Open Decision Ledger · Competition & fair trade
One penalty surcharge per violation type, not per victim
Supreme Court, Sept. 16, 2022, 2020Du47021 (judgment)
Case name: 시정명령등처분취소청구의소
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Where a prime contractor provided the technical data of two different subcontractors to third parties, must the Fair Trade Commission calculate a separate penalty surcharge for each act because they ended at different times, or only one surcharge for the single violation type of misappropriating technical data?
Holding
No separate surcharge for each act was required. The Supreme Court held that the Subcontracting Act and its Enforcement Decree fix only the cap for each violation act, and leave the calculation standard for each act to the reasonable discretion of the Fair Trade Commission, taking account of the number of violations and the number of victim subcontractors, so one surcharge must be calculated per violation type. Both acts were misappropriation of technical data, a single violation type, so they could not each carry their own surcharge, and the appellate conclusion annulling the whole technical-data part of the surcharge order was still right.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
하도급거래 공정화에 관한 법령은 위반행위별 과징금의 상한만을 정하면서 위반행위별 ‘과징금 산정기준’은 공정거래위원회가 위반행위의 횟수, 피해수급자의 수 등을 고려하여 합리적인 재량에 따라 정할 수 있도록 규정하고 있으므로 위반행위 유형별로 하나의 과징금을 산정해야 한다는 이유로, 을 회사 기술자료 유용행위와 병 회사 기술자료 유용행위는 모두 기술자료 유용행위라는 동일한 위반행위 유형에 해당하므로 위 각 행위에 대하여 각각 따로 과징금을 산정해야 할 것은 아니라고 한 사례.
Unofficial English translation
the statutes and regulations governing fair transactions in subcontracting provide only the upper limit of the administrative fine for each violation, while providing that the Fair Trade Commission may determine the 'criteria for calculating the administrative fine' for each violation in a reasonable exercise of discretion, taking into consideration the number of violations, the number of injured subcontractors, etc., a case in which, on the ground that one administrative fine must be calculated for each type of violation, it was held that, since both the act of misusing B Corporation's technological data and the act of misusing C Corporation's technological data fall under the same type of violation, namely misuse of technological data, there is no need to calculate the administrative fine separately for each of the said acts.
Disposition
Dismissed Stated in the decision
상고를 기각한다. 상고비용은 피고가 부담한다.
Unofficial English translation
The appeal is dismissed. The costs of the appeal shall be borne by the defendant.
Form of the test
Elements stated Stated in the decision
위반행위별 ‘과징금 산정기준’은 공정거래위원회가 위반행위의 횟수, 피해수급자의 수 등을 고려하여 합리적인 재량에 따라 정할 수 있도록 규정하고 있으므로
Unofficial English translation
providing that the Fair Trade Commission may determine the 'criteria for calculating the administrative fine' for each violation in a reasonable exercise of discretion, taking into consideration the number of violations, the number of injured subcontractors, etc.,
Factors
- 위반행위별 과징금의 상한만을 정하면서
- 위반행위별 ‘과징금 산정기준’은 공정거래위원회가 위반행위의 횟수, 피해수급자의 수 등을 고려하여 합리적인 재량에 따라 정할 수 있도록 규정하고 있으므로
- 위반행위 유형별로 하나의 과징금을 산정해야 한다는 이유로
- 모두 기술자료 유용행위라는 동일한 위반행위 유형에 해당하므로
Unofficial English translation
• providing only the upper limit of the administrative fine for each violation, while
• providing that the Fair Trade Commission may determine the 'criteria for calculating the administrative fine' for each violation in a reasonable exercise of discretion, taking into consideration the number of violations, the number of injured subcontractors, etc.,
• on the ground that one administrative fine must be calculated for each type of violation,
• fall under the same type of violation, namely misuse of technological data,
Relation to precedent
States a new standard Read from the decision
하도급법령은 위반행위별 과징금의 상한만을 정하면서 위반행위별 ‘과징금 산정기준’은 공정거래위원회가 위반행위의 횟수, 피해수급자의 수 등을 고려하여 합리적인 재량에 따라 정할 수 있도록 규정하고 있으므로 위반행위 유형별로 하나의 과징금을 산정하여야 한다.
Unofficial English translation
the subcontracting statutes and regulations provide only the upper limit of the administrative fine for each violation, while providing that the Fair Trade Commission may determine the 'criteria for calculating the administrative fine' for each violation in a reasonable exercise of discretion, taking into consideration the number of violations, the number of injured subcontractors, etc., and therefore one administrative fine must be calculated for each type of violation.
Decisions referred to
해당 본문 참조
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
When a single surcharge is calculated for one violation type covering several victim subcontractors, how much weight must the Fair Trade Commission give to the number of victims in setting its calculation standard?
A later Supreme Court decision directing how the Commission must exercise that discretion would require this entry to be read again, as would an amendment to Article 12-3 or Article 25-3 of the Subcontracting Act or to Article 13(1), Table 2 of its Enforcement Decree. A further decision on construing the transitional provision for the 25 July 2016 amendment would also call for a fresh reading.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
6 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 6 of the 8 axes; the readings differed on axis 4 (form of the test), axis 6 (relation to precedent).
Axis 4 (Form of the test): Primary “Elements stated” vs Independent “Existing test applied”
The primary reading states the rule that one surcharge per violation type applies as a requirement (요건 제시), while the independent reading applies it to the two technical-data acts (사안 적용).
