6. Illegality of Obstructing Investigations and Calculating Surcharges
1) Claims by Parties and Decision Details
The plaintiff maintained that the KFTC’s decision to apply a 30% discount rate to
surcharges for the plaintiff’s obstruction of investigation is against the calculation process
and standards of setting surcharges and thereby illegitimate. According to the plaintiff, the KFTC based its surcharges for obstruction on the acts of two employees of the plaintiff, but
could not prove the obstruction of investigation on the part of the plaintiff itself.
By dismissing such claims, the Seoul High Court ruled, ‘the refusal by employees of the
plaintiff employee to submit documents (which was subsequently fined) was intended to hide
any evidence of legal violation to ensure the plaintiff’s benefits. It served as serious obstacle
for the KFTC in its investigation. Given these facts, although the KFTC included surcharges
for the plaintiff’s investigation obstruction when no ruling had been made on the issue, it is
hard to regard the KFTC’s order as a violation of the process and standards of setting
surcharges.’