1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On September 20, 201, the Defendant published a tender for non-destructive testing services involving the construction of the United Nations Emirate nuclear power plant as follows. A total of 12 companies, including the Plaintiffs, constituted four consortiums and participated in the said tender.

The name of the station for use: The estimated price for non-destructive testing service period from February 2, 2012 to May 2, 2020 (99 months): the estimated price: 34,310,000,000 won (in cases where main service is performed overseas, zero tax rate shall apply): The basic amount for the service: 32,937,600,000 won (applicable to zero tax rate): The details of the service ① The qualification for participation in bidding such as the installation and management of a non-destructive testing facility on the part of pipes and on-site use of pipes and equipment during the construction and trial of electric power plants.

B. On February 21, 2012, an agreement with the Defendant on the above service entered into with the Defendant, which was concluded on February 21, 2012, by the agreement between the Plaintiff, Samsung Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) and the United States Inspection Co., Ltd., Ltd. (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) as a final successful bidder.

C. However, on September 6, 2016, the Fair Trade Commission prohibited the Plaintiffs from “an act of deciding the successful bidder’s bid price, bid price, bid price or bid price, and other matters prescribed by Presidential Decree in bidding or auction by stipulating that, on October 19, 201, when the consortium, such as Plaintiff Subdivision, etc., is determined as the successful bidder by gathering the agreement from Plaintiff Subdivision, etc., and then, if the consortium is determined as the successful bidder, the companies participating in the agreement agree to divide the shares and jointly perform the service” under Article 19(1)8 of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act. The reason is that the Plaintiffs committed an unfair collaborative act prescribed by Presidential Decree.