[1] The standard for determining whether a transaction constitutes “trade under substantially favorable conditions” under Article 23(1)7 of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act

[2] Whether the parent company's act of supporting the subsidiary company which owns 100% of shares is subject to regulation of unfair supporting act (affirmative)

[3] In a case where there are special circumstances where the individual normal interest rate is deemed not to lower the general normal interest rate, whether the general normal interest rate may be applied to the calculation of the normal interest rate for determining the apparentness of the support act (affirmative)

[4] Whether the act of maintaining a lease agreement entered into with the support entity prior to the enforcement of the provision on unfair support constitutes an act of support to which the provision on unfair support applies (negative)

[5] Even if the Fair Trade Commission orders a single penalty surcharge for multiple violations, only the part of the penalty surcharge for some violations can be revoked

[6] Whether the act of not simply withdrawing funds provided to the support entity before the enforcement of the provision on the act of improper support constitutes an act of improper financial support (negative)

[7] The case holding that where the interest on the loan to the applicant was not recovered after the enforcement of the provision on the act of improper assistance before the regulation on the act of improper assistance was enacted, the act of improper assistance can be an act of improper assistance

[1] Whether a transaction constitutes a transaction under substantially favorable terms under Article 23(1)7 of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act shall be determined on a specific and individual basis by comprehensively taking into account not only the difference between the payment and the consideration, but also the economic benefits arising from the scale of support and the act of support, the period and frequency of support, the timing and timing of support, the economic situation at the time of support, etc.

[2] Even if the parent company is a subsidiary (wholly owned subsidiary) holding 100% of shares, both are legally separate and independent traders. Since the concept of "other company" under Article 23 (1) 7 of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act, which provides the objects of unfair support, does not explicitly exclude a wholly owned subsidiary from the support object, the support act between the parent company and the wholly owned subsidiary is also subject to the regulation under Article 23 (1) 7 of the same Act.

[3] In calculating the normal interest rate for determining the substantialness of the act of assistance, the average of the party interest rate at the end of each month of a commercial bank announced by the Bank of Korea is a temporary short-term loan interest rate based on the party loan agreement, which is generally higher than the general loan interest rate, such as the ordinary commercial paper loan rate, and thus, it cannot be immediately applied as the normal interest rate solely on the ground that it is difficult to calculate the individual normal interest rate. However, in special circumstances where the individual normal interest rate is deemed not lower than the ordinary interest rate, the general ordinary interest rate may be applied as the normal interest rate even if it is impossible to specify the individual normal interest rate specifically.

[4] Since the subject matter of regulation on unfair support is the provision of funds or the transactional act based on the degree of support, if there is an offering or transaction of funds, the act of financial support is established immediately, and the benefit gained by the object of support is merely an economic effect caused by such an act. Thus, the act of maintaining a lease agreement entered into with the object of support before April 1, 1997 when the provision on unfair support was enforced with the object of support does not constitute an act of support to which the above provision is applied merely by simply maintaining the above provision in accordance with the original contract without special circumstances to the extent that it can be the same as the act of providing new support, such as extending the lease term after the enforcement of the above provision.

[5] In a case where the Fair Trade Commission orders the payment of a penalty surcharge for multiple violations when it imposes a penalty surcharge for an unfair support act, but there are data that can calculate the amount of a penalty surcharge on the basis of a part of the offenses, which is illegal and illegal, among the multiple offenses, only the part corresponding to the amount of a penalty surcharge for a part of the offenses, the revocation of which is unlawful, may be revoked even if the payment order is issued for a single penalty surcharge.

[6] It is reasonable to interpret that such omission as obtaining financial benefits by failing to recover funds, which are costs from transactions of assets, services, etc. with intent to provide funds after April 1, 1997, even after the maturity date, is also included in the act of providing financial assistance. However, unless there are special circumstances to deem that non-recovered omission, such as extending the maturity date of payment after the enforcement of the provision on the act of providing financial assistance, can be the same as the act of providing financial assistance, the act of not simply failing to recover funds to the subsidized entity after the enforcement of the above provision does not constitute an act of providing financial assistance.

