ZETex Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Rated, Attorneys Lee Do-won et al., Counsel for the defendant

Fair Trade Commission (Law Firm Gyeongsung, Attorneys Cho Byung-chul et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

November 9, 2011

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The Defendant’s corrective order and penalty surcharge payment order in attached Form 1 issued to the Plaintiff on April 23, 2010 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

On April 23, 2010, the Defendant issued a corrective order and a penalty surcharge payment order (hereinafter “instant disposition”) to the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff’s act, a liquefied petroleum gas business operator, constitutes Article 19(1)1 of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act (amended by Act No. 8635, Aug. 3, 2007; hereinafter “the Act”).

2. From the end of December 2002 to December 31, 2008, the sales price of LPG (hereinafter referred to as "large-scale gas") to be determined at the same 20-year charging company or the same 2-year charging company (hereinafter referred to as "2-year charging company"), which is similar to that of the Plaintiff, EPG company (hereinafter referred to as "large-scale gas company"), and the same 2-year charging company (hereinafter referred to as "SG filling company"), which is similar to that of the Plaintiff, EPG company (hereinafter referred to as "large-scale charging company"), was determined at the same 2-year charging company, which is similar to that of the Plaintiff, EPG company (hereinafter referred to as "E1"), and the Plaintiff shall be determined at the same 2-year charging company, which is similar to the Plaintiff's 2-year charging company, and the Plaintiff shall be determined at the same 4-day charging company and the same 4-day charging company (hereinafter referred to as "Plaintiff-Japan filling company, etc.").

[Ground of recognition] No dispute, Gap evidence 1-1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. As to the collaborative act of this case

1) The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff only decided the Plaintiff’s LPG sales price in the Plaintiff’s filling station as its own intention, and did not engage in any unfair collaborative act identical to that required for the instant disposition. However, the Plaintiff’s sales price in the filling station is similar to that of two import companies or other statics, which is an excessive structure, is due to the characteristics of the LPG market, the LPG is equal, and the products are equal.

2) Criteria for the formation of agreement on unfair collaborative acts

The phrase "agreement on unfair collaborative acts" under Article 19 (1) of the Act is consistent with the intent of two or more enterprisers to engage in such collaborative acts, and thus, if the existence of an agreement is recognized as "mutual relationship", it may be determined that there exists no special restriction on the method or form, and it may be limited to the cases where an implied agreement or implied agreement is required as well as an express case. Further, the presumption of agreement" under Article 19 (5) of the Act is the fact that "two or more enterprisers are engaged in any act falling under any of the subparagraphs of Article 19 (1) of the Act (the appearance of such agreement)" and the fact that "an act practically restricting competition in a particular business area" is "an act practically restricting competition in a particular business area" (the so-called "competitive restriction on competition"), it is presumed that the enterprisers have agreed to engage in such collaborative act, and in addition, it is not necessary to prove the agreement or implied presumption of the price of the enterprisers (the fact that the enterprisers should have agreed to do so).

3) Facts of recognition

A) The sales price of the filling station by the Plaintiff etc.

From January 2003 to December 2008, the Plaintiff et al. sold LPG, which is divided into pro rata and butane, at the same price as that set forth in [Attachment 2 and 3].

B) Quality characteristics of LPG production and quality

LPG recovers and produces gas generated in the process of separating crude oil or refining crude oil in a oil refining plant, or in the process of heating batha in a petroleum chemical plant. LPG so produced is rarely different in quality because it satisfies all certain standards in ingredients, content, etc. From 2004 to 2008.4, the cumulative rate of crude oil with 5.7% in b5.7% in light of light oil, batha 19.29% in bath, 10.14% in bath, 8.06% in bulk oil, 4.13% in total oil, 8.6% in gasoline, 3G.87% in 2004 (4.35% in 2004, 04.04% in 2006, 3.78% in 200 in 208, 308% in 205 and 3.6% in total in 308% in 205.8% in petroleum.

