Open Decision Ledger · Competition & fair trade
Leniency status, whole-process cooperation and fine discretion in one cartel
Supreme Court, July 25, 2019, 2017Du55060 (judgment)
No holding summary · checked against points at issue. The official text publishes no summary of the holding for this decision. The quotation and factors in this record are copied verbatim from the points at issue; the evidence for each axis is taken from the points at issue, the order and the reasons.
Case name: 시정명령등취소
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Where a cartel applicant's cooperation showed some breaches of the duty of good-faith cooperation, may the Fair Trade Commission evaluate that cooperation across the whole investigation, treat the Secretary-General's status confirmation as provisional, and fix the cartel fine within its own discretionary criteria without exceeding or abusing its discretion?
Holding
Yes. The Secretary-General's confirmation or cancellation of a self-reporter's status under the leniency notice is a provisional and interim measure, and the Commission holds the power to deliberate and resolve leniency questions in the final instance. Where some circumstances may count as a breach of the duty of good-faith cooperation, the Commission may still assess that duty over the whole investigation, and its judgment that the leniency conditions were met is not an abuse of discretion absent an error in the facts relied on, a lack of reasonableness, or a breach of proportionality and equality. Whether a participant qualifies for leniency and at what rank depends on its contribution to detecting the cartel, and where a series of agreements is one single cartel, only the participant that first provided the evidence needed to prove it qualifies as a first-tier self-reporter or first-tier investigation co-operator for the whole cartel.
Points at issue, verbatim
전체적인 조사협조 과정에서의 자진신고자 등의 성실협조의무 위반 여부를 평가할 수 있는지 여부(적극) 및 그와 같은 평가에 따라 공정거래위원회가 자진신고자 등 감면요건을 구비하였다고 판단한 경우, 재량권 일탈·남용의 위법이 있는지 여부(원칙적 소극)
Unofficial English translation
whether such leniency applicant, etc. has breached the duty of sincere cooperation may be assessed in the overall course of cooperation with the investigation (affirmative), and where, on the basis of such assessment, the Fair Trade Commission determines that leniency applicants, etc. have met the requirements for leniency, whether there is unlawfulness amounting to deviation from or abuse of discretion (in principle negative)
Disposition
Dismissed Stated in the decision
상고를 기각한다.
Unofficial English translation
The appeal is dismissed.
Form of the test
Circumstances weighed Stated in the decision
공정거래위원회는 그와 같은 사정의 발생 시기, 태양, 경위 및 그로 인한 효과, 사정 발생 전·후의 정황 등을 종합적으로 고려하여 전체적인 조사협조 과정에서의 자진신고자 등의 성실협조의무 위반 여부를 평가할 수 있다
Unofficial English translation
The Fair Trade Commission may assess whether a leniency applicant, etc. has breached the duty of sincere cooperation in the overall course of cooperation with the investigation, by comprehensively considering the timing, manner, circumstances, and effects of the occurrence of such a situation, and the circumstances before and after the occurrence of the situation, etc.
