beta
Text
The judgment below
The part against the Defendant is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.
The plaintiff.
Reasons
The grounds of appeal are examined.
1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below as to the plaintiff's grounds of appeal, the court below acknowledged facts as stated in its reasoning, and determined that the plaintiff committed the collaborative act in this case by concluding an agreement on the share of the total construction amount with other construction companies which are competitive enterprisers in relation to the four major major courses after the "Korean-do Construction Project for Han-do canal Construction Project", which was a public-private partnership, was converted into a "fourth major course
Furthermore, in light of the circumstances stated in its holding, the lower court determined that the instant collaborative act is likely to restrict or restrict competition in the relevant market.
In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the above determination by the court below is justifiable.
In so doing, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on
2. As to the Defendant’s grounds of appeal, in light of the purport of the correction order system under the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act (hereinafter “Fair Trade Act”), it is reasonable to interpret that the contents of the correction order may not be repeated in the near future.
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Du23177, Nov. 25, 2010). According to the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court determined that the Defendant’s corrective order against the Plaintiff, on the ground that the Plaintiff did not participate in the agreement on the “construction section,” other than the agreement on “shares,” was unlawful.
However, according to the records of this case, the collaborative act of this case is an agreement to allocate the total construction volume of the four major projects to the equity ratio.