beta
Text
The judgment below
Among them, the part of the notification given by the Defendant against the Plaintiff is reversed, and this part of the case is reversed.
Reasons
The grounds of appeal are examined.
1. Determination as to the part of the notice of non-recognition of reduction or exemption for investigation and cooperation by the Plaintiff
A. The term "administrative disposition, which is the object of an appeal litigation, refers to, in principle, an act of an administrative agency's public law, which directly affects the rights and obligations of the general public by ordering the establishment of rights or the burden of obligations, or giving rise to other legal effects, with regard to a specific matter under laws and regulations. However, even if the grounds for a certain disposition are stipulated in administrative rules, if such disposition orders the other party to establish rights or the burden of obligations, or gives rise to other legal effects, and thus, directly affects the other party's rights
(1) The Supreme Court Decision 2001Du3532 Decided July 26, 2002; Supreme Court Decision 2003Du10251, 10268 Decided November 26, 2004, etc.). Meanwhile, the issue of whether an administrative agency’s certain act can be subject to appeal cannot be determined abstractly and generally, and in specific cases, an administrative disposition is an act that directly affects the rights and obligations of the people as an enforcement of law with respect to specific facts conducted by an administrative agency as the public authority, taking into account the content and purport of the relevant Act and subordinate statutes, the subject, content, form, and procedure of the act, the substantial relation between the act and the disadvantage suffered by interested parties such as the other party, and the attitude of the administrative agency and interested parties related to the pertinent act, etc., shall be determined individually, taking into account the following:
(See Supreme Court Decision 91Nu1714 Decided January 17, 1992, and Supreme Court en banc Decision 2008Du167 Decided November 18, 2010, etc.). B.
Article 22-2(1) of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act (hereinafter “the Act”) and Presidential Decree No. 21492, May 13, 2009.