Factors
- 공정거래위원회 사무처장이 부당한 공동행위의 사실을 자진신고한 자나 증거제공 등의 방법으로 조사에 협조한 자의 지위확인을 하거나 이를 취소하는 것이 잠정적·임시적 조치인지 여부(적극)
- 전체적인 조사협조 과정에서의 자진신고자 등의 성실협조의무 위반 여부를 평가할 수 있는지 여부(적극)
- 감면대상에 해당하는지 및 감면순위에 대한 판단 기준
- 구 독점규제 및 공정거래에 관한 법률 제35조 제1항의 1순위 자진신고자 또는 1순위 조사협조자 감면요건에 해당하는 사업자
- 공정거래위원회가 위 고시의 N을 공동수급체의 수로 판단한 것에 재량권의 일탈·남용이 없다고 한 사례
Unofficial English translation
• Whether the Director General of the Secretariat of the Fair Trade Commission's confirmation of the status of, or its cancellation of the status of, a person who voluntarily reported the facts of an unfair collaborative act or who cooperated with the investigation by providing evidence or the like, is a provisional or interim measure (affirmative)
• Whether such leniency applicant, etc. has breached the duty of sincere cooperation may be assessed in the overall course of cooperation with the investigation (affirmative)
• The criteria for determining whether one falls within the scope of leniency and the order of leniency
• The business operator meeting the requirements for leniency as a first-priority leniency applicant or first-priority cooperating party under Article 35, paragraph (1) of the former Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act
• A case in which it was held that the Fair Trade Commission's determination of N in the above Notice as the number of joint bidding entities involved no deviation from or abuse of discretion
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 2011. 6. 30. 선고 2010두28915 판결(공2011하, 1533), 대법원 2011. 9. 8. 선고 2009두15005 판결(공2011하, 2109)
Unofficial English translation
Supreme Court Decision 2010Du28915 decided June 30, 2011 (Gong 2011 Ha, 1533), Supreme Court Decision 2009Du15005 decided September 8, 2011 (Gong 2011 Ha, 2109)
Decisions referred to
[2] 대법원 2018. 7. 26. 선고 2017두46912 판결 / [3] 대법원 2011. 6. 30. 선고 2010두28915 판결(공2011하, 1533), 대법원 2011. 9. 8. 선고 2009두15005 판결(공2011하, 2109)
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
How much weight must a late correction of a self-report, or a self-report limited to the agreements the applicant joined, carry in the overall assessment of good-faith cooperation?
An amendment to Article 22-2 of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act, Article 35 of its Enforcement Decree, Annex 2, or the leniency and detailed fine criteria notices would require this entry to be read again. A later decision ranking a participant first-tier for part of a cartel, or treating joint venture consortia differently in the fine calculation, would change the reading.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
8 of 8 axes matched GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI, codex CLI) · 2026-10-25
A reader from another model family (GPT-6 Astra), given the official text but not the primary reading, agreed on all 8 axes.
Raw responses and comparison record: Protocol · Blind readings (JSONL) · Axis comparison (JSONL) · SHA-256 (JSON)
Lower-court contrast & scope of application
Lower-court reading vs. Supreme Court holding
Lower-court context: The Seoul High Court, in its judgment of 6 July 2017 (2016Nu75342), held that the Commission's resolution that Doosan Heavy Industries & Construction and POSCO Engineering & Construction each met the first-tier and second-tier leniency conditions was within the Commission's discretion, even though a Commission examiner had cancelled Doosan's status confirmation over disclosure of its self-reported facts. It also held that the LNG storage tank construction tenders from 2005 to 2009 formed one single cartel continued on a single intent, so the limitation period had not run out, and that the Commission's reading of N as the number of joint venture consortia in the fine notice and its staged application of reduction rates were not an abuse of discretion.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court found no error in any part of that reading. It held that the Secretary-General's status confirmation is provisional, that the Commission may weigh the whole investigation process including the timing, nature, circumstances and effect of any breach, and that the contribution to detecting the cartel sets the qualifying rank, with only the first evidence provider ranking first-tier for the whole cartel. It also upheld the single-cartel finding for the limitation period, the reading of N as the number of joint venture consortia, and the Commission's staged reduction-rate method, and dismissed the plaintiff's appeal with costs.
Distinguishing conditions
- A case in which the facts underlying the assessment of cooperation are misread, the evaluation lacks reasonableness, or it breaches proportionality and equality, since the Court withheld protection only where those grounds are absent.
- A series of agreements that is not one cartel continued on a single intent, since the first-evidence-provider rule and the limitation-period finding both rest on that single-cartel premise.
- A fine imposed under the framework as amended after 30 December 2016, since the decision applied the former Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act, its Enforcement Decree and the fine notice in the versions named in the text.
Record verification notes
Set the applicant's whole cooperation record against the six items in Article 5 of the leniency notice, marking each positive and negative factor and the date it arose, before relying on a whole-process evaluation. Then identify the first participant that provided evidence sufficient to prove the whole cartel, since that participant alone holds first-tier rank for all of it. Finally, check which version of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act, its Enforcement Decree, Annex 2 and the detailed criteria notice governed the tender and the imposition date.
