logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.10.16 2015노2289
독점규제및공정거래에관한법률위반
Text

All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant A”), D (hereinafter “Defendant A”), misunderstanding of facts, and misunderstanding of legal principles (1) The instant agreement was voluntarily promoted by Defendant D and W in order to conceal personal breach of trust. Defendant D and W did not receive reports on the instant agreement from V, or did not recognize the instant agreement.

② The instant agreement is not recognized as unfairly restricting competition and impeding the fairness of bidding.

③ The act of Defendant A does not fall under the act related to the business of Defendant A, and Defendant A was not negligent in giving due attention and supervision concerning the relevant business.

The sentence of the first instance of unfair sentencing (Defendant A: fine of 70 million won, Defendant D’s imprisonment with prison labor for 6 months, and 2 years of suspended execution) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant B”), i.e., misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles (hereinafter “Defendant B”), the instant agreement was voluntarily promoted by X to conceal personal breach of trust. E and Y did not have received or participated in the instant agreement from X.

② The instant agreement is not recognized as unfairly restricting competition.

③ The instant agreement does not constitute Defendant B’s act of business, and Defendant B did not neglect due care and supervision over the pertinent business.

Shebly the first instance of unfair sentencing (fines 70 million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following circumstances, as to the Defendants’ assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, comprehensively taking into account (i) the first instance court’s perception and approval of the instant agreement, and the evidence duly admitted and examined by the trial court, the facts that Defendant D, W, E, and Y, an employee of the Defendant A, reported by each V and X, and recognized the instant agreement.

As to this part of the Defendants.

arrow