc., through 1,800 retail nationwide (as of July 2013), and supplies products to large distributors or general retailers or supplies products through convenience stores to consumers.

The Defendant’s agency is classified into subdivisions, coffees, milk, fry, and beverage agents by item, and among the milk agencies dealing with the cryp and fermentation milk, the market agency is engaged in the “syp transaction” in which products are supplied from the Defendant to general retailers on its own account, and at the same time, the “entrusted transaction” in which products are supplied to large distributors on the Defendant’s account.

B. On November 1, 2006, the Plaintiff entered into an agency contract with the Defendant and entered into a contract on October 31, 2015, and operated a milk agency (market agency; hereinafter “Plaintiff agency”) that sells milk products supplied by the Defendant before the contract was terminated, and conducted wholesale transaction and consignment transaction concurrently.

The plaintiff's major wholesale transaction office is the Dong Neng Market joint brand formed by the federation of co-markets of Korea around April 1993. The entrusted trading office had Embrate B, Grand department C, and Barman D, etc.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry of Gap's 1 through 7, the purport of whole pleadings

2. Determination on the claim for damages due to forced purchase

A. A. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Defendant supplied the Plaintiff’s agency with the products whose distribution period was imminent, and the non-humanized products whose transmission rate was lower despite the Plaintiff’s failure to place an order, and confirmed the quantity supplied as above as the final order quantity, thereby allowing the Plaintiff to settle the price. The Defendant’s above act is “voluntary purchase” prohibited by Article 23 of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act (hereinafter “Fair Trade Act”).