C) Structure of LPG market

(1) The existence of barriers to entry

The second petroleum crisis (1978-1979) occurred in the course of producing LPG due to the establishment and operation of the second petroleum crisis (1978-1979) after the head of the Korea Petroleum Corporation of Ulsan in 1964 for the first production of the LPG in 1964, the government encouraged the use of low-value LPG. Accordingly, E1 and SK Gas began to import LPG since the mid-1980s, but in order to enter the LPG market, it is not new entry after securing and registering refined facilities and storage facilities prescribed by the Petroleum and Petroleum Substitute Fuel Business Act and securing the national sales network.

(2) The plaintiff et al.'s bakeries

Two importing companies sell not only the LPG imported in a charging station with which they have exclusive business relations, but also sell oil oil, petrochemicals, etc., as seen below.

Self-Appellants, oil charging stations, petroleum chemical importers, and other Plaintiff SK-OIL Soft E 145.9.6 - 27.01.31. 31. 31. 20.20. 20.27, 20.20 SK Gas 43.9 - 43.9 - 25.6 25.6 25.06.0 25.0 - 5.0.0

In addition, the specific LPG volume sold by two import 2 companies to four oil refineriess is listed in the following table:

Of the table contained in the main sentence, the annual average of plaintiffs E1, 2004, 2005, 2005, 357, 357, 395, 694 3,084 (76.4), 514.0 105, 105 97 565 569 (14.14.1) 76 94.8 S-OL 5966 796 3636379 3637, 2058 (8.3) 56, 205, 2006, 205, 205, 205, 3648, 3645, 205, 205, 3648, 365, 205, 205, 450 (1.2)

The plaintiff directly produces the necessary LPG in a oil refining plant or sells it in a petroleum chemical company, etc., an importer, or in a petroleum chemical company, etc. as listed in the following table.

Of the table classification contained in the main text, 838 (67.4) 818 (66.6) 693 (54.6) 599 (43.2), 481 (53.3) 329 (326.5), 394 (32.1) 559 (4.4.5), 748 (50.0) 2,724 (41.7), and 716 (1974 (64.47.47 (5.46.45 (5.47.46) 197 (5.47.454), 209 (5.46.47) 197 (5.46.47) 197 (5.47.46.45), 205 (5.47.41) 201) 22,724 (41.7) 194) 197 (1.5) 7) 1207.4146 (5.46.4)

Since 2003, the Plaintiff et al. has occupied the LPG market by 100% on the basis of the volume of sales at the filling stations as listed below.

In the table classification in the main text, in 2003, 2004, 2007 small ratio small ratio small ratio small in small ratio small in small ratio small in small ratio small in the 2008, 2007, 2, 17.5 42, 17.8 14.18, 19.6 47.9 47.8 2, 209 51.6 SK Gas 25.3 26.27. 27. 16. 27. 27. 4, 2007. 7. 8, 207. 18, 4, 2007, 207. 5, 207. 27. 18, 1984, 18. 4. 58, 184. 18, 1984, 197. 27. 18, 2005

(3) Sale of LPG such as LPG charging stations

LPG charging stations enter into a contract with the Plaintiff, etc. for “LPG sales agency” and sell them to consumers. As of the year 2008, there are more than 1,600 automobile charging stations across the country. LPG retail shops mainly deliver the protocol board injected in containers upon order from the consumers, and sell the price supplied at the charging station plus profits.

D) Demand of LPG

LPGs are used as listed below. Propanes are mainly used in homes, restaurants, etc. in which urban gas (LNG) is not supplied, and heating fuel (the household and commercial use accounts for 52.5% as of 2008), but butane is mainly used as taxi and fuel of LPG vehicle which is a disabled car (the fuel of large vehicle with 2.3 million and more than 2.3% as of 2008 is 75.3%). Due to these demand and consumer characteristics, it is difficult to reduce LPG consumption even if the LPG price is mistakenly due to the lack of substitute materials in the location of the actual user.

In order to improve the winter season operation for the transportation of cooking and heating bags for specific use in the table LPG use contained in the main sentence, mixing petrochemicals for industrial raw materials (propyle, propyne, propydidiene) for mixing industrial raw materials (propyle, propye) for manufacturing industrial raw materials), butane-commercial mobile gas for urban gas raw materials, such as fuel in the course of manufacturing industrial pG self-production in the course of production, in order to improve the lux operated in the table LPG use in the main sentence, for transport, such as butane cans, butane cans, ices, and ices, etc., for fuel in the middle raw materials for manufacturing industrial raw materials for petrochemical fuel, such as primary metal, etc., for fuel in the first metal.

