Open Decision Ledger · Competition & fair trade
Contract amount as the surcharge base in bid rigging
Supreme Court, May 26, 2022, 2019Du57398 (judgment)
Case name: 시정명령등취소
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Where a prohibited joint act under the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act is bid rigging or a similar act, is the contract amount the basic yardstick for the surcharge, and does that apply to the winning bidder and to a participant that did not win, and also where a third party who took no part in the rigging won the tender?
Holding
It does. Under Article 22, Article 55-3(1) and (5) of the former Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act and Article 9(1) and Article 61(1) [Table 2] item 2 (a) 3. a. main text of its former Enforcement Decree, the contract amount is the basic yardstick for the surcharge where the prohibited joint act is bid rigging or a similar act. That applies both to the operator that won the tender and concluded the contract and to a participant that did not win, and the same holds where a third party that took no part in the rigging won the tender; a small or absent benefit obtained from the breach may be reflected in the discretionary stage, such as the application of the rate, rather than being a condition of the yardstick.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
구 독점규제 및 공정거래에 관한 법률 시행령(2016. 3. 8. 대통령령 제27034호로 개정되기 전의 것, 이하 ‘구 공정거래법 시행령’이라 한다) 제9조 제1항, 제61조 제1항 [별표 2] 제2호 (가)목 3. 가. 본문에 따르면, 부당공동행위금지 위반행위가 ‘입찰담합 및 이와 유사한 행위인 경우’에는 ‘계약금액’이 과징금의 기본 산정기준이 된다.
Unofficial English translation
Under Article 9 (1) and Article 61 (1) [Table 2] No. 2 (a) 3. Ga. main text of the former Enforcement Decree of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act (before amendment by Presidential Decree No. 27034 on March 8, 2016; hereinafter the 'former Enforcement Decree of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act'), where an act in violation of the prohibition of unfair concerted acts is 'bid rigging and acts similar thereto,' the 'contract amount' becomes the basic calculation criterion for a surcharge.
Disposition
Dismissed Stated in the decision
상고를 기각한다. 상고비용은 원고가 부담한다.
Unofficial English translation
The appeal is dismissed. The plaintiff shall bear the costs of the final appeal.
Form of the test
Elements stated Stated in the decision
문언이나 입법 목적에 비추어 볼 때 그 적용에서 입찰담합 참여자 중에서 낙찰자가 선정되었을 것을 요건으로 한다고 보기는 어렵다.
Unofficial English translation
In light of the text and the purpose of the legislation, it is difficult to regard, as a requirement for its application, that a successful bidder has been selected from among the participants in the bid rigging.
Factors
- 구 공정거래법 시행령 제9조 제1항 단서 규정은 입찰담합 및 이와 유사한 행위의 경우 계약금액을 과징금의 기본 산정기준으로 삼고 있다
- 문언이나 입법 목적에 비추어 볼 때 그 적용에서 입찰담합 참여자 중에서 낙찰자가 선정되었을 것을 요건으로 한다고 보기는 어렵다
- 위반행위에 의하여 얻은 불법적인 경제적 이익을 박탈한다는 부당이득 환수뿐만 아니라, 위반행위의 억지라는 행정목적을 실현하기 위하여 부과된다는 성격을 모두 가지고 있다
- 입찰담합 참여자가 그 위반행위로 인하여 얻은 이익이 적거나 없다는 사정은 부과기준율 적용단계 등 과징금을 결정하는 재량 행사과정에서 반영될 수 있다
Unofficial English translation
• The proviso to Article 9 (1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act takes the contract amount as the basic calculation criterion for a surcharge in the case of bid rigging and acts similar thereto
• In light of the text and the purpose of the legislation, it is difficult to regard, as a requirement for its application, that a successful bidder has been selected from among the participants in the bid rigging
• It bears the character not only of disgorgement of unjust enrichment, by depriving the unlawful economic benefit obtained through the violating act, but also of an administrative purpose of deterrence of violating acts
• The circumstance that a participant in bid rigging obtained little or no benefit from the violating act may be reflected at the stage of applying the surcharge rate or in the exercise of discretion in determining the surcharge
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 2017. 4. 27. 선고 2016두33360 판결(공2017상, 1129)
Unofficial English translation
Supreme Court Decision 2016Du33360 decided April 27, 2017 (Gong 2017 Sang, 1129)
Decisions referred to
대법원 2017. 4. 27. 선고 2016두33360 판결(공2017상, 1129)
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
How much weight must be given, at the discretionary stage of setting the rate, to the finding that the bid rigging failed and the participants obtained no economic benefit?