[7] The case holding that where the interest on the loan to the applicant was not recovered after the enforcement of the provision on the act of improper support before the regulation on the act of improper support was enacted, it does not constitute an act of improper support, but the extension of the repayment date of the above loan constitutes a special case that can be deemed as the act of new financial support and thus, it can be an act of improper support.

[1] Article 23 (1) 7 of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act / [2] Article 23 (1) 7 of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act / [3] Article 23 (1) 7 of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act, Article 36 (1) 10 (a) of the Enforcement Decree of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act / [4] Article 23 (1) 7 of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act / [5] Article 27 of the Administrative Litigation Act, Article 55-3 of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act / [6] Article 23 (1) 7 of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act / [7] Article 23 (1) 7 of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 2001Du2881 Decided October 14, 2004 (Gong2004Ha, 1833) Supreme Court Decision 2001Du2935 Decided October 14, 2004 (Gong2004Ha, 1845) Supreme Court Decision 2003Du15171 Decided February 10, 2006 (Gong2006Sang, 432) Supreme Court Decision 2004Du307 Decided July 13, 2006 / [2] [3/46] Supreme Court Decision 2001Du2034 Decided November 12, 2004; Supreme Court Decision 2004Du30484 Decided April 14, 2006 / [209Du309484 Decided April 24, 2006]

Samsung SDR Co., Ltd and three others (Law Firm Rate, Attorneys Shin Sung-si et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Samsung Electronic Co., Ltd. and two others

Fair Trade Commission (Law Firm Song, Attorney Lee Jae-hwan, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 98Nu13081 delivered on December 23, 2003

1. The following parts of the judgment below are reversed, and this part of the case is remanded to Seoul High Court:

A. The part against the Plaintiffs regarding the Plaintiff’s act of leasing the International Management Training Institute for Samsung C&E Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronic Co., Ltd, Samsung Fire and Marine Insurance Co., Ltd. and Samsung Life Insurance

B. The part against the Defendant regarding the extension of the repayment date of loans among the lending of funds to the Plaintiff Samsung Heavy Heavy Industries Co., Ltd.

2. Each of the appeals by the Plaintiff Samsung Tteur Co., Ltd. and Samsung Heavy Industries Co., Ltd. and the remaining appeals by the Plaintiff Samsung Este Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronic Co., Ltd., Samsung Fire Marine Insurance Co., Ltd., Samsung Burland Co., Ltd, Samsung

3. Of the costs of appeal, the costs of appeal by Plaintiff Samsung Ttec Commission and Samsung Heavy Industries Co., Ltd are assessed against the same Plaintiffs.

1. Judgment on the plaintiffs' grounds of appeal

A. As to the part concerning the purchase of corporate bills issued by the Plaintiff Samsung Insurance Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Plaintiff Samsung Heavy Bio”) and the Plaintiff Samsung Samsung Heavy Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Plaintiff Samsung Samsung Heavy”)

The issue of whether a condition significantly favorable to the interests provided for in Article 23(1)7 of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act (hereinafter “the Act”) is a transaction should be determined specifically and individually by comprehensively taking into account not only the difference between the benefits and the consideration, but also the economic benefits arising from the scale of support and the amount of support, the period and frequency of support, the timing of support, the economic situation at the time of support, etc. (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Du15171, Feb. 10, 2006).

In full view of the selected evidence, the lower court: (a) concluded an agreement with the Plaintiff Samsung 2 on April 1, 197 to maintain the status of the Plaintiff Samsung 1’s Samsung 2’s purchase of Samsung 2’s new bonds at KRW 10 billion, KRW 20 billion, or KRW 50 billion, respectively; and (b) concluded an agreement with the Plaintiff Samsung 3’s trust at KRW 10 billion, KRW 10 billion, KRW 2000,000,000, and KRW 500,000,000, KRW 300,000,000,000,000 issued by the Plaintiff Samsung 1’s new bonds at KRW 10,000,000,000,00 more than KRW 9,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 more than KRW 18,50,000,00.