LPG consumption has increased by approximately 3% compared to the previous year since 2000 each year, and 5.2% compared to the previous year in 2008. The protruding has decreased, and the carbon has increased.

E) collusion in the sales price of filling stations by two import companies

By December 31, 1998, the government implemented the “Maximum Price Notice System,” which requires the Plaintiff, etc., who is a LPG business operator, to freely determine the selling price of the LPG at a level below the maximum selling price in the government’s notice. From January 1, 1999, the government implemented the “PG sales price” which partially adjusts the above selling price according to the international price or exchange rate fluctuations, and subsequently completely liberalizes the LPG sales price from January 1, 201.

However, even after January 1, 2001, the two import two companies used the cost-free system and index used by the government prior to liberalization of LPG prices at almost the same time, and were ordered to take corrective measures and pay penalty surcharges from the Defendant on October 31, 2002 on the ground that “this act constitutes an unfair collaborative act.”

After that, on December 30, 2002, two importing companies calculated the base price of LPG by preparing the official formula for calculating their base price, and published the substitute price for filling stations on January 2003, taking into account the market situation, etc. In such a case, E1 was 624 won, SK Gas was 634 won, SK Gas was 634 won, and 875 won for butane was 5 won for E1.

On December 31, 2002, 202, on the following day, SK Gas called the person in charge of the policy cooperation team, which is the base price determination department, to the person in charge of the planning team, who is the planning team, who is the planning department, for the purpose of determining the base price of E1, and sent the intention that “E1 does not intend to engage in price competition with E1, and E1 would not re-Adjustment the sales price at a price lower than SK gas, and adjusted the price of the gas filling station and Bhutan by 0.2 won lower than e1, while E1 did not adjust the above published sales price.

From that point of time, two importing companies discussed the price policy by: “After exchanging or consulting the LPG base price of the counterpart company and the sales price of the charging station with the sales price of the substitute by telephone at the end of the end of each month, their own prices were determined as shown in attached Form 3, and exchange the past sales performance data and sales plans for the short-term demand forecast, and the employees in charge of the pricing department tend to set the base price at lower level than the SK gas than the SK gas in the form of promoting friendship with the employees in charge of prices every year at the end of each year.”

In addition, two importing companies did not reflect the increased or decreased portion of the base price in the selling price for a certain month and reflected all or part of it in the sales price thereafter, and there are many cases where the low-priced price was determined differently from the base price for the LPG while calculating the base price for the LPG officially.

F) Determination of the selling price of the filling station in the amount of 4 gas stations

E1 On December 1, 1993, when entering into a sales contract to sell general LPG (hereinafter “LPG acquisition price”) with the Plaintiff, Hyundai Lao Bank, and S-OL respectively (hereinafter “LPG purchase contract”), the E1 agreed to determine that the sale price (hereinafter “LPG acquisition price”) is the same as the market price for protruding, but the first time guidance price is calculated as “products substitute (excluding value-added tax) price - the market price for oil companies including government notice - the internal transportation cost reflected in the publicly notice price - the market price for oil companies - the domestic transportation cost reflected in the sale price for the Plaintiff’s free sale price for transportation after January 1, 201, and then the Plaintiff included the sale price for the free sale of the EPG in the sale price for the free sale price for transportation of oil, and thus, the Plaintiff’s purchase price for the transportation of oil in the E1G price for the first time is included in the sale price for the E1G.

Since then, the Plaintiff has renewed the contract for E1 and LPG sales each year, but did not prepare a separate contract. However, on May 1, 1998, E1 changed the sale price of the S-OL and the general LPG for general use into KRW 442,169 per ton (the price discounted by 27,000 per ton from the sales price of the PPG for the first time similar to that of the E1).

In addition, on June 14, 2004, the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract with E1 and the Plaintiff to purchase “PG for the production process of eggs” in E1, and agreed that the sale price was “E1’s price for charging stations - 55 won (excluding value-added tax)” and entered into a sales contract with the same content as on April 1, 2006 and August 1, 2007.

