[1] Estimated and destroyed pursuant to Article 19(5) of the former Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act

[2] The case holding that the presumption that there was an agreement on unfair collaborative act was destroyed because the price of beer based on the same rate of increase in price of three beer is not by communication among three beer owners, and thus the presumption that there was an agreement on unfair collaborative act was destroyed

[1] In accordance with Article 19(5) of the former Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act (amended by Act No. 5813 of Feb. 5, 1999), if it is proved that the Fair Trade Commission is "an act that falls under any of the subparagraphs of Article 19(1) of the Act by two or more enterprisers," and that such an act is "an act practically restricting competition in a particular business area", it is presumed that the enterpriser has agreed to engage in such a collaborative act without the need to prove the circumstances under which the enterpriser's explicit or implied agreement or understanding is presumed to be "an act practically restricting competition in a particular business area". However, it can be presumed that the enterpriser who is presumed to have agreed to engage in such collaborative act, either by proving the fact that there was no agreement, or by proving the circumstances that the above act was not a collaborative act based on the agreement,

[2] The case holding that the presumption that there was an agreement on unfair collaborative act was destroyed because the price of beer based on the same rate of increase in price of 3 beer is not based on communication among three beer owners, and thus the presumption that there was an agreement on unfair collaborative act was destroyed.

[1] Article 19 (1) and (5) of the former Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act (amended by Act No. 5813 of Feb. 5, 199) / [2] Article 19 (1) and (5) of the former Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act (amended by Act No. 5813 of Feb. 5, 199)

[1] Supreme Court Decision 99Du6514, 6521 decided Mar. 15, 2002 (Gong2002Sang, 903), Supreme Court Decision 2000Du1386 decided May 28, 2002 (Gong2002Ha, 1548), Supreme Court Decision 200Du6107 decided May 28, 2002

The administrator of the rehabilitation company, who is the non-party taking over the lawsuit of the non-party taking over the lawsuit of the rehabilitation company, Obener Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Pacific, Attorneys Kim Jong-ro et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

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

Seoul High Court Decision 99Nu7311 delivered on January 9, 2001

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

According to Article 19(5) of the former Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act (amended by Act No. 5813, Feb. 5, 1999; hereinafter referred to as the "Act"), if the Fair Trade Commission proves that "an enterpriser is committing an act falling under any of the subparagraphs of Article 19(1) of the Act," and that "an act practically restricting competition in a particular business area" is "an act practically restricting competition," it is further presumed that the enterpriser has agreed to perform such a collaborative act without the need to prove the circumstances in which the enterpriser's explicit or implied agreement or understanding is presumed to be "an act practically restricting competition in a certain business area". However, it is presumed that the enterpriser has agreed to perform such collaborative act (see Supreme Court Decisions 9Du6514, 6521, Mar. 15, 2002; 200Du1386, May 28, 2002; 200Du61607, May 28, 2002).

After recognizing the facts based on the evidence adopted, the lower court determined that the National Tax Service’s agreement on the price increase rate by providing three separate methods to the domestic beer and supplying market at the end of 197, and that the rate of increase in prices by providing three separate methods to the National Tax Service for the purpose of raising the price of each type and three separate methods to the National Tax Service’s price increase by holding 9.9% of the domestic beer, and that the same rate of increase in prices by providing three separate methods to the National Tax Service for the purpose of raising the price of each type and three separate methods to the National Tax Service’s price increase by providing three separate methods, but the same provision to the National Tax Service for the purpose of raising the price of each type and three separate methods to the National Tax Service’s price increase by providing the same rate of increase in prices according to Article 19(1)1 of the Act, and thus, the same provision applies to the National Tax Service’s prior consultation on the price increase by providing the same rate of increase in prices to the National Tax Service.

In light of the records and the above legal principles, the recognition and judgment of the court below are just and acceptable, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there are no errors in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the nature of presumption pursuant to Article 19 (5) of the Act and the reversal of such presumption, or in the misapprehension of the rules of evidence, incomplete hearing, incomplete hearing, lack of reasons, or failure

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Ji-dam (Presiding Justice)