[1] The method of determining whether a transaction constitutes a transaction under substantially favorable terms under Article 23(1)7 of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act, and the meaning of the normal interest rate, which serves as the basis for determining whether the payment and consideration are substantially favorable

[2] The case holding that the act of an insurance company's purchase of commercial papers as part of the so-called "corporate business," which concluded a group insurance contract with relatives' independent management companies and extended loans through a specified money trust does not constitute a transaction under the " significantly favorable conditions" when comparing the discount rate with the discount rate applied to purchase of commercial papers by an unrelated company

[1] Article 23 (1) 7 of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act / [2] Article 23 (1) 7 of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 2001Du2881 Decided October 14, 2004 (Gong2004Ha, 1833) Supreme Court Decision 2001Du2935 Decided October 14, 2004 (Gong2004Ha, 1845) Supreme Court Decision 2003Du15171 Decided February 10, 2006 (Gong2006Sang, 432)

Samsung Life Insurance Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Sejong, Attorneys Yellow-tae et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Fair Trade Commission (Law Firm Song, Attorney Lee Jae-hwan, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 99Nu4596 delivered on February 5, 2004

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

Determination as to whether a transaction constitutes “any remarkably favorable condition” under Article 23(1)7 of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act refers to not only difference between benefits and consideration, but also the interest rate applicable to a transaction between an applicant and an independent financial institution without a special relationship in terms of the size of support and the amount of support, the period of support, the frequency of support, the timing of support, and the economic situation of an applicant at the time of support. The normal interest rate, which serves as the basis for determining whether or not benefits and consideration are substantially favorable, refers to the interest rate applicable to a transaction between an applicant and an independent financial institution without a special relationship, in the same or similar circumstances in terms of the financing transaction, the time, type, size, period, and credit conditions, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 201Du10375, Oct. 14, 2004; 201Du13051, Feb. 16, 2005).

The reasoning of the judgment of the court below and the records reveal that ① the above act of purchasing new CPs was conducted on March 25, 197 at the time of the above act of purchasing new CPs with a certain rate of 10 billion won at 40 billion won at the time of the above act of purchasing new CPs with a certain rate of 10 billion won at 1.0 billion won at the time of the above act of purchasing new CPs with a certain rate of 10 billion won at 1.0 billion won at the time of the above act of purchasing new CPs with a certain rate of 40 billion won at 1.0 billion won at the time of the above act of purchasing new CPs with a certain rate of 10 billion won at 1.0 billion won at the time of the above act of purchasing new CPs with a certain rate of 10 billion won at 1.0 billion won at the time of the above act of purchasing new CPs with a certain rate of 10 billion won at 19.0 billion won at each of the above 20 billion won interest rate for new CPs.

In light of the above legal principles and the above facts, since the purchase of each of the CPs in this case was conducted as part of the so-called "corporate business" of the plaintiff, and the Korea-Japan and Korea-China included a kind of quid pro quo as to the conclusion of the insurance contract with the plaintiff. Thus, it is not reasonable to determine that the purchase of each of the CPs in this case constitutes a transaction of "any remarkably favorable terms" with the support chain chain chain and Korea-China based on considering that the quid pro quo is not reflected in the quid pro quo. However, it is difficult to view that the rate of discount applied when purchasing the CPs in this case as part of the "corporate business" as part of the "corporate business" of the purchase of the CPs in this case, it is difficult to view that the purchase rate of the CPs in this case was 10.60% to 10.88%, which is 10% or 13.5% more favorable to the purchase rate of the CPs in this case and the CPs in this case.

The reasoning of the court below is partly inappropriate, but it is just to conclude that the purchase of each CP of this case does not constitute an unfair support under Article 23 (1) 7 of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act unless it is deemed that the purchase of each CP of this case is a transaction "any remarkably favorable condition". The defendant's ground of appeal on the premise that the purchase of each CP of this case is a transaction "any remarkably favorable condition" is without merit.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Ahn Dai-hee (Presiding Justice)