According to the above LPG sales contract, E1 determined that “E1’s price of charging station - 26.979 won,” and “E1’s price of charging station - 55 won,” and immediately notified the Plaintiff, Hyundai Mym Bank, S-OL by facsimile.

G) Formation of a conference and a consensus among executives and employees such as the Plaintiff

The non-party 4, who is a regular manager of the plaintiff's LPG business division, formed a consensus on the competition system for the stabilization of the LPG market by holding meetings or conducting golf meetings on a non-regular basis, together with the revenue two companies and the executive officers and teams in charge of other similar businesses, in the case of the change of the president of the Korea LP Gas Industry Association, which is an interest organization in the new year, light surveys, replacement of executive officers, or filling stations as listed below.

본문내 포함된 표 모임일시 장소 참석자 모임내용 2003년(2회) ○○○ 등 SK 소외 2, SK가스 소외 13, 원고의 소외 16, E1 소외 3 수입사와 정유사의 임원, 팀장 골프모임, 회식에서 LPG 시장 안정화를 위한 경쟁자제 등의 공감대 형성 2004년(2회) △△△호텔 SK 소외 2, SK가스 소외 13, 원고의 소외 16, E1 소외 3 한국LP가스공업협회 주관 팀장급 모임 2005년 임원 모임 4. 11. E1 SK 소외 1 및 E1 소외 3 신임임원 인사차 E1 방문, 시장에서 잘 협조하겠다는 의사 표현 7. 27. □□골프장 SK 소외 1, E1 소외 3 충전소 문제, 가격변동 현황 등 LPG 시장현황에 대해 논의하고, 앞으로 경쟁을 자제하자는데 공감대 형성 9. 4. ◇◇◇ 골프장 SK 소외 1·팀장, E1 소외 3·소외 10 10. 30. ☆☆☆ 골프장 SK 소외 1, E1 소외 3 수입사 및 정유사 간 상호 경쟁자제, LPG 고가 유지에 공감대 형성 2005. 7.경 (팀장 모임) ○○○ SK 소외 15, SK가스 소외 14, 원고의 소외 9, E1 소외 10 충전소 문제 등 시장현안 논의, 가격경쟁 자제와 시장 안정화에 공감대 형성 2006년 임원 모임 1. 17. E1 방문 SK 소외 1, SK가스 소외 2, E1 소외 3 2006년도에도 시장 안정화를 위해 노력 5. 13. □□골프장 SK 소외 1, SK가스 소외 2, E1 소외 3 수입·정유사 상호 경쟁자제 및 안정적 공급 필요성 7. 5. ▽▽▽▽▽ 클럽골프장 SK 소외 1, E1 소외 3, 원고의 소외 4, 한국LP가스공업협회 소외 5 시장 전반에 대한 현안 공유 9. 21. ◎◎ ◎◎◎호텔 SK 소외 1, E1 소외 3, 현대오일뱅크 LPG 부문장 소외 6 식사 모임 12. 3. ☆☆☆ 골프장 SK 소외 1, SK가스 소외 2, E1 소외 3, 원고의 소외 4 LPG 사업자의 임원 간 친목 강화 및 시장에서의 협조유지 2006.5. ~ 12.(4회) ◁◁◁ 등 SK 소외 7, SK가스 소외 8, 원고의 소외 9, E1 소외 10, S-OIL 소외 11 각사가 차례로 비정기적 모임 개최 상호 경쟁자제, LPG 고가 유지라는 공감대 형성을 위한 비정기적 모임 2007. 1.경 ▷▷ SK가스 소외 2, E1 소외 3, 현대오일뱅크 소외 4, 현대오일뱅크 소외 6, 한국LP가스공업협회 소외 12 신년인사 및 친목 모임

In addition, the two importing companies prepared a number of internal documents using the words such as “influencies in sales growth through the evasion of trading place”, “influence of unfair competition customers”, “influence of market share in the LPG market”, “influence of price and quantity competition”, “influence of low growth trend”, and “influence of low growth trend”. In particular, E1 prepared a number of internal documents using the words such as “LPG price holding”, “environmental analysis result: strengthening of oil: Stin-Win partnership with oil: Construction of Fin-Win partnership with oil,” and “confluence of smooth cooperation relationship”, for example, the following internal documents were prepared.