In light of the above legal principles and records, we affirm the fact-finding and judgment of the court below as just, and there is no error of law such as misunderstanding of facts against the rules of evidence or misunderstanding of legal principles as to the presentation of reasons for disposition, or misunderstanding of legal principles as to improper support.

B. As to the part of the Plaintiff Samsung Heavyland’s act of lending funds to the Plaintiff Samsung Heavy Heavy Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Irtland”).

Even if a parent company owns 100% of shares of a subsidiary (hereinafter referred to as "wholly owned subsidiary"), both parties are legally separate and independent traders. Since the concept of "other company" under Article 23 (1) 7 of the Act, which provides the objects of unfair support, has no express provision to exclude wholly owned subsidiaries from the objects of support, the act of support between a parent company and a wholly owned subsidiary is also subject to Article 23 (1) 7 of the Act (see Supreme Court Decision 2001Du2034, Nov. 12, 2004). In calculating the normal interest rate for determining the apparentness of support, the average interest rate of loans per commercial bank as of the end of each month of a commercial bank announced by the Bank of Korea (hereinafter referred to as "ordinary interest rate" is calculated by averaging all of the balance of loans implemented by a bank bank loan contract as of the end of the relevant month, and since the concept of "ordinary loan interest rate" under Article 23 (1) 7 of the Act provides for the objects of unfair support, it is difficult to apply the ordinary interest rate per general rate per se.

Examining the record in light of the aforementioned legal principles and the legal principles as to the transaction under significantly favorable terms as seen earlier, it is clear that the Plaintiff Samsung C&T’s subsidiaries are included in the subject matter of regulation on unfair support even if it is the Plaintiff Samsung C&T’s subsidiaries. At the time of the instant loan, it was faced with the financial crisis as well as the company in which the capital was de facto impaired due to consecutive deficit at the time of the instant loan. In the end, the individual normal interest rate on the deferred loan is likely to not lower the ordinary interest rate. In such a case, the normal interest rate is the normal interest rate, and it is possible to determine whether the instant loan is a transaction under significantly favorable terms and conditions. Under such circumstances, the Plaintiff Samsung C&T’s act of providing the Plaintiff Samsung C&T’s capital amounting to KRW 2.5 billion, annual sales amounting to KRW 450,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00,00.

The fact-finding and decision of the court below to the same purport are justified, and there is no error of law such as misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as to the presentation of reasons for disposition due to violation of the rules of evidence or misunderstanding of legal principles as to unfair support acts, as

C. As to the leased part of the Plaintiff Samsung Bio-resources, Samsung Fire and Marine Insurance Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Plaintiff Samsung Fire”) and Samsung Heavy Industries Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Plaintiff Samsung Heavy Industries”)’s lease of the automobile sales place

In full view of the adopted evidence, the court below acknowledged that the plaintiff Samsung Heavy Industries, the Samsung Heavy Industries, from October 1997 to March 31, 1998, leased the Samsung Heavy Industries (hereinafter "T&T") a rental deposit and the rent of KRW 6.74 billion in total, and the rent of KRW 1.70 million in total, were delayed for 1.7 billion to 1.9 months and 9 months. The court below determined that the plaintiff Samsung Heavy Heavy Industries could be included in the assets subject to transfer in the course of the consultation because it was possible for the plaintiff Samsung Heavy Industries to receive the rental deposit and monthly rent until the above building becomes excluded from the transfer subject to transfer due to the lack of the above plaintiff's subjective circumstances, and thus, it cannot be deemed that there was a justifiable reason for the above plaintiff's failure to receive the rental deposit and monthly rent, and even if the above construction was leased at a price equivalent to the interest rate corresponding to the above delayed period, the amount of the Samsung Heavy Heavy Industries's sales cannot be viewed as a different amount.

In light of the aforementioned legal principles and records, the fact-finding and judgment of the court below are justified. There is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the misconception of facts or presentation of reasons for disposition due to violation of the rules of evidence or in the misapprehension of legal principles as to improper support, as otherwise alleged in the grounds of appeal.

