logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대법원 2016.03.24 2013두2303
과징금 등 처분 취소청구의 소
Text

All appeals are dismissed.

Costs of appeal shall be borne by each party.

Reasons

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Article 19(1) of the Fair Trade Act prohibits “agreement on acts that unfairly restrict competition”. The agreement includes not only explicit agreement but also implied agreement.

In this context, the essence of the agreement lies in the communication between two or more enterprisers. Thus, it cannot be acknowledged that there was an agreement as a matter of course on the ground that there was an appearance consistent with the act listed in any of the subparagraphs of the above provision, and there is a proof of the circumstances to recognize the reciprocity of the communication between the enterprisers. The burden of proof on such agreement is against the Defendant ordering corrective measures, etc.

(1) Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 202 of the Civil Procedure Act are applicable to the court of fact-finding, unless the aforementioned determination exceeds the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence, and thus, is subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the court of fact-finding, unless it exceeds the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 201Du1741, Nov. 28, 2013).

2. Review of the reasoning of the lower judgment and the record reveals the following.

The Korea Centers for Disease Control and Prevention established an agreement among manufacturers and sellers of avian influenza (hereinafter referred to as “self-definites”) from 2005 to 2009 on the supply price of the self-definites purchased each year by the Korea Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and on the ground that they conducted unfair collaborative acts by concluding government procurement contracts accordingly.

Among them, the part against the plaintiffs is the disposition of this case in the judgment of the court below.

(b) A government procurement bid in 2005 and 2006 are negotiated contracts, 2007 and 2008 are competitive bidding in 2009 and 2009.

arrow