The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. “Unfair collaborative act” prohibited under Article 19(1) of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act as to the existence of an unfair collaborative act and its practice includes an agreement on an act of unfairly restricting competition, and “agreement” includes not only the agreement explicitly made but also implied agreement (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Du19298, Nov. 14, 2013). Comprehensively considering the adopted evidence, the lower court’s review report on the price strategy of the Emphio (hereinafter “EM”) dated June 8, 2004 by the Plaintiff 1 to May 5, 200, the Plaintiff’s agreement on the reduction of price at least 00 KMEX Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “S”), Hyundai Bank Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “S”), and the Plaintiff’s agreement on the reduction of price at least 3 different trends from the date of the Plaintiff’s offering of the price at the same time as that of the Plaintiff’s offering.

4. 1. As above, it appears that the market trend was the defendant, continuing to be described as common matters that reduced the discount as above, and as such, it was dated April 6, 2004.