1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. Details of the instant disposition

A. The Plaintiff’s status as the parties is a company with water meter, gas meter, electric power meter, heat flow meter, heating flow meter manufacturing, repair and wholesale retail business, etc. The Defendant is a quasi-governmental institution under the Act on the Management of Public Institutions established for the purpose of developing electric resources under the Korea Electric Power Corporation Act (hereinafter “Public Institutions Operation Act”).

B. On October 23, 2014, the Fair Trade Commission decided on October 23, 2014, the Fair Trade Commission ordered the Plaintiff to take corrective measures prohibiting bid collusion and pay a penalty surcharge of KRW 180,000,000,000 to the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff, LSP Co., Ltd., Korea Electric Cable Co., Ltd., Ltd., Korea Electric Cable Co., Ltd., Ltd., Ltd., Inc., Ltd., Ltd., Ltd., Ltd., Ltd., Ltd., Ltd., Ltd., Ltd., Ltd., Ltd., Ltd., Ltd., Ltd., Ltd., Ltd., from 1993 to 2010, by agreement on the successful bid volume and bid price for each enterpriser in bidding on the mechanical electric volume purchase ordered by the Defendant, on the ground that the Plaintiff had conducted unfair collaborative acts as prescribed in Article 19(1)1 and 3 of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act.

(hereinafter “Fair Trade Commission’s resolution”). The Plaintiff’s violation subject to a corrective order and a penalty surcharge is the time of August 22, 2006 when there was a bid for the purchase of mechanical electric power system in the year 2006 in which the Plaintiff participated, and the period of termination of December 30, 2010 when there was a bid for the purchase of a simple 40 items in the year 2010, and has been conducting collaborative acts until then. The Fair Trade Commission imposed the imposition rate of 5% on the sum of the contract amount that the Plaintiff directly concluded with the Defendant (2008) and the contract amount that the Plaintiff entered into with the Defendant in the name of the partnership (2009), among the contract amount that the Plaintiff entered into with the Defendant, and the contract amount that the Plaintiff entered into with the Defendant.