을 회사 기술자료 유용행위와 병 회사 기술자료 유용행위는 모두 기술자료 유용행위라는 동일한 위반행위 유형에 해당하므로 위 각 행위에 대하여 각각 따로 과징금을 산정해야 할 것은 아니라고 한 사례.Axis 6 (Relation to precedent): Primary “States a new standard” vs Independent “Cannot be determined”
The primary reading presents the holding as a new standard (새 기준 제시), whereas the independent reading could not determine whether any precedent existed (확인 불가), so the precedent relationship differs.
하도급법령은 위반행위별 과징금의 상한만을 정하면서 위반행위별 ‘과징금 산정기준’은 공정거래위원회가 위반행위의 횟수, 피해수급자의 수 등을 고려하여 합리적인 재량에 따라 정할 수 있도록 규정하고 있으므로 위반행위 유형별로 하나의 과징금을 산정하여야 한다.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 22 July 2020 (2018Nu77120), held that the plaintiff's provision of the first subcontractor's compressor-related technical data to MiJoo Industrial Electronics from 11 March 2016 to around July 2017, and of the second subcontractor's coolant storage tank data to five firms from 13 July 2017 to 21 November 2017, must each be aggregated per subcontractor as a single violation act, with a surcharge calculated separately under the amended Enforcement Decree in force when each act ended. It held that applying the earlier standard to the part before 25 July 2016 and the amended standard to the remainder was unlawful, so the whole technical-data part of the surcharge order had to be annulled.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court held proper the appellate finding that each set of acts was carried out under a single intent with identical execution, so a single act of misappropriating technical data stood against each victim subcontractor and the amended Enforcement Decree applied. It held the appellate reasoning wrong on the law of the applicable provisions, because one surcharge must be calculated per violation type rather than separately for each act. It nonetheless found the appellate conclusion right, and found no error in construing the transitional provision or in the law on excess and abuse of discretion, so it dismissed the appeal by the unanimous opinion of the Justices.
Distinguishing conditions
- Acts of different violation types, such as misappropriation of technical data alongside other violations of the Subcontracting Act, since the Court required one surcharge per violation type.
- Conduct that is a violation occurring before 25 July 2016, for which the transitional provision applies the earlier calculation standard of the former Enforcement Decree; the decision states no date limit on the one-surcharge-per-violation-type rule.
- Acts not committed under a single intent with identical execution, so that no single violation act aggregates against one victim subcontractor.
Record verification notes
Fix the dates of each act and ask whether any of it is a violation occurring before 25 July 2016, since the transitional provision applies the earlier calculation standard to those violations. The court below keyed the applicable standard to the date each act ended, and the Supreme Court accepted that part of the reasoning. Then confirm that the acts fall within one violation type, because that is what collapses them into a single surcharge, and examine whether the Commission's calculation standard reflected the number of violations and the number of victim subcontractors, which remains within its reasonable discretion even where one surcharge covers several victims.
From the official text
Points at issue
원수급자인 갑 주식회사가 수급사업자인 을 주식회사의 기술자료를 제3자에게 제공한 행위와 수급사업자인 병 주식회사의 기술자료를 제3자에게 제공한 행위에 대하여 공정거래위원회가 갑 회사에 과징금 납부명령을 한 사안에서, 을 회사 기술자료 유용행위와 병 회사 기술자료 유용행위는 모두 기술자료 유용행위라는 동일한 위반행위 유형에 해당하므로 위 각 행위에 대하여 각각 따로 과징금을 산정해야 할 것은 아니라고 한 사례
Unofficial English translation
In a case where the Fair Trade Commission ordered A Corporation, the prime contractor, to pay an administrative fine for the act of providing the technological data of B Corporation, a subcontractor, to a third party and for the act of providing the technological data of C Corporation, a subcontractor, to a third party, a case in which it was held that, since both the act of misusing B Corporation's technological data and the act of misusing C Corporation's technological data fall under the same type of violation, namely misuse of technological data, there is no need to calculate the administrative fine separately for each of the said acts
Summary of the holding
원수급자인 갑 주식회사가 수급사업자인 을 주식회사의 기술자료를 제3자에게 제공한 행위와 수급사업자인 병 주식회사의 기술자료를 제3자에게 제공한 행위에 대하여 공정거래위원회가 갑 회사에 과징금 납부명령을 한 사안에서, 구 하도급거래 공정화에 관한 법률(2018. 4. 17. 법률 제15612호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제12조의3 제3항, 제25조의3 제1항 제3호, 구 하도급거래 공정화에 관한 법률 시행령(2018. 10. 16. 대통령령 제29238호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제13조 제1항 [별표 2]의 내용과 체제 및 취지에 비추어 보면, 하도급거래 공정화에 관한 법령은 위반행위별 과징금의 상한만을 정하면서 위반행위별 ‘과징금 산정기준’은 공정거래위원회가 위반행위의 횟수, 피해수급자의 수 등을 고려하여 합리적인 재량에 따라 정할 수 있도록 규정하고 있으므로 위반행위 유형별로 하나의 과징금을 산정해야 한다는 이유로, 을 회사 기술자료 유용행위와 병 회사 기술자료 유용행위는 모두 기술자료 유용행위라는 동일한 위반행위 유형에 해당하므로 위 각 행위에 대하여 각각 따로 과징금을 산정해야 할 것은 아니라고 한 사례.
Order
상고를 기각한다. 상고비용은 피고가 부담한다.
Unofficial English translation
The appeal is dismissed. The costs of the appeal shall be borne by the defendant.
Provisions referred to
구 하도급거래 공정화에 관한 법률(2018. 4. 17. 법률 제15612호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제12조의3 제3항(현행 제12조의3 제4항 참조), 제25조의3 제1항 제3호, 구 하도급거래 공정화에 관한 법률 시행령(2018. 10. 16. 대통령령 제29238호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제13조 제1항 [별표 2]
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