A later decision on how the Commission must exercise its discretion in the rate stage when a collusion produced no benefit would change how this entry is read. Any amendment to Article 13(1) or Article 50 of the current Enforcement Decree, or to Article 84 [Table 6] item 2, or to Article 43 or Article 102 of the current Act, would call for this entry to be read again.
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 17 October 2019 (2018Nu39296), accepted that five operators including the plaintiff agreed between March and May 2015 to disperse their bid ranges in the 27 road maintenance tenders issued by the Korea Expressway Corporation, so as to raise their chance of winning under the restricted lowest-bid system in which a bid closer to the estimated price scores higher. It held that the agreement restricted not only competition in the tender itself but also competition leading up to the tender, and so constituted a breach of the cartel ban in Article 19(1)(viii) of the former Act. On the surcharge, it upheld the defendant Fair Trade Commission's order, which had taken the contract amount as the base under Article 9(1) of the former Enforcement Decree regardless of whether a participant won, and then applied a rate reflecting, among other things, that the collusion had failed and a third party won in some tenders.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court found no error on either ground. On the breach itself, it accepted the finding of restricted competition and saw no misapplication of law, inadequate hearing or breach of the rules of evidence affecting the result. On the surcharge, it held that Article 9(1) of the former Enforcement Decree does not require that a participant win the tender, that the dual nature of the surcharge, recovering illegal gains and deterring the breach, does not warrant excluding the contract amount merely because the rigging failed, and that a small or absent benefit may be reflected in the discretionary stage. It therefore held that the Commission's order broke no provision and involved no excess or abuse of discretion, and dismissed the plaintiff's appeal with costs.
Distinguishing conditions
- A prohibited joint act that is not bid rigging or a similar act, where the basic yardstick is the actual sales related to the breach rather than the contract amount.
- A surcharge governed by the amended Act and Enforcement Decree, since the decision applied the versions in force before the amendments of 18 April 2017 and 8 March 2016.
- A dispute over the discretionary stage itself, where the issue is how much the absence of benefit was weighed in the rate rather than whether the contract amount was the base.
Record verification notes
List each tender in which the operators took part, name who won it, and separate the tenders won by a participant from those won by a third party outside the collusion, since the yardstick covers all of them. Take the contract amount of each tender, and gather what would show the benefit actually obtained, because that is the material for the rate stage the Court left open. Then confirm which version of the Act and the Enforcement Decree governed the Commission's order and the tenders, as the decision applied the former provisions, with Article 43 and Article 102(1) and (5) of the current Act noted as the corresponding provisions.