E1 No. 206 Dated Dec. 11, 2006, “2006 business performance and mid-term business plan” (marms)

A person shall be appointed.

In addition, the executives in charge of the LPG of the SPG and the SPG stated consistently from the defendant's investigation stage that "if two import companies determine the price, 4 full oil companies were aware of the fact that the price would be determined by drilling as it is, and such practice has been maintained from the past, there was no need to directly discuss the price of the gas filling station since it had been maintained from the past."

(h) operating income from the sale of LPG

From 196 to 2000, the operating income (kg; hereinafter the same) of the two companies was 11.09 won for the period from 1996 to 2000. However, after price liberalization, the operating income of E1 was 65.4 won in 2005, 60.2 won in 2006, 64.3 won in 2007, and 58.4 won in 2008, and the operating income of Hyundai Lao Bank was 72.40 won in 2004, 7.91 won in 2005, 73.37 won in 2006, and 75.0 won in 207.

Since 2003, the amount of operating income of the charging station is 100 won and 150 won, but butane is 100 through 170 won, and the amount of operating income is 300 to 400 won.

I) The plaintiff's sloping price comparison

From July 1, 2007, the Plaintiff introduced a method of determining the selling price of the filling station for itself, which reflects 50% of the self-production price and the purchase price, thereby reflecting only 50% of the purchase price with the exchange profit and loss, the Plaintiff’s sales price of the filling station for the filling station was lower than the exchange rate compared with the import 2 company. The Plaintiff, in June 2008, at the time when the exchange rate has changed rapidly, determined the selling price of the filling station for the filling station as KRW 1,232.40 in E1,232.40 in KRW 1,251.6,00 in KRW 1,60 in KRW 7.90 in KRW 1,61 in E1,616.0 in KRW 8.1 in kg.

Accordingly, E1 drafted on June 3, 2008, the document "a similar trend and response according to the selling price" in currency with a static LPG purchaser with the following contents:

In response to the request for ex post facto settlement of the difference in the prices of plaintiffs and importers in the main trends contained in the main text, the following countermeasures are developed - expression of differentiated prices against official duties - price reduction based on the reflection of average transportation expenses in the previous year - compliance with the terms of the contract: The provisions applicable to our sales price provisions - the current sales price adjustment provision - the current sales price maintenance of SK Energy * the same price maintenance with SK Energy - the current MK Bank - the Plaintiff and the importer's demand for ex post settlement of the price difference due to the occurrence of the price difference - the general oil market competition - the price difference in the LPG price can be caused for the market competition - SK gas also can also be evaluated as reasonable as a result of the review of the change of the market price - the plaintiff's opinion on the change in the purchase price - the domestic market price calculation - the plaintiff's opinion on the change of SK gas - the purchase price - the price increase in the case of continuous difference between SMall 2's consent to Small 2.

Accordingly, on June 4, 2008, SKgas also changed and decreased to KRW 1,611.20 won from the original price determined at KRW 7.36 won from the original price, and S-OL set to below KRW 0.3 won and KRW 0.4 won from the Plaintiff’s price for the substitute charging station in June 2008, and the price for the substitute charging of S-OL was lower than KRW 18.3 won and KRW 8.5 won compared to E1.

[Evidence] No dispute is raised, Gap evidence Nos. 1-2, Gap evidence No. 3, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 18, 21 through 35, 39 (including provisional number), and the purport of the whole pleadings

4) Determination

In full view of the aforementioned facts and the following circumstances, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff committed the instant collaborative act on the ground that, if two importing companies, etc. and two importing companies, etc. decide and change the sales price of the filling station first and notify the Plaintiff of the sales price determined and changed by E1, it was presumed that there was an implied agreement or implied understanding that the Plaintiff was, or at least, an agreement to conduct the instant collaborative act, to determine the Plaintiff’s sales price of the filling station at the same or nearly similar price as the notified sales price, the Plaintiff was presumed to have agreed to conduct the instant collaborative act. Accordingly, the instant collaborative act also restricts competition. Therefore, this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

① Import two companies are competitors competing with 4 companies selling LPGs in charge stations by directly selling LPGs to 4 companies instead of supplying LPGs only to 4 companies. The Plaintiff, etc. in a market that sells LPGs to PE charging stations (hereinafter “large-charge sales market”) is the only competition factor that the LPGs have little difference in quality. However, from January 2003 to June 2007, the Plaintiff is extremely low compared with 0.5 won for 【0.04% compared to 0.5 won. During this period, it is reasonable to deem that there was no substantial competition between the Plaintiff and E1 each other in the large-charge sales market.

