바카라가이드

1. Case Background

​

□ Chungseok Engineering participated in one bid out of 15 bids launched by KOGAS for the purchase of distribution boards from April 2013 to July 2016.

​

□ An investigator of the Korean Fair Trade Commission alleged that 18 manufacturers, including Chungseok Engineering agreed on who would become a winner, who would participate in the bids as a matter of formality and at which level the bid prices would be set. The investigator further alleged that Chungseok Engineering took part in one bid as a sidekick.

​

The investigator determined that the alleged acts reduced and extinguished competition and thereby restricting competition in the market, and the acts constituted a violation of Article 19(1)8 of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act of Korea. He proposed that the violators be subject to an order of correction and the payment of surcharges.

​

□ Our Fair Trade Group represented Chungseok Engineering in the deliberation stage.

​

​

2. Decision of the KFTC: Chungseok Engineering was free from accusation.

​

□ The KFTC determined that Chungseok Engineering was free from suspicion on the ground that (i) the investigator had failed to provide evidence proving that Chungseok Engineering had agreed with the other companies to act as a “sidekick”, and (ii) Chungseok Engineering had apparently participated in the bid in a “competitive” manner. Chungseok Engineering became the only suspect who was free from suspicion among the 18 suspects.

​

​

3. Implication

​

□ The investigator argued that Chungseok Engineering acted as a “sidekick” for other bidders to win the bid. We aggressively clarified the facts that it was impossible for the participants to make such an agreement as alleged by the investigator as long as they were not able to share information on bidding prices in advance and that it was evident that Chungseok Engineering had never shared the bidding price with the other bidders.

​

□ We also analyzed the bidding practices of Chungseok Engineering and aggressively argued that it participated in the bids in a “competitive” manner on the ground that it bid the prices within the successful range. As such, we clarified that there were a number of circumstances incompatible with unfair concerted acts, and finally obtained the decision from the KFTC that Chungseok Engineering was free from suspicion.

​

□ The investigator concluded that all bidders had participated in an unfair concerted act without specific evidence showing that each bidder had engaged in illegal acts only on the basis of a circumstance in which some bidders had taken part in an unfair concerted act. The case has an implication in that it will serve as a precedent for those who are under the false accusation of collusion.