From the official text
Points at issue
[1] 공정거래위원회 사무처장이 부당한 공동행위의 사실을 자진신고한 자나 증거제공 등의 방법으로 조사에 협조한 자의 지위확인을 하거나 이를 취소하는 것이 잠정적·임시적 조치인지 여부(적극) 및 자진신고자 등 감면 여부에 관한 사항을 최종적으로 심의·의결할 권한은 공정거래위원회에 있는지 여부(적극) [2] 부당한 공동행위의 사실을 자진신고한 자나 증거제공 등의 방법으로 조사에 협조한 자에게 성실협조의무 위반으로 볼 수 있는 사정이 있더라도 전체적인 조사협조 과정에서의 자진신고자 등의 성실협조의무 위반 여부를 평가할 수 있는지 여부(적극) 및 그와 같은 평가에 따라 공정거래위원회가 자진신고자 등 감면요건을 구비하였다고 판단한 경우, 재량권 일탈·남용의 위법이 있는지 여부(원칙적 소극) [3] 부당한 공동행위의 사실을 자진신고한 자나 증거제공 등의 방법으로 조사에 협조한 자로서 감면대상에 해당하는지 및 감면순위에 대한 판단 기준 / 사업자들의 일련의 합의를 전체적으로 하나의 부당한 공동행위로 볼 수 있는 경우, 부당한 공동행위의 참여사업자들 가운데 구 독점규제 및 공정거래에 관한 법률 제35조 제1항의 1순위 자진신고자 또는 1순위 조사협조자 감면요건에 해당하는 사업자 [4] 갑 주식회사 등 13개사가 LNG 저장탱크 건설공사 입찰에 참여하면서 사전에 각 공사별로 낙찰자와 투찰률을 정하고, 낙찰자를 정하면서 해당 공사를 낙찰받은 건설사가 낙찰 컨소시엄에 포함된 다른 건설사들과 공사물량을 배분하기로 합의하고, 사전에 정한 투찰률로 입찰에 참여한 행위에 대하여, 공정거래위원회가 구 독점규제 및 공정거래에 관한 법률 제19조 제1항 제3호, 제8호에서 정한 ‘부당한 공동행위’에 해당한다며 과징금을 부과하기 위해 과징금을 산정하면서, 구 과징금부과 세부기준 등에 관한 고시 Ⅳ. 1. 다. (1). (마). 2)항에서 정한 ‘들러리 사업자에 대하여는 그 수가 5 이상인 경우에는 N분의 (N-2) 범위 내에서 산정기준을 감액할 수 있고, N은 들러리 사업자의 수를 말한다’는 규정에 따라 N을 공동수급체의 수로 보고 부과과징금을 결정한 사안에서, 공정거래위원회가 위 고시의 N을 공동수급체의 수로 판단한 것에 재량권의 일탈·남용이 없다고 한 사례 [5] 부과과징금 결정단계의 조정사유별 감경률 적용방식에 관하여 공정거래위원회가 마련한 기준을 적용한 과징금 부과처분이 위법한지 여부(원칙적 소극) 및 그 부과처분이 재량권 일탈·남용으로 위법하게 되는 경우
Unofficial English translation
[1] Whether the Director General of the Secretariat of the Fair Trade Commission's confirmation of the status of, or its cancellation of the status of, a person who voluntarily reported the facts of an unfair collaborative act or who cooperated with the investigation by providing evidence or the like, is a provisional or interim measure (affirmative), and whether the authority to finally deliberate and resolve on matters concerning whether to grant leniency to leniency applicants, etc. lies with the Fair Trade Commission (affirmative) [2] Whether, even where there exist circumstances that may be regarded as a breach of the duty of sincere cooperation by a person who voluntarily reported the facts of an unfair collaborative act or who cooperated with the investigation by providing evidence or the like, whether such leniency applicant, etc. has breached the duty of sincere cooperation may be assessed in the overall course of cooperation with the investigation (affirmative), and where, on the basis of such assessment, the Fair Trade Commission determines that leniency applicants, etc. have met the requirements for leniency, whether there is unlawfulness amounting to deviation from or abuse of discretion (in principle negative) [3] Whether a person who voluntarily reported the facts of an unfair collaborative act or who cooperated with the investigation by providing evidence or the like falls within the scope of leniency and the criteria for determining the order of leniency / where a series of agreements by business operators can as a whole be regarded as a single unfair collaborative act, the business operator among the participating business operators in the unfair collaborative act who meets the requirements for leniency as a first-priority leniency applicant or first-priority cooperating party under Article 35, paragraph (1) of the former Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act [4] In a case where, with respect to the conduct of A Corporation et al., 13 companies, who, in participating in bids for the construction of LNG storage tanks, agreed in advance on the successful bidder and the bid rate for each construction project, agreed, in determining the successful bidder, that the construction company awarded the relevant project would allocate construction volumes among the other construction companies included in the successful bid consortium, and participated in the bid at the bid rate determined in advance, the Fair Trade Commission, deeming the conduct to fall within the 'unfair collaborative act' provided in Article 19, paragraph (1), subparagraphs 3 and 8 of the former Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act, determined the surcharge to be imposed in calculating the surcharge for the imposition of the surcharge, and, in doing so, treated N as the number of joint bidding entities in accordance with the provision of 'Ⅳ. 1. (c) (1). (e). 