From the official text
Points at issue
부당공동행위금지 위반행위가 입찰담합 및 이와 유사한 행위인 경우, ‘계약금액’이 과징금의 기본 산정기준이 되는지 여부(적극) / 이는 입찰담합에 의하여 낙찰을 받고 계약을 체결한 사업자와 담합에 참여하였으나 낙찰을 받지 못한 사업자 모두에 대하여 적용되는지 여부(적극) 및 입찰담합을 하였으나 담합에 참여하지 않은 제3자가 낙찰받은 때에도 마찬가지인지 여부(적극)
Unofficial English translation
Whether the 'contract amount' becomes the basic calculation criterion for a surcharge when an act in violation of the prohibition of unfair concerted acts is bid rigging and acts similar thereto (affirmative) / Whether this applies both to a business entity that won the bid and concluded a contract through bid rigging and to a business entity that participated in the rigging but did not win the bid (affirmative), and whether the same holds true even when a third party that did not participate in the rigging wins the bid after bid rigging was committed (affirmative)
Summary of the holding
구 독점규제 및 공정거래에 관한 법률(2017. 4. 18. 법률 제14813호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제22조, 제55조의3 제1항, 제5항, 구 독점규제 및 공정거래에 관한 법률 시행령(2016. 3. 8. 대통령령 제27034호로 개정되기 전의 것, 이하 ‘구 공정거래법 시행령’이라 한다) 제9조 제1항, 제61조 제1항 [별표 2] 제2호 (가)목 3. 가. 본문에 따르면, 부당공동행위금지 위반행위가 ‘입찰담합 및 이와 유사한 행위인 경우’에는 ‘계약금액’이 과징금의 기본 산정기준이 된다. 이는 입찰담합에 의하여 낙찰을 받고 계약을 체결한 사업자와 담합에 참여하였으나 낙찰을 받지 못한 사업자 모두에 대하여 적용되고, 입찰담합을 하였으나 그 담합에 참여하지 않은 제3자가 낙찰받은 때에도 마찬가지이다. 구체적인 이유는 다음과 같다. ① 일반적인 부당공동행위금지 위반에서 위반행위 관련 실제 매출액을 과징금의 기본 산정기준으로 삼고 있는 것과는 달리, 구 공정거래법 시행령 제9조 제1항 단서 규정은 입찰담합 및 이와 유사한 행위의 경우 계약금액을 과징금의 기본 산정기준으로 삼고 있다. 이는 입찰담합의 위법성이 중한 것을 고려하여 그에 대한 제재의 실효성을 확보하기 위하여 정책적으로 도입된 규정으로서, 문언이나 입법 목적에 비추어 볼 때 그 적용에서 입찰담합 참여자 중에서 낙찰자가 선정되었을 것을 요건으로 한다고 보기는 어렵다. ② 독점규제 및 공정거래에 관한 법률상 과징금은 위반행위에 의하여 얻은 불법적인 경제적 이익을 박탈한다는 부당이득 환수뿐만 아니라, 위반행위의 억지라는 행정목적을 실현하기 위하여 부과된다는 성격을 모두 가지고 있다. 입찰담합을 하였으나 입찰담합이 무위로 돌아가 참여자들 가운데 낙찰자가 선정되지 않은 경우, 참여자들이 입찰담합으로 인한 경제적 이익을 누리지 못한다고 볼 여지가 있으므로 계약금액을 과징금 기본 산정기준으로 삼는 것은 과징금의 부당이득 환수적 성격에는 어울리지 않는 측면이 있다. 그러나 그러한 사정만으로 계약금액을 과징금 기본 산정기준에서 제외하는 것은 입찰담합 행위 그 자체의 위법성에 걸맞게 제재 수위가 결정되어야 한다는 행정제재 목적 달성의 측면을 도외시한 것이 된다. 입찰담합 참여자가 그 위반행위로 인하여 얻은 이익이 적거나 없다는 사정은 부과기준율 적용단계 등 과징금을 결정하는 재량 행사과정에서 반영될 수 있다. 따라서 입찰담합이 성공하였는지 실패하였는지를 가리지 않고 그 입찰의 계약금액을 과징금 기본 산정기준으로 삼는다고 하더라도, 그것이 반드시 과잉환수 내지 과잉제재의 결과로 이어진다고 할 수 없다.
Order
상고를 기각한다. 상고비용은 원고가 부담한다.
Unofficial English translation
The appeal is dismissed. The plaintiff shall bear the costs of the final appeal.
Provisions referred to
구 독점규제 및 공정거래에 관한 법률(2017. 4. 18. 법률 제14813호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제22조(현행 제43조 참조), 제55조의3 제1항(현행 제102조 제1항 참조), 제5항(현행 제102조 제5항 참조), 구 독점규제 및 공정거래에 관한 법률 시행령(2016. 3. 8. 대통령령 제27034호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제9조 제1항(현행 제13조 제1항, 제50조 참조), 제61조 제1항 [별표 2] 제2호(현행 제84조 [별표 6] 제2호 참조)
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