The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

A. In the context of “agreement that unfairly limits competition” prohibited by Article 19(1) of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act (hereinafter “Fair Trade Act”), the essence of “agreement” lies in the communication among two or more enterprisers. This includes not only explicit agreement but also implied agreement (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Du19298, Nov. 14, 2013).

(1) Based on its adopted evidence, the lower court examined the following facts: (a) the Defense Acquisition Program Administration and the Agency for Defense Development (hereinafter referred to as the “National Defense Agency”) promoting a long-term reporting-III project, which is independently designed and secured domestically; (b) the proposal for the selection of one company at the time of the combat system, and the head report-III small and medium enterprises (hereinafter referred to as the “instant small and medium enterprises”); (c) the public offering for the selection of three companies at the time of the pilot system (the system comprehensive, the tugboat model, the tugboat model arrangement system); and (d) the public offering for the selection of three companies (the tugboat model, the tugboat model; hereinafter referred to as the “instant small and medium enterprises”) prior to the implementation of the two projects, the Plaintiff and the Agency for Defense Development (hereinafter referred to as the “Agency”). (c) the public offering for two separate bidding projects, among the small and medium systems of this case, have been conducted by 10,000,0000 won prior to the implementation of the two projects, 20,003 or more.