2)' of the former Notice on Detailed Standards for Imposition of Surcharges, etc. that 'as to companion business operators, where their number is 5 or more, the calculation standard may be reduced within the range of (N-2)/N, N meaning the number of companion business operators,' a case in which it was held that the Fair Trade Commission's determination of N in the above Notice as the number of joint bidding entities involved no deviation from or abuse of discretion [5] Whether a disposition imposing a surcharge, which applied the criteria established by the Fair Trade Commission regarding the method of applying the reduction rate by cause of adjustment at the stage of determining the surcharge to be imposed, is unlawful (in principle negative), and where such disposition becomes unlawful by reason of deviation from or abuse of discretion
Summary of the holding
The official text publishes no summary of the holding for this decision. The quotation and factors in this record are copied verbatim from the points at issue; the evidence for each axis is taken from the points at issue, the order and the reasons.
Order
상고를 기각한다. 상고비용은 원고가 부담한다.
Unofficial English translation
The appeal is dismissed. The costs of the final appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.
Provisions referred to
[1] 구 독점규제 및 공정거래에 관한 법률(2016. 3. 29. 법률 제14137호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제22조의2 제1항, 제3항(현행 제22조의2 제4항 참조), 구 독점규제 및 공정거래에 관한 법률 시행령(2016. 9. 29. 대통령령 제27529호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제35조 제4항 [2] 구 독점규제 및 공정거래에 관한 법률(2016. 3. 29. 법률 제14137호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제22조의2 제1항, 제3항(현행 제22조의2 제4항 참조), 구 독점규제 및 공정거래에 관한 법률 시행령(2016. 9. 29. 대통령령 제27529호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제35조 제1항, 행정소송법 제27조 [3] 구 독점규제 및 공정거래에 관한 법률(2016. 3. 29. 법률 제14137호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제22조의2 제1항, 제3항(현행 제22조의2 제4항 참조), 구 독점규제 및 공정거래에 관한 법률 시행령(2016. 9. 29. 대통령령 제27529호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제35조 제1항 [4] 구 독점규제 및 공정거래에 관한 법률(2016. 3. 29. 법률 제14137호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제6조, 제19조 제1항 제3호, 제8호, 제22조, 구 독점규제 및 공정거래에 관한 법률 시행령(2016. 9. 29. 대통령령 제27529호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제9조 제1항, 제61조 제1항 [별표 2] 제2호 (가)목, 행정소송법 제27조 [5] 구 독점규제 및 공정거래에 관한 법률(2016. 3. 29. 법률 제14137호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제6조, 제22조, 구 독점규제 및 공정거래에 관한 법률 시행령(2016. 9. 29. 대통령령 제27529호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제61조 제1항 [별표 2] 제2호 (라)목, 제3항, 행정소송법 제27조
Read 2026-10-25 · Cross-read 2026-10-25. All quotes matched against the official text. The Chinese-character placeholders the court used for anonymised parties are given in their Korean readings, and parenthetical Chinese-character glosses are omitted.
Every entry is published only after all quotes have been matched character by character against the official text, and audited by an independent second reading from a different model family across all eight axes. Both agreed axes and text-grounded interpretive divergences are recorded openly. The ledger is a research record, not an assessment of the court or advice on any matter.
Back to the ledger