[1] The meaning and scope of the latter part of Article 19(1) of the former Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 2035, Feb. 2, 199)

[2] The case holding that the act of a manufacturer and seller of telecommunications equipment, which is an existing system installer, in a bid market for the purchase of radio frequency public telecommunications equipment, cannot be deemed as constituting an unfair collaborative act (tender collusion) for three companies, such as allocating a demand source to the three companies in charge, or issuing a product supply confirmation and technical assistance confirmation to the total board other than the total board

[1] Article 19(1) of the former Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act (amended by Act No. 7315 of Dec. 31, 2004 and amended by Act No. 8631 of Aug. 3, 2007) / [2] Article 19(1) of the former Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act (amended by Act No. 7315 of Dec. 31, 2004 and amended by Act No. 8631 of Aug. 3, 2007)

Plaintiff (Attorneys Son Ji-yol et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Fair Trade Commission (Law Firm Barun, Attorneys Park Tae-tae et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2008Nu14854 decided Dec. 24, 2008

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

The former Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act (amended by Act No. 7315 of Dec. 31, 2004, and amended by Act No. 8631 of Aug. 3, 2007) newly established the provision that "no other business entity shall engage in any unfair collaborative act" in the latter part of Article 19 (1) in order to provide the grounds for the application of the same Act to any other business entity. In light of the legislative intent and process of the above provision, the relevant provision, the structure of the relevant provision, the pertinent provision, the pertinent provision, and the pertinent provision, and the fact that it is necessary to interpret it strictly as possible, in light of the above, the "act of causing another business entity to engage in any unfair collaborative act" in the latter part of Article 19 (1) refers to an act of inducing another business entity to engage in any unfair collaborative act, or an act equivalent thereto, and it does not include mere aiding and abetting another business entity to engage in any unfair collaborative act.

The judgment below to the same purport is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the prohibition of unfair collaborative acts.

2. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 2 through 4

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged the facts based on the comprehensive examination of the employment evidence, and determined that the act of allocating the plaintiff's total number of three companies, or the act of issuing product supply certificates and technical support certificates to the total number of companies other than the total number of companies in charge cannot be deemed to constitute an unfair collaborative act (tender collusion) against three companies in the total number of the company, or an act equivalent to it. In light of the above legal principles and records, the court below's fact-finding and judgment are just, and there is no error of law such as violation of the rules of evidence or incomplete deliberation.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Ahn Dai-hee (Presiding Justice)