In a case where the Fair Trade Commission agreed to jointly raise 17 financial institutions, including Gap bank, to jointly raise the service fees under the cooperation of the financial settlement center, and accordingly raised the service fees between banks, and thus, ordered Gap bank, etc. to take corrective measures and pay penalty surcharges on the ground that the Fair Trade Commission committed an act unfairly restricting competition in the domestic market for collecting the service fees, the case affirming the judgment below that the above act was hard to readily conclude that Gap bank, etc. requested the financial settlement center to increase the service fees by requesting the increase of the service fees between banks and jointly raising them, and it was difficult to conclude that the bank, etc. conspired to increase the service fees to increase the service fees as much as the service fees raised among banks.

Article 19 (1) 1 of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act

Han Bank Co., Ltd. and 11 others (Law Firm Square, Attorneys Go Won-seok et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Fair Trade Commission (Attorney Choi Byung-hee et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2008Nu20453 decided September 10, 2009

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

According to the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court determined that ① the payment system is to be made through a bank account instead of a bank in cash or check with respect to the settlement of debts arising from its daily life; ② the payment system widely used in large-scale transactions periodically and continuously takes place; ② the amount agreed upon by the user institution for the payment of various fees by concluding a contract for payment as a branch office of the bank to collect from the user institution; ③ the expenses incurred by the branch office are mostly generated in the process of collecting the fees from the bank on the counter and preparing a daily table; ④ the payment rate is not generated in the process of depositing the fees into the account of the paying bank into the user institution. ④ If the payment bank and the receiving bank do not coincide with the payment bank in the process of performing its business, it is difficult to collect the fees by raising the fees to the extent that it does not have the nature of the payment system, as it does not differ from the fact that the payment bank did not receive the fees to the extent that it did not have any legal nature to the extent that it did not receive the fees from the bank.

In light of relevant Acts and subordinate statutes and records, the judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and there is no error of law such as misunderstanding of legal principles as to price collusion under Article 19 (1) 1 of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act.

Other arguments are merely criticisming the fact-finding that belongs to the lower court's discretion and cannot be accepted.

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

The lower court determined to the effect that even if the collaborative act in this case was agreed to jointly raise the street commission and constitutes a price collusion, it cannot be deemed that the collaborative act in this case’s economic efficiency is more unfair than the negative effect of restricting competition.

As above, insofar as the court below did not err in finding that the collaborative act in this case constitutes price collusion, the defendant's ground of appeal as to determining the illegality of the collaborative act in this case under a different premise is not examined further.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, all appeals are 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.

Justices Park Poe-dae (Presiding Justice)