According to the Court’s ruling, it was unlawful for the High Court to rule that the non-affiliated installment financing companies were not included in the transaction counterpart of discriminatory treatment and that there was no discrimination against car buyers. However,given the circumstances at the time of the installment interest rate cut, it is difficult to view
that the primary purpose of Hyundai-Kia Motors’ conduct was to help its affiliated company
in an advantageous position. In addition, considering the argument that the conduct was
needed for business operation, it did not have a risk of impeding fair competition in themarket, and therefore, it could not be said that the conduct of Hyundai-Kia Motors was an act
of discrimination in favor of its affiliated company.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court dismissed the KFTC’s appeal because the High Court’s
ruling of no discrimination in the case did not have any effect on the result.
Meanwhile, regarding the corrective order against discrimination in setting a credit limit, the
Court ruled that the requirement for unlawfulness was satisfied and the degree of the KFTC’s
action (corrective order) could not be seen as an abuse of discretionary power, and dismissed
the appeal filed by Hyundai-Kia Motors.