D. As to the Plaintiff Samsung F&E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Plaintiff Samsung F&E”), Samsung Electronic Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Plaintiff Samsung E&E”), Samsung Bio-resources, and Samsung Fire’s international management and training institute leasing of the Plaintiff Samsung F&E

(1) After compiling the adopted evidence, the court below acknowledged the facts as stated in its holding, and determined that the lease of the International Management Training Institute for Samsung C&T owned by the plaintiff Samsung E&E, Samsung Electronic, Samsung Bio-resources, and Samsung Fire (hereinafter the above four companies collectively referred to as "the plaintiff Samsung F&E") was based on the five-year contract concluded at the end of 1994, which was before the enactment of the unfair support act, and thus, the unfair support act cannot be established for the remainder of the contract period after the enforcement of the provision on unfair support act. However, the court below rejected the above claim on the ground that the provision on the unfair support act newly enacted in the above continuous contractual relationship also applies to the above continuous contractual relationship, and that the lease of the International Management Training Institute for the plaintiff Samsung F&E et al. by the plaintiff Samsung F&E constitutes an unfair support act in the form of lease.

(2) However, the lower court’s determination is difficult to accept for the following reasons.

Since the subject matter of regulation on unfair support acts is the provision or transaction of funds based on the degree of support, if there is any provision or transaction of funds with the intent of financial support, the act of financial support is established immediately. Accordingly, the profit gained by the object of support is merely an economic effect caused by such act. Thus, prior to April 1, 1997 when the provision on unfair support was enforced, the act of maintaining a lease agreement entered into with the object of support with the object of support does not constitute an act of support to which the above provision is applied merely by simply maintaining the lease agreement in accordance with the original contract without special circumstances to the extent that it can be the same as the act of new support, such as extending the lease term after the enforcement of the above

According to the records, four companies, including the plaintiff Samsung SDR, entered into a lease contract with Samsung C&T on December 12, 1994 by setting the term of lease of five years, and maintain the original lease contract thereafter, and there is no special circumstance that can be deemed the same as the new support act. Thus, the provision of unfair support is not applicable since April 1, 1997 during the above term of lease.

Nevertheless, the lower court determined that the act of leasing an international management training institute constitutes an unfair support act solely for the reason that the lease contract is maintained between the four companies including the Plaintiff Samsung SDR and Samsung C&T. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the time and scope of application of the provision on unfair support act, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. The ground of appeal by

E. As to the act of leasing the Plaintiff Samsung F&E, Samsung electronics, Samsung Fire, Samsung Bio-resources, and Samsung C&C Commission (hereinafter “Plaintiff Samsung C&C Commission”)’s act of leasing the Plaintiff Samsung C&C training institute

The court below, based on its adopted evidence, acknowledged the facts as stated in its reasoning. The court below rejected the above plaintiffs' assertion that the five companies, including the plaintiff Samsung F&I, Samsung E&I, SamsungM, Samsung Fire, Samsung Bio-resources, and Samsung C&C (hereinafter the above five companies combined with the above five companies, "five companies including the plaintiff Samsung F&I, etc.") jointly own the plaintiff Samsung Heavy Industries Research and Training Institute, but in the form of the plaintiff Samsung Heavy Industries's sole ownership, and the five companies, including the plaintiff Samsung F&I, share the expenses for its establishment, operation, and management in the form of rent, on the ground that there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge it, and determined that the above lease act of Samsung C&I, as a financial support act of borrowing the form of lease, was an unfair support act.

In light of the aforementioned legal principles and records, the fact-finding and judgment of the court below are justified. There is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the misconception of facts or presentation of reasons for disposition due to violation of the rules of evidence or in the misapprehension of legal principles as to improper support, as otherwise alleged in the grounds of appeal.

F. On the partial revocation of a penalty surcharge payment order

In the event that the defendant ordered the payment of a penalty surcharge for multiple offenses when the defendant imposes the penalty surcharge for the illegal acts, but there are data that can calculate the penalty surcharge based on the illegal act and some of the offenses in the lawsuit, only the part corresponding to the penalty surcharge for some of the offenses against which the disposition is revoked can be revoked even if the payment order is issued for one penalty surcharge.

