The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff, including the part arising from the supplementary participation.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. According to the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court determined that the instant disposition, which the Defendant designated as an enterprise group, etc. subject to limitations on mutual investment, is lawful, on the ground that, after recognizing the facts as indicated in its reasoning, E actually controls BC’s business activities, on the ground that it constitutes a case where E is eligible to appoint, dismiss, or appoint the representative director of B Co., Ltd (hereinafter “B”) and C Co., Ltd (hereinafter “C”) with the cooperation or consent of creditor financial institutions; E appears to exercise dominant influence over the execution of major decision-making activities of each of the above companies; and the approval or fund management of the principal decision-making by the creditor financial institutions council is conducted in terms of supervision for business normalization; and it does not interfere with the recognition of dominant influence of E; and therefore, it is deemed that the instant disposition, which the Defendant designated as an enterprise group, etc. as the same person, is lawful.

In light of relevant legal principles and records, the judgment of the court below is acceptable. In so doing, it did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on the requirements for designation of an enterprise group subject to the limitations on mutual investment under the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act.

2. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.