Both of the Fair Trade Commission and the Supreme Court regard the evidence of information exchange between businesses as one of the circumstantial evidence of a preexisting agreement, primarily a tacit agreement between businesses, which I think is proper under Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act, considering the Act does not regulate concerted practices itself as an illegal cartel. EU regulates concerted practices itself as an illegal cartel as distinct from all agreements between undertakings or decisions by associations of undertakings, which results in extending the boundaries of an illegal cartel compared to the U.S. or South Korea. In order to regulate an illegal cartel efficiently, concerted practices should be included in one of the form of the illegal cartel under the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act. The Supreme Court has held that the evidence of the exchange of information between businesses could be one of the convincing evidence of the preexisting agreement between businesses, but in the case of 2013DU16951, it was not enough to tell there was a preexisting agreement between businesses, which I disagree. In consideration of the need for stricter regulation against an illegal cartel in oligopoly market, the Supreme Court should have recognized the existence of an agreement or at least a tacit agreement considering the market conditions and characteristics of the information exchange between life insurance companies and the degree of the conformity of an action between businesses.