② It seems clear that it is difficult for a company to exercise its leading position, on its own initiative, among 6 LPG business operators with the highest market share of 25.3 to 28.7%, 18.3 to 20.8%, and 6 LPG business operators with the lowest Hyundai MP Bank with 5.1 to 7.7%. However, as seen below, 22 companies only form an unfair price collusion and jointly exercise their leading position, and only carried out the price of the filling station determined through unfair price collusion. Moreover, LPG notified the large price of the filling station through unfair price collusion to 4 companies that seem to have been well aware of such circumstances. Moreover, since LPG consumers can easily purchase fuels, it is difficult for the Plaintiff to make an agreement on the change of the price of the filling station, such as the price of the filling station, and the price of the filling station, due to such reasons as the change of the price of the fuel to be used mainly for other fuels, it is difficult for the Plaintiff to use it.

③ Around October 2002, two importing companies received a corrective order and a penalty surcharge payment order from the Defendant on the ground of collusion in the charging station, but again made an exchange of intent to prevent price competition between the Defendant on December 31, 2002, and made a mutually similar setting of the price for the filling station on January 31, 2003, until December 2008, they exchanged LPG base price and selling price information, past sales performance data and sales plans, or consulted about the price for the filling station. From 2003 to 2008, E1 had the market share from 203 to 2008, and from 2003 to 208, SK Gas had led to the 25% market share in the 205-28th generation and maintenance market.

④ On January 1, 2001, the Plaintiff: (a) purchased part of the necessary volume after the liberalization of the LPG price from E1, etc. at the price for filling stations (the price for acquiring the LPG shall be determined at the price calculated by subtracting KRW 26.979, which is the domestic transportation cost, from the sales price for filling stations of e1; and (b) the domestic transportation cost shall be deducted from the Plaintiff’s transportation cost; (c) the necessary volume shall be 67.4% in 2004; (d) 66.6% in 2005; and (e) 54.6% in 206; and (e) the Plaintiff’s employees and employees appeared to have attended the meetings of Nonparty 1 and Hyundai 1, etc. to the LPG directly produced from their oil factories; (e) the Plaintiff did not appear to have made an objective determination on the sales price of the 2G, etc. to the extent that it did not have any more reliable competition between the Plaintiff’s 1 and the 2G 1, etc.

⑤ The Plaintiff asserts that the sales price of the charging station was determined by itself in consideration of exchange rate, exchange rate, exchange profit and loss from exchange, financial expenses, and domestic supply cost, etc., which are formed in the international market for each month. However, in light of the following circumstances, the Plaintiff’s assertion cannot be accepted.

In light of the date of the document preparation, the form and content of the document, and the preparation of the period before and after the date of the submission of the document, the statement of No. 18 is insufficient to be considered as evidence to acknowledge the Plaintiff’s assertion. Unlike the fact that the Plaintiff calculated the production cost, etc. of LPG directly produced in the process of crude oil refining during the period of the collusion in this case, there is no evidence to identify the specific details of independent calculation of the sales price of the substitute oil

In light of the fact that Nonparty 17’s testimony of the witness Nonparty 17 was determined at the time of the Plaintiff’s import of LPG and the price of the filling station is substantially similar to the price of E1, it is insufficient to accept the Plaintiff’s assertion as evidence to acknowledge the Plaintiff’s assertion.

In full view of the phrase such as the practice of the Plaintiff, etc., before price liberalization on January 1, 2001, the Plaintiff, etc.: (a) the Plaintiff’s executive officers and employees of the SK Gas and SK Energy, the Plaintiff’s statement on the recognition of the Plaintiff, etc. regarding the decision on the selling price of the filling station; (b) the “LPG price holding” of the documents prepared by E1; (c) strengthening of the oil refining,” and “construing mutual assistance relations”, etc., the two importing companies are anticipated to have determined the selling price of the filling station at the same or a similar level; and (c) notified the 4 company of the fact that the Plaintiff, etc. determined the selling price of the filling station at the same or a similar level, and (d) notified it to the 4 company of the fact that the Plaintiff was well aware of the same or a similar level after receiving the notice of the selling price from the importing company, as well as the Plaintiff, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff was well aware of the same or a similar level.

