Lot shopping Co., Ltd. (Law Firm LLC, Attorneys Park Im-sik et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Fair Trade Commission (Attorney Choi Byung-hee et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

September 25, 2014

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The Defendant’s corrective order and penalty surcharge payment order in attached Form 1, which was issued against the Plaintiff by Decision No. 2014-046 on March 6, 2014, shall be revoked in entirety.

1. Basic facts and circumstances of dispositions;

A. State 1) Status of Plaintiff

The Plaintiff is using a store with a total size of at least 300 square meters for retail business as a person who sells goods supplied by consumers from a large number of business operators and with a total size of at least 300 square meters, and constitutes a large franchise and retail business operator under Article 2 subparagraph 1 of the Act on Fair Transactions in Large Franchise and Retail Business (hereinafter “Large Franchise and Retail Business Act”).

B. The plaintiff's previous unfair trade practices

The Defendant: (a) around May 2006, managed the sales volume ratio of Plaintiff 2 in the manner that the Plaintiff received from 85 suppliers, such as Naco Co., Ltd. to access the business information network of competitive department stores (hereinafter “EDI”); and (b) thereby allowing them to exercise events at a discount in the Plaintiff’s department store or not to exercise discount in the competitive department store; (c) around May 2006, the Plaintiff managed the sales volume ratio; and (d) this constitutes the Plaintiff on the ground that “the Plaintiff interfered with the management of suppliers by unfairly taking advantage of its position in the transaction, and constitutes a corrective order under Article 23(1)4 of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act (hereinafter “Fair Trade Act”), Article 36 subparag. 16 (e) of the Enforcement Decree of the Fair Trade Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 21492, May 13, 2009)” (hereinafter “the penalty surcharge order”) and the penalty surcharge order, etc. against the Plaintiff.

C. The defendant's disposition of this case

1) On March 6, 2014, the Defendant: (a) demanded suppliers to provide monthly or daily sales data in the 60 brands (hereinafter “instant brands”) sold by the instant supplier through verbal or e-mail during the period from January 1, 2012 to May 20, 2012; (b) the Plaintiff, based on the competitive department store data provided by the instant supplier, demanded suppliers to not make sales promotion events, etc.; or (c) demanded suppliers not to participate in sales promotions; and (d) during the period from January 1, 2012 to May 20, 2012, 35 suppliers, etc. (hereinafter “instant suppliers”), as shown in attached Table 3, to provide 60 brands (hereinafter “instant brands”); and (d) the Plaintiff, based on the competitive department store data provided by the instant supplier, demanded suppliers to provide the supplier with monthly or monthly sales data; and (e) the Plaintiff’s act of selling information to the supplier, etc. and its superior position to the supplier, etc., etc. on the instant sales order.

2) Following the following process, the Defendant imposed a penalty surcharge of KRW 4,573,00,00 on the Plaintiff pursuant to each provision of Article 35(1) of the Large-Scale Distribution Business Act, Article 28(1) and (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, the imposition criteria for penalty surcharges on a business operator who violates the Large-Scale Distribution Business Act (hereinafter “public notice of penalty surcharges”) and the public notice of detailed criteria for imposing penalty surcharges (amended by the Fair Trade Commission Notice No. 2012-6, Mar. 28, 2012; hereinafter “public notice of penalty surcharges”). Considering that the public notice of penalty surcharges under the Large-Scale Distribution Business Act was enforced from February 28, 2012, the Defendant applied the public notice of penalty surcharges to the acts conducted before the public notice of penalty surcharges under the Large-Scale Distribution Business Act was enforced, and calculated by applying the public notice of penalty surcharges under the Large-Scale Distribution Business Act to the acts conducted from February 28, 2012.

A) Criteria for calculation

(1) Prices for supply and related rents;

The products directly or indirectly affected by the Plaintiff’s request for management information are all the products of the specific brand sold by the supplier that became the subject of the request for management information in the Plaintiff’s department store, which is the control point of the competitive department store that is subject to the request for management information, and the relevant rents are the rents of the relevant company that is subject to the request for management information by the Plaintiff’s department store, the comparison point of the competitive department store that is subject to the request for management information.

