The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Whether the statute of limitations has lapsed (Ground of appeal No. 1)

A. In the event that the multiple agreements have been reached for a long period of time, if the agreement was reached for the same purpose based on a single intent and continued to be implemented without any interruption, the specific contents of the agreement were partly modified.

Even if such a series of agreements ought to be considered as a single unfair collaborative act, barring special circumstances.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2007Du3756 Decided September 25, 2008, and Supreme Court Decision 2013Du6169 Decided February 12, 2015, etc.) (b).

The lower court determined that the collaborative act of this case, as a whole, constitutes an unfair collaborative act for the same purpose based on a single intent and constitutes a single unfair collaborative act as a whole, on such premise that the collaborative act of this case constitutes an unfair collaborative act, on the following grounds: (a) agreement on basic principles, such as the formation of a consensus on the principle of allowing stable contracts by predicting that a large number of OO construction works will be ordered in the future in 2005 and distributing the successful bid volume among the companies; and (b) accordingly, each agreement in 2006, 2007, and 2009 may be deemed to have continued to meet several times in the process of implementing the said agreement and to have reached an agreement on the decision of specific matters.

C. Such determination by the lower court is based on the legal doctrine as seen earlier. In so doing, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the establishment of a single unfair collaborative act, or by exceeding the bounds of

2. Whether the standard for calculation of penalty surcharge is unlawful (ground of appeal No. 2)

A. In full view of the provisions of Articles 6 and 22 of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act (hereinafter “Fair Trade Act”), the Fair Trade Commission is the Fair Trade Act.