1. The defendant's appeal and the request for return of provisional payment are dismissed, respectively.

2. Expenses for filing an application for the return of the provisional payment of the appeal.

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation concerning this case is as follows: (a) the reasoning for the court’s explanation is as stated in the reasoning of the first instance court’s judgment, except for the addition of the following to the fourth one among the judgment of the first instance, and therefore, (b) it is consistent with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

In addition, in the case where the issue is whether the act of a petroleum selling company, such as the Plaintiff, did not determine the price of the product at the time of the supply, constitutes “an act of disadvantageous offer” as prescribed by the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act and the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, the Supreme Court held that “the transaction after-sale is not based on the prior agreement with the gas stations, and there is room to deem that the transaction conditions were somewhat unfavorable during the process of establishing or implementing the transaction terms and conditions or providing disadvantages to the oil stations. However, considering the supply of petroleum products, the structure and status of the distribution market, the current status of support of funds and facilities between the oil selling company and the oil stations, the circumstances and process of the after-sale settlement, the possibility of disadvantages that may arise to the other party to the transaction, the transaction practices and forms of the relevant industry, and the impact on the general competition order, etc., the Supreme Court held that the transaction after-sale method might not be deemed to be likely to undermine fair trade by unfairly using the transaction position (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Du50909, Apr. 25, 2013).

2. On May 17, 2017, after the judgment of the court of first instance was rendered, the Defendant sought payment of KRW 22,281,626 on the Defendant’s application for the return of provisional payment and delayed payment on May 17, 2017, on which the Plaintiff demanded to pay KRW 22,281,626, on the premise that the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked.

However, as seen earlier, the judgment of the first instance is justifiable, and its revocation and alteration are justified.