온라인 바카라사이트 추천

□ A local large telecommunication company launched a competitive bidding every year in which the company chose multiple cable manufacturers to purchase a large quantity of cables for telephone lines. The electric wire manufacturers participating in the bidding were found that they were engaged in a cartel activity in the way of sharing the quantity.

□ The Korean Fair Trade Commission (the “KFTC”) imposed surcharges on the electric wire manufacturers engaging in the cartel activity. In imposing the surcharges, the KFTC calculated the surcharge amounts on the basis of the aggregated amount of the contract prices won by the manufacturers, not on the basis of the respective contract prices won by the respective manufacturers. For instance, if a total amount of 100 is ordered and A, B and C win the amounts of 50, 30 and 20, respectively, the KFTC calculates surcharges on the basis of the related sales of 100 in imposing surcharges on A, B and C.

□ We represented two electric wire manufacturers, and filed an administrative suit with the Seoul High Court. The Seoul High Court determined that the 온라인 바카라사이트 추천 of the KFTC was legal.

□ We filed an appeal with the Supreme Court of 온라인 바카라사이트 추천. The Supreme Court of 온라인 바카라사이트 추천 ruled to quash and remand the lower court’s decision, determining that the KFTC had considered the overall characteristics of the bidding in a general and abstract manner in calculating the surcharges without considering the specific and individual circumstances of the plaintiffs and the size of actual profits earned by the plaintiffs, and as a result, the surcharges imposed on the plaintiffs were extremely heavy for the size of profits actually earned by the plaintiffs, and that the KFTC’s order to pay the surcharges was against the principle of proportion and equality and the KFTC had abused and deviated from discretionary power given to it.

□ In the administrative lawsuit, Barun argued that even though A, B and C had won the contracts for 50, 30 and 20, respectively, the KFTC had uniformly applied the relevant sales in calculating surcharges against A, B and C, which constituted an abuse of and deviation from discretionary power given to it. In particular, we suggested that the surcharges be reduced by taking account of the proportions of the contract prices won by each bidder to the total amount of the order.

□ In addition, we prepared and published a paper regarding the problems with the surcharge calculation methods by the bid-rigging type (specifically, the interpretation and the double addition of related sales under Article 9(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Fair Trade Act) with intention to persuade the Supreme Court of 온라인 바카라사이트 추천, conducting an intensive review and analysis activity of the related matters. We submitted the paper to the court as exhibit material. The Supreme Court of 온라인 바카라사이트 추천 finally found that the KFTC and the Seoul High Court had made a wrong judgment.