Upon examining the records in light of the above legal principles, since the penalty surcharge imposed by the defendant against each of the plaintiffs can be revoked only on the grounds that materials revealing the amount of violation and the basis for calculation, the judgment of the court below to the same purport is just, and there are no errors in the misapprehension of legal principles as to partial revocation of the penalty surcharge, as otherwise alleged in the grounds for appeal.

2. Judgment on the Defendant’s grounds of appeal

A. As to the part on the purchase of corporate bills issued by Plaintiff Samsung C&T

After compiling the adopted evidence, the court below acknowledged the facts as stated in its holding, and determined that the part of the part of the defendant's disposition of this case was unlawful on the ground that the part of the purchase of corporate bills in the amount of KRW 22.4 billion, which the plaintiff Samsung C&T purchased through a specified money trust account of the Korea-Japan Bank, from September 29, 1997, to December 29, 1997, which was 22.4 billion for the revolving period, does not meet the requirements of substantialness due to economic situation, difference in interest rates, etc

In light of the aforementioned legal principles and records, the fact-finding and judgment of the court below are justified, and there are no errors in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the transaction of significantly favorable terms, such as room for judgment or superior advantage of judgment, number of unfair assistance act, and transaction of substantially favorable terms, as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

B. As to the part on the purchase of corporate bills issued by the Plaintiff Samsung Bio-resources Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Korea-dozine”)

In light of the adopted evidence, the court below acknowledged that Plaintiff Samsung Bio-resources deposited KRW 20 billion in the specified money trust account of the commercial bank on October 16, 1997, and the commercial bank, the trustee, purchased at 12.82% of the discount rate of 20 billion won, which was issued by the above Plaintiff's blood independent management company, and that the above Plaintiff allowed the commercial bank to purchase the commercial papers of Korea-do Do Do Do Do Do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do e was in a relation with the above Plaintiff's establishment of the workplace Do Do Do do do do Do do do do do e-do and paid insurance premiums. The above Plaintiff also purchased the so-called "corporate Do Do Do do Do do Do do e-do Do Do e-do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do e-do.

Examining the aforementioned legal principles and records in light of the trade of substantially favorable terms as seen earlier, the court below's determination is just and acceptable, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the unfair support act, as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.

C. As to the part of the Plaintiff Samsung F&E’s act of leasing a factory to the Plaintiff Samsung C&E

According to the records, it is revealed that the lease contract for the above factory was concluded by taking into account the fact that the payment of rent is delayed because the plaintiff Samsung Este and the plaintiff Samsung Este have already used the above factory for three months, taking into account the fact that the above contract was made by the plaintiff Samsung Este and its unpaid rent for the use of the TFT-L CD production factory installed in its ceiling factory from January 1, 1998 to the plaintiff Samsung Cste who is an affiliated company on April 15, 1998 and the rent was paid after April 27, 1998. In light of the legal principles as to the trade under significantly favorable terms as seen earlier, the lease of the factory in this case cannot be deemed as a trade under substantially favorable terms.

The fact-finding and decision of the court below to the same purport is just, and there is no error of law such as misunderstanding of facts against the rules of evidence or misunderstanding of legal principles as to the presentation of reasons for disposition or unfair support.

D. As to the part of the Plaintiff Samsung C&T’s act of lending funds to the Plaintiff Samsung Heavy Development Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “U&T”)

(1) In full view of the admitted evidence, the court below determined as follows: (a) the Plaintiff Samsungland’s loan from March 1, 1995 to December 1996 to the Jindo did not collect interest of KRW 3.8.2 billion from KRW 18.1 billion until April 1998; (b) lent KRW 8.642 billion at interest rate of KRW 20 billion per annum from January 1, 1998 to December 31 of the same year; (c) the Jindo was a company with capital deficit continuously; (d) it was impossible to sell the loan from the outside; and (e) the Jindo, which was promoting the golf course business, could not be sold out due to the IMO’s economic crisis; and (e) there was no other evidence to acknowledge that it was unfair for the Plaintiff Samsungland’s loan repayment of interest at interest rate of KRW 18.2 billion to the Plaintiff Samsung Islands; and (e) it did not constitute an unfair extension of 9.7 billion from the first half of the loan to the first half of the loan development.