(6) The Plaintiff asserts to the effect that, in order to notify the Plaintiff of the fact that “LPG acceptance price was calculated as determined by the LPG sales contract,” the Plaintiff notified E1’s price of the charging station by facsimile, etc., and did not notify the Plaintiff of the price of the instant collaborative act. However, the Plaintiff and E1 did not stay in a party to the LPG sales contract and engage in competition in securing and supplying gas charging stations in the large charging sales market. As seen earlier. Nevertheless, it is difficult to understand the Plaintiff’s notification of the sales price information of E1, a competitor before determining the price of the charging station. Furthermore, it contains structural characteristics that enable the Plaintiff and E1, etc. to easily act at any time in collusion with the large charging station sales price. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s notification of the price information to the Plaintiff should be reasonable to determine the price of the filling station identical or similar to each other, and it does not exclude the Plaintiff’s notification of the intention to actively use the price in accordance with the LPG sales contract or any other method.

7) The Plaintiff asserts that, when the sales price of its filling station is higher than that of two imported companies or other statics, the Plaintiff resisted to the Plaintiff from the customer, including the filling station, and thus, the Plaintiff had been strongly resisted to the Plaintiff, and thus, that the Plaintiff’s price of the filling station was confluent with that of E1, etc., such as E1. However, the Plaintiff’s testimony as seen so fit, Nonparty 18’s testimony is not the minimum price of the filling station of the Plaintiff at all times, or that it is not the same as that of the Plaintiff, etc., and it is not adjusted since July 2007 to the extent that the sales price of the filling station is considerable difference between LPG operators. In light of the above, it is insufficient to accept the Plaintiff’s assertion.

8) Gasoline, light oil, mith and mith oil, port oil, etc. are calculated based on product cost, etc., even though they are tobacco products produced in the process of refining crude oil, as in the case of LPG. However, there are no special circumstances that make it impossible to compute the unique price in such a way. Furthermore, the Plaintiff applied an independent pricing method, such as calculating the self-production cost, etc. of LPG after July 2007 and reflecting 50% of the purchase cost and 50% of the purchase price, to determine the price of the large charging station. Therefore, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff could independently determine the price of the large charging station by taking into account the price of the supply price of LPG purchased in E1, etc., even during the instant collusion period.

B. Defect in the procedure of the instant disposition

The plaintiff asserts that the plaintiff did not guarantee the opportunity for impeachment with respect to the statements, etc. related to the voluntary reduction of and exemption from SK Gas and SK Energy, which are important evidence of the disposition of this case in the resolution and adjudication procedures of this case. Thus, the plaintiff asserts that there was a significant defect in the decision and adjudication procedures.

However, inasmuch as the Plaintiff guaranteed an opportunity to state its opinion in the instant disposition and granted the Plaintiff the right to peruse and copy the written statement related to the voluntary reduction and exemption report, the Defendant did not grant the Plaintiff an opportunity to peruse the written statement related to the voluntary reduction and exemption report. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

(c) Calculation and imposition of penalty surcharges;

1) Scope of related sales

The plaintiff asserts that the profit of the LPG he purchased and sold to the filling station in E1 shall be excluded from the relevant sales since the LPG acquired by E1 and supplied for export does not affect the domestic market.

However, the collaborative act of this case, as the Plaintiff, which is a LPG business entity, jointly determines and alters the price for the filling station jointly with other LPG business entities, is all applicable to all relevant goods. Since LPG purchased from EP1 and sold to the filling station directly or indirectly, it cannot be excluded from the relevant goods. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff did not acquire any substantial profit is a direct object of the collaborative act of this case, it is nothing more than the matter of the pertinent collaborative act. The claim that the Plaintiff did not acquire any substantial profit is considered in the stage of voluntary adjustment penalty surcharges or imposition penalty surcharges (Evidence A-2). In addition, it is reasonable to deem that the LPG, which the Plaintiff supplied to the LPG export company for export, is determined on the basis of the Plaintiff’s price for the filling station (including evidence A-2) because the price of the LPG, which the Plaintiff supplied to the LPG export company for export, is determined on the basis of the Plaintiff’s price for the filling station (including evidence A, the purport of the entire pleadings).

