The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the ground of appeal No. 1, the court shall render a judgment of fact-finding with free conviction in accordance with logical and empirical rules on the basis of social justice and equity, taking into account the overall purport of pleadings and the result of the examination of evidence, so long as it does not exceed the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence, the value judgment and fact-finding belong to the discretion of the fact-finding court, and the

(1) The court below held that (1) the Plaintiff’s act constitutes a “unfair price maintenance” prohibited under Article 29(1) of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act (amended by Act No. 11406, Mar. 21, 2012; hereinafter “Fair Trade Act”) and determined that the Plaintiff’s act constitutes a “unfair price maintenance” prohibited under Article 29(1) of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act, and that the Plaintiff’s act constitutes a “unfair price maintenance” under Article 29(2) recognizes that the Plaintiff’s act of resale price maintenance has restricted competition among the Plaintiff’s transaction partners, and that the Plaintiff’s act of resale price maintenance has caused restriction on the relevant product between the Plaintiff’s transaction partners and the Plaintiff’s employees, etc., and that it is difficult to deem that the Plaintiff’s act of resale price maintenance has a legitimate effect of promoting competition or that it is not reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff’s act of resale price maintenance has an effect of restricting competition.

The part of the ground of appeal disputing the fact-finding among the judgment of the court below is nothing more than the choice of evidence and the judgment of value of evidence belonging to the free trial of the fact-finding court.