beta
Text
1. The plaintiffs' appeal and the plaintiff 7, 8, 12, 14, 19, 28 through 30, 35, 44, 45, 48, 49, 56 through 58, 61, 64 through 66, 68, 71.
Reasons
1. The reasons why this court used as a basis for this part of the facts are as follows: “Defendant SK Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant SK”)” in the third and fifth instances of the judgment of the court of first instance; “Defendant SK Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant SK”) was divided into SK Co., Ltd. and SK Energy Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant SK”) and “SK Co., Ltd., Ltd. was divided into SK Energy Co., Ltd. and SK Co., Ltd., Ltd. (hereinafter “SK”) after the mutual change into SK Co., Ltd..., Ltd.... was divided into SK and SK chemical Co., Ltd.; and the rights and obligations in this case were reverted to SK Energy Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant SK”), and this is identical to the part of “basic facts within the scope necessary for determining the cause of the claim” in the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure
2. Whether liability for damages arises;
A. The reason why this Court is used in relation to Defendant SK, GS, and Hyundai is the same as the corresponding part of the reasoning of the first instance judgment (from 11th to 15th under the 17th under the 15th judgment of the first instance court), and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
B. The reason why this Court is used in relation to Defendant S-Oil is as stated in the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance (from the last reduction to the 15th reduction to the 16th letter of the judgment of the court of first instance). As such, this part is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
C. As seen earlier, as seen earlier, Defendant SK, GS, and Hyundai are from April 1, 2004 to June 10, 2004 (hereinafter “instant collusion period”).
3) The act of collusion for price increase of light oil products (hereinafter “instant collusion act”) is deemed to be an act of collusion.
As Defendant SK, GS, and Hyundai, pursuant to Article 56(1) of the Fair Trade Act, Defendant SK, GS, and Hyundai during the instant collaborative period.