(2) Period of the violation

The Plaintiff’s demand for sales data on competitive department stores for double brands is deemed to have been continuously made since 2006 until the date of the request for unfair management information from January 1, 2012 to the date of imposition of penalty surcharges in consideration of the fact that the enforcement of the Act on Large-Scale Distribution Business is prohibited. The date of imposition of penalty surcharges shall be January 1, 2012, and the termination date shall be calculated on May 20, 2012, which is before the date of ex officio examination (hereinafter “instant violation period”).

(3) Calculation of related prices of supply and related rents

(A) In the case of purchase transaction under a special contract, the price for supply related to the act of requesting the provision of unfair sales data of this case shall be the sum of the sales amount sold by the supplier during the period of the violation of this case, excluding value-added taxes, and in the case of lease transaction (lease 4), rent related to the act of requesting the provision of unfair sales data of this case shall be the sum of rent revenue during the period of the violation of this case, and value-added tax shall be excluded.

(B) If the relevant price of supplied goods and rents are classified by the period of imposition of the penalty surcharge, ① the total purchase amount of the relevant goods purchased by the Plaintiff from the supplier, etc. during the period subject to the notification of the penalty surcharge (excluding value-added tax) and the total amount of the relevant rents (excluding value-added tax) are KRW 18,272,00,000 per week; ② the total purchase amount of the relevant goods purchased by the Plaintiff from the supplier, etc. during the period subject to the notification of the penalty surcharge under the Large-Scale Distribution Business Act and the total amount of the relevant rents (excluding value-added tax)

(4) Standard imposition rate

In light of the substance and degree of the violation, such as the fact that the sales data requested by the Plaintiff to the supplier, etc. falls under simple sales data, relatively more importance than that of cost data or supply prices by business entity, etc., the degree of gravity of the act of this case is classified into "serious violation." Therefore, the period subject to the public announcement of penalty surcharges shall be 0.8% of the total amount of the relevant supply price and related rent, and the period subject to the public announcement of penalty surcharges under the Act on Large-Scale Distribution Business shall be 40% of

(5) Criteria for calculation

The plaintiff's calculation standards are as follows:

Notice of 22,503,00,000 40% 9,001,200,000,000 penalty surcharges of 18,272,00,000 0.8% 146,176,000 0.8% 146,176,000 0.9,147,376,000

B) Determination of imposition penalty surcharges

In light of the fact that the amount of the penalty surcharge calculated in comparison with the economic ripple effect on the relevant market is excessive and that the amount of the penalty surcharge in this case is likely to constitute a violation of the principle of proportionality and a deviation or abuse of discretionary power, the amount of 4,573,68,000 won (==9,147,376,000 won-(9,147,376,3700 x 0.5)) that has been reduced by 50% of the adjusted amount by an act or an element of the offender shall be determined as a penalty surcharge.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 2, purport of whole pleadings

2. Relevant statutes;

Attached Form 4 shall be as listed in attached Table 4.

3. The plaintiff's assertion

A. Non-existence of the grounds for the instant disposition

According to the following circumstances, the Plaintiff did not unfairly demand the supplier of this case to provide management information or at a disadvantage related thereto, and thus, the instant disposition is unlawful as it did not recognize the grounds for disposition.

1) The brand of this case is with a high preference of consumers, while the company’s size and brand’s status are considerably significant, while sales respect for the Plaintiff is low, and thus the Plaintiff is not acknowledged to have a superior position in the transaction. Moreover, the type of transaction between the Plaintiff and the supplier, such as purchase and sale under a special contract or lease transaction (lease) is irrelevant to the Plaintiff’s superior position in the transaction.

2) Collection of sales data is a universal economic activity, and only the Plaintiff’s total sales volume for each company or each store is confirmed through market information, etc. The sales data for each brand is merely a request made by some of the Plaintiff’s employees for personal business convenience, and the Plaintiff did not collect or manage the sales volume at the company level. The instant supplier voluntarily provided sales data, and the Plaintiff did not force the instant supplier to provide sales data, and there was no disadvantage in refusing to provide data.

3) The documents presented by the Defendant on the grounds that the Plaintiff imposed disadvantages on the supplier regarding sales data are ① prepared from July 2009 to November 201 before the period of the instant violation, ② not related to the instant supplier, and ③ not related to the provision of sales data.