(2) It is reasonable to interpret that such omission as obtaining financial benefits by failing to recover funds as consideration from transactions of assets, services, etc. with intent to provide funds after April 1, 1997, when the provision on unfair subsidization was enforced, is also included in the act of providing financial assistance. However, unless there are special circumstances to deem that non-refluence, such as extending the maturity of payment after the provision on unfair subsidization, can be the same as the act of providing financial assistance, the act of not simply failing to recover funds to the applicant after the enforcement of the above provision does not constitute an act of providing financial assistance (see Supreme Court Decision 2001Du2034, Nov. 12, 2004).

Upon examining the records in light of the above legal principles, although the reasoning of the judgment below is somewhat inappropriate, the conclusion that the failure to recover interest does not constitute an unfair support act is justifiable, and there is no error of law such as misunderstanding of facts against the rules of evidence or misunderstanding of legal principles as to unfair support act, as otherwise alleged in the

(3) However, we cannot accept the judgment of the court below that the act of extending the repayment date of the above loan does not constitute an unfair support act.

Under the circumstances acknowledged by the court below, it is not merely a simple recovery since April 1, 1997 when the provision on the act of unfair support was enforced by the plaintiff Samsung Samsung Heavy, which lent 8.642 billion won to the plaintiff Samsung Heavy Development on 1996, and the repayment date was extended by one year around the end of 1997, which would cause the plaintiff Samsung Heavy Development to be exempted from liability for nonperformance. Thus, it constitutes a case where there are special circumstances that can be the same as the act of new financial support as the above mentioned.

Nevertheless, the court below, without examining and determining whether the extension of the repayment deadline is a transaction under significantly favorable terms, and further, without examining and determining whether such a transaction is unfair, determined that the extension of the repayment deadline was not an unfair support act solely for the same reason as the explanation. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the act of improper support or failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. The defendant's ground of appeal on this point is with merit.

E. As to the part on the Plaintiff Samsung Bio-resources, Samsung Fire, and Samsung Heavy Industries’s lease of a car seller

In light of the adopted evidence, the court below determined as follows: (a) between October 1997 and March 31, 1998, the plaintiff Samsung Heavy Industries leased the Samsung Heavy Industries Sales Complex to Samsung Heavy Heavy Industries Co., Ltd. (hereinafter "T&T") with a total of KRW 6.74 billion and rent of KRW 1.70 million for one or nine months; and (b) in the case of the plaintiff Samsung Heavy Heavy Co., Ltd, the plaintiff Samsung Heavy Heavy Co., Ltd., the plaintiff Samsung Heavy Co., Ltd. leased part of its building to Samsung Heavy Heavy Co., Ltd. and the plaintiff Samsung Heavy Co., Ltd., the plaintiff Samsung Heavy Co., Ltd. first concluded a provisional contract with the time of commencement of its business and concluded a provisional contract with the date of commencement of lease; (c) the plaintiff's act of leasing the 1st floor of the large building, the rent of which is limited to large-scale occupant Co., Ltd., Ltd., was not easy at the time of the above economic crisis; and (d) it was not easy at the above economic crisis.

In light of the aforementioned legal principles and records, although it cannot be deemed that there are economic benefits provided to Samsung C&T due to the act of leasing the plaintiff Samsung Bio-resources and Samsung Fire, it is inappropriate for the court below to find it improper. However, the conclusion that the above plaintiffs' act of renting the automobile sales place does not constitute an act of unfair support is justifiable, and there is no error of law such as misunderstanding of legal principles as to the act of unfair support, as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, among the judgment of the court below, the part against the above plaintiffs as to the act of leasing the international management training institute for four companies including the plaintiffs Samsung F&D and the part against the defendant as to the act of lending funds for the development of the plaintiff Samsung F&T, shall be reversed, and this part of the case shall be remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. The remaining appeals by the above plaintiffs and the defendant as well as the appeals by the plaintiff Samsung C&C and Samsung Heavy Industries are all dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent

Justices Park Si-hwan (Presiding Justice)