The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Whether the statute of limitations has lapsed (Ground of appeal No. 1)

A. In the event that the multiple agreements have been reached for a long period of time, if the agreement was reached for the same purpose based on a single intent and continued to be implemented without any interruption, the specific contents of the agreement were partly modified.

Even if such a series of agreements ought to be considered as a single unfair collaborative act, barring special circumstances.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2007Du3756 Decided September 25, 2008, and Supreme Court Decision 2013Du6169 Decided February 12, 2015, etc.) (b).

The lower court determined that: (a) the instant collaborative act aimed at achieving the same purpose based on the single intent and constitutes a single unfair collaborative act as a whole; and (b) the period of extinctive prescription was not imposed on such premise, on the following grounds: (a) the instant collaborative act aimed at achieving the same purpose; and (c) the instant collaborative act constitutes a single unfair collaborative act as a whole, on the premise that the instant collaborative act was committed for the same purpose; and (d) the period of extinctive prescription was not imposed.

C. Such determination by the lower court is based on the legal doctrine as seen earlier. In so doing, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the establishment of a single unfair collaborative act, or by exceeding the bounds of

2. Whether the standard for calculation of penalty surcharge is unlawful (ground of appeal No. 2)

In full view of Articles 6 and 22 of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act (hereinafter “Fair Trade Act”), the Fair Trade Commission should impose penalty surcharges on violations of the Fair Trade Act and if it imposes penalty surcharges.