4) Considering the above facts, the Plaintiff’s act is not likely to impede fair trade, as it did not restrict the freedom of decision-making of the instant supplier due to the Plaintiff’s provision of sales data from the instant supplier or restrict competition in the relevant market and consumer welfare.

(b) Defects in a penalty surcharge payment order;

Even if the Plaintiff’s violation of law exists, the Defendant’s order of penalty surcharge payment is against the principle of proportionality and the principle of equality, and is unlawful by abusing and abusing discretion.

1) The instant penalty surcharge payment order goes against the principle of proportionality in light of the following: (a) the act at issue in the instant case is not the Plaintiff’s organized act, but the collected act does not constitute a strong undisclosed information; and (b) the content and degree of the offense were not significant; (c) the period of the offense is excessive for five months; (d) there is no unjust enrichment; (e) the supplier does not suffer any particular loss due to the provision of sales data; and (e) there is no restriction on competition or any effect of lowering consumer welfare; and (e) it is sufficient to achieve

2) Since the acquisition of sales data does not affect the transaction with the supplier of this case, the penalty surcharge calculated by the Defendant based on the entire goods and rents supplied by the supplier of this case is inappropriate. Since it is difficult to compute related supply prices and rents, a fixed amount of penalty surcharge should be imposed on the Plaintiff. If the Plaintiff imposed a penalty surcharge on the supplier only based on the purchase amount related to disadvantages, so the instant order to pay the penalty surcharge is lost balance with the case where the supplier actually disadvantaged the supplier.

3) The Defendant’s act of demanding sales data whose illegality is not excessive is set at 60% of the relevant price of supply and rent in the public notice of penalty surcharges under the Act on Large-Scale Distribution Business, and the calculation of penalty surcharges by applying the imposition standard rate of 40% in this case is excessively excessive compared to those prescribed by other fair trade-related Acts and subordinate statutes as 2% or 10% of the relevant sales.

4. Determination

A. Determination as to the existence of a superior position in the transaction

According to Article 3(1) and (2) of the Large Franchise and Retail Business Act, the Act on Large Franchise and Retail Business does not apply to transactions in which a large franchise and retail business operator is not deemed to have a superior bargaining position to a supplier or sales floor tenant (hereinafter “supplier, etc.”). Whether a supplier, etc. is in a superior bargaining position should be determined by comprehensively taking into account the structure of the distribution market, consumer consumption status, transaction dependence on a supplier, etc., transaction dependence on a large franchise and retail business operator, characteristics of the goods subject to the transaction, the scope of distribution business practices operated by a large franchise and retail business operator

According to the following circumstances, Gap's certificate 2, Eul's certificate 32, 35 through 38, and Eul's certificate 3-1 through 3, the overall purport of oral argument, etc., (i.e., the market share of the upper 3 department stores as of 2010 is 87.7%, and the upper 3 department stores as of 201 accounts for 70% of the total number of stores in 60. Among them, the market share of the plaintiff in 2010 is 1 in terms of the total number of stores, and the market share of the plaintiff in 2010 is 1 in terms of the sales market, and 2011 through 2013 in terms of the market value and 30% of the total number of stores, which are favorable to the plaintiff's brand sales market in terms of the above fact that the plaintiff's apartment sales price of the third department stores, including the plaintiff, continues to be able to secure the highest level of sales price of the plaintiff and the second 4 department stores's.

B. Determination as to whether to recognize illegality

1) Relevant legal principles

A) Article 23(1)4 of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act prohibits “act that may impede fair trade” from “act that a business entity trades with another party by unfairly taking advantage of its trading position.” Article 23(3) of the same Act and Article 36(1) [Attachment 1-2] of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, upon delegation by the former, stipulates that “in the specific form of abuse of trading position, coercion of purchase, coercion of provision of profits, coercion of sales targets, disadvantageous provision of disadvantage, and interference in business management” is provided, and Article 36(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provides that “the Fair Trade Commission may, if deemed necessary, set and publicly notify detailed standards to apply to a particular sector or specific act,” and Article 10(2) of the same Act provides that “The Fair Trade Commission shall not compel a supplier, etc. to participate in the exercise of material management data (including methods of unfairly compelling the supplier, etc. to acquire information on sales prices, discount rates, etc.) from the supplier, etc.

