1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. Plaintiff A Co., Ltd., Inc., Daz Information and Communications Technology Co., Ltd., Ltd., Hunaco Co., Ltd., Manaco Co., Ltd. (formerly named Oral Information and Communications System Co., Ltd.), Hanaco Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff Co., Ltd.”), Hanaco Co., Ltd., Hanaco Co., Ltd., Hanaco, Hanaco, Manaco, Manaco, Hanaco, and Hanaco,” and “Co., Ltd.” is omitted in the name of all companies; hereinafter referred to as “the instant business entity” is a business entity that manufactures and sells unmanned traffic monitoring devices under Article 2 subparag. 1 of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act (hereinafter referred to as the “Fair Trade Act”).

B. (1) The Fair Trade Commission decided March 3, 2011 to order the Plaintiff Company to take corrective measures and pay penalty surcharges (hereinafter “instant corrective measures and pay penalty surcharges”) and Article 19(1)8 of the former Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act (amended by Act No. 11406, Mar. 21, 2012) by engaging in the instant business entity’s unfair collaborative acts (hereinafter “instant collaborative acts”) as follows.

The instant business operators called the 16 local police agencies nationwide to purchase 95 unmanned traffic monitoring devices ordered through the Public Procurement Service from November 3, 2005 to September 30, 2008 (hereinafter “instant bidding”).

(2) On August 9, 201, Plaintiff Company filed a lawsuit against the Fair Trade Commission seeking the corrective order and the revocation of a penalty surcharge payment order against the Plaintiff Company, but the court did not engage in unfair collaborative acts, which are grounds for the disposition.