The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the assertion of misapprehension of legal principles as to the establishment of a collaborative act, the lower court, on the grounds as indicated in its reasoning, decided on the Plaintiff’s joint agreement between March 1, 2005 and January 31, 2008, on the introduction and increase of the base price increase in the name of the corporation (in the case of a corporation for convenience, the portion of “stock company,” among the corporate names, is not indicated separately), Hyundai lusco, UNHene, lusene, ASEAN, and the annual steel plate (hereinafter “base price collaborative act”), and decided jointly (hereinafter “four business entities, such as the Plaintiff, etc.”), the Plaintiff and B, Hyundai Hasco, and UNHethyl (hereinafter “Plaintiff, etc.”) from February 1, 2006 to April 31, 2008.

(hereinafter “Affort collaborative act” and each of the instant collaborative acts, together with the standard price, determined that each of the instant collaborative acts was jointly committed.

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the above determination by the court below is just, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors of exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or of misapprehending the legal principles

2. As to the assertion of misapprehension of legal principles as to related sales

A. According to the relevant statutes and legal principles, Article 22 of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act (hereinafter “Fair Trade Act”) and Articles 9(1) and 61(1) [Attachment 2] of the former Enforcement Decree of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 27034, Mar. 8, 2016), the Fair Trade Commission may impose a penalty surcharge calculated based on the sales of goods or services sold in a particular business area during the period of violation on a business operator who committed an unfair collaborative act. The “sales” in this context is determined by referring to materials, etc. of the business operator’s accounting, but the scope of each act is determined individually and specifically by type of act.