B) Meanwhile, the Act on the Large-Scale Distribution Business, enacted on November 14, 201, further stipulated in Article 14, that “large-scale distributor shall not unfairly require a supplier, etc. to provide any of the following information,” and Article 14(1)3 of the same Act and Article 11(1)2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provides that “Sales-related Information, such as the sales of goods supplied by a supplier, etc. to another business entity or sold at another business entity’s store by period, shall be one of the prohibited management information (hereinafter “instant provision”).

C) As can be seen, the instant provision prohibits a large franchise and retail business operator from unfairly acquiring and interfering with management by means against the will of the supplier, etc., and further preventing a large franchise and retail business operator from requesting information on unfair sales. Considering the circumstances that the act of demanding management information is highly likely to function as a starting point of unfair trade practices, such as compelling the supplier to participate in the sales promotion event or raising sales commission rate, and that there is a strong possibility of restricting fair and free competition, it aims to establish a fair trade order in large franchise and retail business and to enable large franchise and retail business operators and suppliers or sales floor tenants to develop mutually complementaryly on equal terms. In light of the legislative intent of the instant provision, in light of the legislative intent of the instant provision, the issue of whether the demand was unfair should be determined by the parties to the instant provision, taking into account the situation of the market and trading, the gap in business capacity between the parties to the relevant transaction, the intent, purpose, effect of the relevant act, the degree of disadvantage that the Defendant’s demand or disadvantage in the market is likely to be suffered by the other party.

2) Facts of recognition

A) Regarding personnel evaluation

(1) On March 2, 2012, the Plaintiff’s representative director pointed out that the gap in the large ratio has deteriorated by 10.5% at the conference for countermeasures against competition advantages and that all of the shop occupants in Metropolitan Cities (Seoul, Daegu, Ulsan, Daejeon, and Incheon) are the heat compared to the competitors, and instructed each sector to improve the competition ratio, such as “each point for these instruments, each sector shall be exempted from the competition right and the sector.” While the thickness of the president, the president gives instructions to take it against the competitors and to improve the large ratio.” “The goal is not an absolute goal, but an absolute goal, which is not a base for the competitors. The more important thing is to be compared to the competitors. Although there was a reason for five years until now, it is difficult to say that this is damp, but it is not meaningful to improve the large ratio compared to the competitors”, “All evaluations are not meaningful.”

(2) According to the detailed evaluation criteria for the Plaintiff’s employees (state 9) in 2012, the business performance management capacity (65 points)’s large ratio (5 points) in the same industry (5 points) is indicated as “whether the Plaintiff was a failure to win a team compared to the new or modern team: S: ＋ 3 points, and H + 2 points.”

(3) The measure management scheme prepared by the Plaintiff on September 25, 2008 stated that “The evaluation of the rate of increase in comparison with the competition point: the evaluation of the rate of increase in comparison with the competition point: the evaluation of the rate of increase in comparison with the performance of each group of products” shall be compared.

(4) According to the documents in the title “S-head office overlapping B/D management plan” submitted by the Plaintiff to the Defendant at the time of investigating the case in around 2008, the Plaintiff, as part of the “S-head office bonus or 50 per cent (10 per cent) brand special management,” has formulated the “establishment of M/S items (11) M/S items (10 points at the time of assessing the Products Headquarters” as one of the brand management plans.

B) Requests for sales data

The Plaintiff’s employees, including Nonparty 1’s request for sales data from January to May, 2012 through e-mail to Nonparty 2’s ○○○○ and 13 brands, the Plaintiff’s employees, upon the instruction of Nonparty 2, a workplace company, obtained the sales data from the instant suppliers that overlap with the Plaintiff and other competitive department stores (annual accumulated annual, weekly cumulative sales, and the size of the relevant store, etc.) from the instant suppliers that overlap with the Plaintiff and other competitive department stores, as shown in attached Form 3.

