1. On August 22, 2018, the Defendant’s order to pay penalty surcharges stated in the separate sheet issued by the Plaintiffs is revoked.

2. The plaintiffs.

1. During the disposition, the Plaintiff A Cooperatives (hereinafter “Plaintiff A Cooperatives”), Plaintiff B Cooperatives (hereinafter “Plaintiff B Cooperatives”), and Plaintiff C Cooperatives (hereinafter “Plaintiff C Cooperatives”) are corporations incorporated under the Small and Medium Enterprise Cooperatives Act as members of the Korea Small and Medium Enterprise Cooperatives Act or the Korea Small and Medium Enterprise Cooperatives (hereinafter “Plaintiff C Cooperatives”).

In May 2015, F institutions classified D and E into six zones (D, H, I, J, KR, and L), while publishing the bidding of “G” (hereinafter “instant bidding”).

The D, H, among its classification, has jurisdiction over the Plaintiff A, I, and J, as Plaintiff B, K, and L, as Plaintiff C, respectively.

On August 22, 2018, the Defendant issued each of the orders listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant disposition”) to the Plaintiffs as the plenary session resolution M on August 22, 2018 for the following reasons. Of them, Paragraph (1) order was “instant corrective order” and Paragraph (2) order was “instant penalty surcharge payment order.”

On May 28, 2015, the plaintiffs participated in six classified categories (regional zones) among the four categories (regional zones) among D and E areas (regional zones) of F institutions, and agreed that the competent regional associations among the plaintiffs will be successful bidders, and the neighboring regional associations will participate in the bidding (hereinafter referred to as “instant collaborative act”), and then bid according to the agreement.

Accordingly, the Plaintiffs violated Article 19(1)8 of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act (hereinafter “Fair Trade Act”).

[Ground of recognition] No dispute, Gap evidence No. 1 (written evidence number includes each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The 1st Plaintiffs asserted that the instant collaborative act exists, did not engage in the instant collaborative act.

Because of the structural problems of desired quantity competitive bidding, such as the instant bid, the Plaintiffs were in appearance.