'Yogiyo' Acquitted of Lowest Price Coercion Charges by Supreme Court

Introduction of 'Lowest Price Guarantee' Amid User Decline
Supreme Court Upholds Not Guilty Verdict After Lower Courts
"Cannot Conclude Franchisees Were Unfairly Disadvantaged"

'Widaehan Sangsang,' which was prosecuted for forcing franchise restaurants to offer the lowest prices while operating the delivery app 'Yogiyo,' was acquitted by the Supreme Court.

On the 20th, the Supreme Court's First Division (Presiding Justice No Tae-ak) upheld the original verdict that acquitted Widaehan Sangsang, which was prosecuted for violating the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act (Fair Trade Act).

The CEO of Yogiyo and the responsible employees were indicted in January 2021 for violating the Fair Trade Act by demanding restaurants registered on the delivery app to implement a lowest price guarantee system and interfering with the management of restaurants that did not comply by terminating their service contracts, thereby abusing their transactional position and potentially hindering fair trade.

In particular, it was found that Yogiyo employees planned the lowest price guarantee system and continuously monitored franchise stores as the number of app users decreased compared to competitors. Subsequently, the Korea Fair Trade Commission received complaints, launched an investigation, and in June 2020, issued a corrective order to Yogiyo, imposed a fine of 468 million KRW, and filed charges.

In the first trial in 2022, the court acquitted them, stating there was no awareness or intent of unfair conduct. Unfair trade refers to abusing one's position to transact unfairly with the other party, but it was difficult to see that Yogiyo unduly interfered with the management of restaurants.

Although the prosecution appealed, the second trial also maintained the acquittal due to insufficient evidence and dismissed the charges. The second trial judged that it was difficult to conclude there was intent to cause unfair disadvantage to restaurants and hinder fair trade based on normal trading practices.

Regarding the lowest price guarantee system, the court also stated, "Delivery app businesses have limits in excessively increasing commissions, and even if the application of the non-discrimination clause increases commission expenses and causes harm to consumers, it cannot be immediately considered that the non-discrimination clause is illegal."

It added, "It cannot be immediately concluded that delivery app businesses caused unfair disadvantage to the other party simply by setting a transaction condition not to discriminate in direct sales prices against restaurants benefiting from expanded sales channels through the use of the delivery app to maintain their business system."

The Supreme Court also deemed the original verdict just, dismissed the appeal, and confirmed the acquittal.

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.