C) Specific cases of managing the Plaintiff’s sales comparison ratio

(1) On April 2010, the Plaintiff’s Busan Branch analyzed the overlapping brand comparison ratio in March of the same year, and prepared “large-scale management”, “price reduction”, “price reduction”, and “the progress of price adjustment”, “the progress of price adjustment”, and “the progress of product 50% for the end of the week,” etc. as a countermeasure for the overlapping brand with low sales volume.

(2) On July 7, 2010, the Plaintiff prepared measures to improve the progress of various discount events, such as “per day-to-day day-to-day day-to-day day-to-day day (1, 2, 30,000 won-to-day day-to-day day-day day-to-day day (1, 2, and 30,000 won-to-day day-to-day)” and “

(3) The Defendant’s pocket book obtained in around 2013, which was the time of the investigation of the instant case, contains a statement to the effect that the Plaintiff’s employee’s pocket book “the △△△△△△△ improvement was improved in large brand ratio,” and the △△△△ brand was removed if it was not improved

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Eul-1 to 28, 31, 43, 44 and the purport of the whole pleadings

3) Determination

Considering the above facts and circumstances, in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, comprehensively taking into account the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence revealed earlier and the evidence No. 4-1, No. 29, and No. 30, etc., it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff’s demand from the supplier of this case to submit sales data using its superior position to the supplier of this case is beyond normal transaction practices and thus, it may be recognized as improper. The Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is without merit.

A) In light of the fact that the Plaintiff managed the sales volume ratio in the case of EDI, and the Plaintiff’s case of management of the sales volume ratio and the fact of recognition related to personnel evaluation, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff continued to manage the sales volume of each brand with other competitive department stores at the company level at least after around 2006.

B) In the process, as seen earlier, the Plaintiff’s employees requested the instant supplier to obtain the sales data of the instant brand at the competitive department store for the instant brand. It is difficult to view that part of the Plaintiff’s employees requested the Plaintiff’s supplier for personal business convenience, and as seen earlier, Nonparty 1 MD requested the sales data of the Plaintiff’s employees from January to May, 2012 via e-mail to the ○○○ and 13 brands, the Plaintiff’s employees, and in light of the direction of the Plaintiff’s representative director and the Plaintiff’s business performance evaluation criteria, it is reasonable to deem that the instant demand for the sales data of the instant supplier was made at a company level, not at a personal level by some employees of the Plaintiff.

C) As seen earlier, the Plaintiff is a large franchise and retail business operator of the department store industry and the instant supplier the superior position in the transaction. In the EDI case, the Plaintiff received a corrective order and a penalty surcharge payment order from the Defendant by forcing the supplier to participate in the sales promotional events, etc. using the supplier’s competitive department store sales data, etc., and according to the overall purport of the statement and arguments in B and B, the Plaintiff is in the position to grant personal news to the non-cooperative suppliers, and the Plaintiff seems to have actually given personal news information, it is difficult to view that the instant supplier’s provision of brand-type sales data upon the Plaintiff’s request was based on the Plaintiff’s voluntary intent. In addition, since the Plaintiff did not voluntarily disclose information on sales in other department stores, which are trade secrets, to the Plaintiff, and thus, even if the Plaintiff provided information on sales in the department store at the Plaintiff’s request, it would not be reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff’s demand was in a superior position in the transaction, which would not infringe the Plaintiff’s free trade decision-making or be likely to infringe the Plaintiff’s free trade.

D) As above, if the Plaintiff received sales data from the instant suppliers in the competitive department store and managed the sales volume ratio of the instant brand, then the instant supplier will continue to hold similar events by each department store. This is likely to reduce competition among each department store and undermine consumer welfare.

E) According to Article 14, etc. of the Large-Scale Distribution Business Act, the Act on the Large-Scale Distribution Business provides that, in principle, it may be justified if a supplier, etc. requests a supplier, etc. according to the prescribed form by specifying the purpose of necessity exceptionally, although the act of demanding sales information is prohibited. The Plaintiff did not make such a request to

C. Determination on the deviation and abuse of discretionary power of the penalty surcharge payment order

1) The defendant has discretion as to whether to impose a penalty surcharge on a violation of the Fair Trade Act and, if imposing a penalty surcharge, to determine the amount of the penalty surcharge in detail within a certain extent prescribed by the Enforcement Decree of the Fair Trade Act. Thus, the defendant's imposition of a penalty surcharge on a violation of the Fair Trade Act is a discretionary act. However, if the defendant misleads the fact that served as the basis for imposing a penalty surcharge in exercising such discretion, or violates the principle of proportionality and equality, it is illegal as a deviation or abuse of discretionary power (Supreme Court Decision 2009Du12631 Decided June 30, 201).