Therefore, this part of the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

B) Time of the instant collaborative act

The plaintiff asserts that the collaborative act in this case should be imposed a fixed amount of not more than 2 billion won because the time itself is unclear and it is difficult to calculate the relevant sales amount.

However, it is reasonable to view that two import companies were ordered to take corrective measures and pay a penalty surcharge on the ground of collusion in the price of the filling station by the Defendant on or around October 2002, and again, on or around December 31, 2002, they engaged in collusion with respect to their own price of the filling station, and that the amount of January 2003 is limited to a difference of KRW 0.2 won, and the Plaintiff also agreed upon the same agreement of the import2 company as above, and thereafter, the sales price of the filling station for January 2003 was set at the same or almost the same level as that of E1. Therefore, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff agreed and implemented the instant collaborative act from January 1, 2003 to December 31, 2002. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion in this part is without merit.

3) Standard rate for imposing basic penalty surcharges

A) Whether a serious violation was committed

The Plaintiff asserts that the Plaintiff’s participation in the instant collaborative act cannot be deemed as a serious violation because he himself was in the passive and marital position in the large charging store sales market. However, considering the Plaintiff’s LPG market share, quantity ratio by method of funding, operating profit, etc., it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff was in the passive and victim status with respect to the instant collaborative act. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s allegation in this part is without merit.

B) Base rate

The plaintiff asserts that 3.5%, which is the lowest of the standards for imposition, should be applied, since he/she voluntarily withdraws from the collusion on the sales price of the filling station in June 1 and 2.

According to the statement in Gap evidence No. 1, while the defendant selected 7.0% of the 7.0% of the 2008 basic penalty surcharge imposition rate under the 2008 basic penalty surcharge notice, the defendant's choice of 5.0% of the 2004 basic penalty surcharge imposition rate, among the 2004 basic penalty surcharge imposition rates, can be acknowledged. However, considering the following circumstances, the defendant's choice of the basic penalty surcharge imposition rate cannot be deemed to violate the principle of equality and the principle of proportionality. Thus, this part of the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

① In calculating the penalty surcharge imposed on LPG business entities involved in the instant collaborative act, the Defendant has discretion to decide to choose any of the applicable rates within the scope of the basic penalty surcharge imposition rate under the public notice of the relevant penalty surcharge.

② The Plaintiff realized economic benefits by engaging in the instant collaborative act with E1, etc.: Provided, That the Plaintiff’s voluntary correction first led to the period of violation and the amount of sales related to the period of violation, including E1, more than that of E1, etc., it is reasonable to reduce the difference in the standard rate of imposition of basic penalty surcharge itself.

③ The Defendant appears to have selected “the base rate of imposition of basic penalty surcharge” among the criteria for imposition of penalty surcharge due to the prolonged continuation of the collaborative act in this case, excessive sales, increase in the standard imposition rate due to the amendment of the statutes, etc. However, the Plaintiff is not in simple comparison with E1, etc. as it is not identical to E1, etc. in the foregoing consideration factors.

④ Considering only the circumstances in which “the lower limit” was applied to E1, etc., if the Plaintiff selects a rate other than “the upper limit” of the basic penalty surcharge imposition rate, the difference between the Plaintiff and E1, etc., which was narrowed from the above consideration, becomes unreasonable.

4) As to the discretionary adjustment penalty surcharge

The Plaintiff asserts that the Plaintiff’s s-OL or Hyundai Mym Bank merely estimated the price set by 2 companies, such as s-IL or Hyundai Mym Bank, and thus, the reduction of the simple trend should be applied. However, in light of the Plaintiff’s LPG market share, the quantity ratio by method of funding, operating profits, etc., the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have simply estimated the 2 company imported. Therefore,

D. Sub-determination

Therefore, the instant disposition is lawful.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit.

[Attachment]

Judges Cho Jong-chul (Presiding Judge)