2012du27268 Demanding revocation of designation as a large enterprise group

A Stock Company

Fair Trade Commission

1. A stock company B;

2. C Stock Company:

3. Daehan:

Seoul High Court Decision 2012Nu12565 Decided November 15, 2012

March 26, 2015

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 acknowledged the facts as indicated in its reasoning, and based on the circumstances such as: (a) E constitutes a case where the representative director of B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “B”) and C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C”) may be appointed, dismissed, or appointed with the cooperation or consent of creditor financial institutions; (b) E appears to exercise dominant influence over the major decision-making and execution of business affairs of each of the above companies as honorary chairperson, the representative director of C; and (c) approval or fund management of the major decision-making by the creditor financial institutions council is performed in terms of monitoring for business normalization; and (b) E actually does not interfere with recognition of dominant influence of E.

C The business contents of C are controlled, therefore, considering that D and its subsidiaries, etc. whose business contents are substantially controlled by B, the Defendant, as the same person, shall be deemed to have been practically controlled by E.

C. In light of the relevant legal principles and records, we affirm the judgment of the court below that the instant disposition designating D, etc. as an enterprise group subject to limitations on mutual investment was lawful. In so doing, we did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to the requirements for designation of a business group subject to 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.

Justices Park Poe-young

Justices Min Il-young

Justices Kim In-bok

Justices Kwon Soon-il