2) In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the aforementioned evidence and the purport of the entire pleadings, the Defendant is deemed to have issued the instant penalty surcharge within the scope of the relevant statutes, taking into account the content and degree of the Plaintiff’s act. The instant penalty surcharge payment order is excessive, or it is deemed that there was an error of violating the principle of proportionality and the principle of equality and deviation from and abuse of discretionary power, and thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is without merit.

A) As seen earlier, the Plaintiff demanded the instant supplier to submit the sales data at the competitive department store in relation to the instant brand (hereinafter “instant act”) to the instant supplier. The collected data are trade secrets of the instant supplier. It is difficult to view that the instant supplier’s provision of brand-type sales data to the Plaintiff was based on the Plaintiff’s voluntary intent. As such, there is a possibility that competition between each department store may be reduced and consumer welfare may be impeded due to the provision of the above sales data. Furthermore, the Plaintiff was ordered to take corrective measures and pay penalty surcharges in EDI case by acquiring the sales data, etc. from the supplier’s competitive department store and forcing the supplier to participate in the promotional events, etc. using them, and continued to manage the sales large rate. In light of this, it is sufficient to view that the Plaintiff’s content and degree of the instant act is not significant, or that the purpose of sanctions is to achieve sanctions as a less infringing corrective measures than the instant penalty surcharge payment order.

B) The proviso of Article 35(1) of the Act on Large-Scale Distribution Business provides that “Where it is difficult to calculate sales, etc., a penalty surcharge may be imposed within the extent not exceeding KRW 500 million.” The public notice of a penalty surcharge under the Act on Large-Scale Distribution Business provides that “Where it is difficult to calculate related prices of supply or related rent” means where it is difficult to calculate sales under the proviso of Article 35(1) of the Act on Large-Scale Distribution Business, “where it is difficult to calculate the prices of supply or annual rent because it is impracticable to calculate the prices of supply or annual rent because it is difficult to calculate the prices of supply or sales due to the impossibility of determining the period of violation or the scope of related products, etc.” and “where it is difficult to calculate the prices of supply or annual rent due to the extinguishment or damage of materials to verify the prices of purchase or sales of goods due to disasters, etc.” However, the Plaintiff’s act does not constitute this case. The Defendant calculated the prices of supply or rent by considering only the brand products requested to provide management information as related to the Plaintiff.

C) The main text of Article 35(1) of the Large Franchise and Retail Business Act provides that “The Fair Trade Commission may impose a penalty surcharge on a large franchise and retail business operator who violates the provisions of Article 14 to the extent not exceeding the amount of supplied goods according to the calculation method prescribed by Presidential Decree or annual rent.” Article 28(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provides that the price of supplied goods is “the purchase amount of related goods purchased by the large franchise and retail business operator during the period of a violation or the amount equivalent thereto,” and Article 35(2) of the same Act provides that matters necessary for the imposition of the penalty surcharge shall be determined and publicly notified by the Defendant in addition to the matters stipulated in paragraph (1) of the same Article. Accordingly, the imposition standard rate of the penalty surcharge under the Large Franchise and Retail Business Act, enacted and publicly notified by the Defendant, shall be calculated by dividing the serious violation, serious violation, and serious nature of the violation into 60%, 40%, and 20%, which shall be calculated by multiplying the relevant price of supplied goods or related rent.”

