메이저 바카라

□ Case summary

ㅇ The Korean Fair Trade Commission (the “KFTC”) had imposed an order to correct and to pay surcharges (the “order”) on a 메이저 바카라 (the “affecting 메이저 바카라”) on the ground that the 메이저 바카라 had caused a shipper of another 메이저 바카라, which was a competitor of the affecting 메이저 바카라 (the “affected 메이저 바카라”), to terminate a service contract executed with the affected 메이저 바카라, thereby obstructing the business activities of the affected 메이저 바카라.

ㅇ We represented the affecting 메이저 바카라 in an administrative lawsuit to pursue the cancellation of the order.

□ Decision

ㅇ As Decision 2019Nu48501 dated November 5, 2020, the Seoul High Court ordered the KFTC to cancel the order, determining that the affecting 메이저 바카라’s act had not constituted an act of obstructing business activities of the affected 메이저 바카라 on the following grounds:

(i) Even though the cargo service provider had terminated the contract with the affected 메이저 바카라 when the alleged obstruction act of the affecting 메이저 바카라 had been committed, since it had been the cargo service provider who had taken the responsibility for cooperation and management of cargo service, the court could not conclude that the termination of the contract with the affected 메이저 바카라 had been resulted from the affecting 메이저 바카라’s alleged act.

(ii) Since there had been a significant difference in terms of capabilities to handle cargo between the two trade unions, and there had been the high possibility of accidents in relation to cargo handling, it would not be easy for the cargo service provider to select the affected 메이저 바카라 instead of the affecting 메이저 바카라 and the affected 메이저 바카라 had not reported any business performance after the allegation had been made.

(iii) The affected 메이저 바카라 had never participated in training and education, including statutory mandatory education, and an executive of the affected 메이저 바카라 had sentenced with criminal punishment due to fraud relating to employment. The foregoing circumstances would contribute to the affected 메이저 바카라 failing to secure new customers.

□ Barun Law’s role and implications of the decision

ㅇ According to the text of the Fair Trade Act, an act of obstructing another’s business activities is deemed to have been formed when a person unfairly obstructs another’s business activities. There are uncertainties in terms of distinction with an act of obstructing another’s business under the civil and criminal laws, which has caused controversy over the application of law.

ㅇ We argued and substantiated that there had been no causal relationship between the affecting 메이저 바카라’s act of business obstruction which had been alleged by the KFTC, and that the alleged act of business obstruction had not been found unreasonable. The Seoul High Court accepted most of our argument and rendered the decision to cancel the order issued by the KFTC against the client.