The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. (1) According to Article 54(1) of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act (hereinafter “Fair Trade Act”), when a person intends to file a lawsuit of dissatisfaction with respect to a disposition of the Fair Trade Commission pursuant to the said Act, he/she shall file the lawsuit within 30 days from the date of receiving a notice of disposition or the date of receiving a certified copy of a written adjudication on an objection.

Where the purport of a claim is added, it appears that a new lawsuit is filed at the time of addition of the purport of the claim. Thus, compliance with the time period for filing a lawsuit against the additional purport of the claim should, in principle, be determined at the time of addition or modification of

(2) In light of the legal principles as seen earlier, if a prior disposition is a kind of provisional disposition in which the previous disposition is planned to be final and conclusive, and if a subsequent disposition is carried out, then the previous disposition is deemed to be extinguished by absorption of the previous disposition, and if a subsequent disposition is deemed to include the purport of seeking revocation of the subsequent disposition in a lawsuit seeking revocation of the previous disposition, then the period for filing a lawsuit seeking revocation of the previous disposition shall be determined based on the time when the first lawsuit seeking revocation of the previous disposition is filed, if the previous disposition is a kind of provisional disposition in which the previous disposition is planned to be final and conclusive, and if an illegal cause alleged to exist in the previous disposition also exists, and if the purport of seeking revocation of the subsequent disposition is also included.

(Supreme Court Decision 2010Du7796 Decided November 29, 2012; Supreme Court Decision 2011Du27544 Decided July 11, 2013; Supreme Court Decision 2015Du45953 Decided July 27, 2016). (2) According to the reasoning of the lower judgment, the following facts are revealed.

① On September 15, 2014, the Defendant ordered the Plaintiff to pay penalty surcharges of KRW 4.49 billion, which shall be imposed on the Plaintiff, and the same day shall be subject to the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act.