D) As seen earlier, the act of requesting management information is likely to be an starting point of unfair trade practices and thus, it is deemed that there is a strong possibility to restrict fair and free competition. Considering such fact, the Act prohibits it, while Article 39(1)2 prohibits it, unlike most violations of the Act on Large-Scale Distribution Business, Article 14(1) is subject to penalty surcharges. The public notice of penalty surcharges under the Act on Large-Scale Distribution Business provides that the act of demanding management information is subject to penalty surcharges in principle in cases where the act of requesting management information is serious or has a big ripple effect, and the act of the Plaintiff is likely to be repeated because it is likely that the act of the Plaintiff is intended for a large number of suppliers without eradicating the administrative disposition in the EDI case, and therefore, it is likely that the pertinent administrative sanctions are needed to impose penalty surcharges at the rate of 40% by deeming the Plaintiff’s act as a serious violation and it is within the scope of discretion allowed to the Plaintiff.

E) The Defendant applied 0.8% of the standard rate of imposition of penalty surcharges to the Plaintiff in favor of the Plaintiff during the period prior to the enforcement of the notice of penalty surcharges under the Act on Large-Scale Distribution Business. In addition, considering that the amount of penalty surcharges is excessive and may be contrary to the principle of proportionality, the Defendant decided to reduce the amount of penalty surcharges by 50%, which seems to fall under the scope to reduce the amount to the maximum extent possible to the Plaintiff under the notice of penalty surcharges

5. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment Omission]

Judges Lee Jung-Jon (Presiding Judge)

(1) The Plaintiff’s trade name is a lot department store, which is the Plaintiff’s trade name, and when referring to the Plaintiff’s department store, the Plaintiff or the Plaintiff department store is deemed the Plaintiff or the Plaintiff department store.

(2) The supplier, etc. compared specific products sold at the Plaintiff’s competitive department store and the Plaintiff’s store with monthly sales, annual sales, etc.

3) The term "purchase under a special contract" means a transaction in which a large franchise and retail business operator purchases a good on credit from a supplier on condition that it is possible to return a good which has not been sold among the goods he/she purchases, and pays a sales amount after subtracting profit of a given percentage or of a given amount after selling the good

4) Lease transactions are classified into lease and lease in accordance with the tenant’s name and account solely for sales discount, inventory management, etc. from the issuance of the tax invoice by means of the transaction method in which store tenants rent and use part of store stores for the sale of goods, etc. and pay part of the sales amount as rent. Lease deposits are required or exempted depending on the case of special contract purchase transactions in the manner that retail stores manage the sales and impose a certain ratio of sales amount on the sales amount at a mas/ commission. In the case of lease, lease deposits are similar to purchase transactions in the sense that a certain ratio of sales should be paid as mas/ commission.

Note 5) Purchase amount of related goods: 35 S. 10,69,000,000, related rent: 4 7,603,000,000

Note 6) Purchase amount of related goods: 35 copies 13,408,000,000, related rents: four copies 9,095,000,000 won

Note 7) The penalty surcharge notice IV. 4. (a) and the penalty surcharge notice of the Act on Large-Scale Distribution Business. 3. (a) 1: The penalty surcharge may be imposed by reducing the adjusted amount based on the action or the element of the offender to the extent of 50/100, in a case where it is deemed that the adjusted amount by the action or the element of the offender is excessive, taking into account the practical ability of the offender, the effect of the violation on the market, the scale of unjust enrichment, the change in the business conditions faced by the offender, etc.

8) The definitions of the terms used in this public notice are as follows: <1> The term "large retailer" means a person who purchases and retails goods that ordinary consumers ordinarily use in a large retail business (including the relevant franchisor in cases where the "franchise" as defined in subparagraph 2 of Article 2 of the Fair Transactions in Franchise Business Act runs retail business) and falls under any of the following subparagraphs. 1. A person whose sales in the immediately preceding business year (referring to the total sales in cases of a business operator recognizing profits under the Corporate Accounting Standards, and the sales in the retail business type in cases of a business operator who engages in multiple types of business) are not less than 100 billion won; 2. The sum of sales area (referring to an area calculated by multiplying the floor area of the store by 95/100) is not less than 30 square meters:

9) Whiteef mmerch andiser (designated product planner)

Note 10) The term “50% or more of the sales amount” means that sales amounting to more than half of the sales amount of the Plaintiff is realized at a competitive department store.

Note 11) seems to be related to the sales comparison ratio (see Evidence No. 3).

Note 12) The term “a brand” means a brand in which both the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s competitive department store are located simultaneously.