①In the application of Article 20-2 of the New Antimonopoly Act, where that enterprise has, within 10 years going back from the investigation start date for the case relating to a violation prescribed in that Article (meaning the investigation start date prescribed in Article 18-2, paragraph (2) of the New Antimonopoly Act; the same applies hereinafter in this Article), received a decision under Article 48, paragraph (4), Article 53-3 or Article 54 of the Antimonopoly Act Before the 2005 Amendment with regard to an act in violation of Article 19 of the Antimonopoly Act Before the 2005 Amendment (limited to an act equivalent to an act prescribed in Article 2, paragraph (9), item (i) of the Antimonopoly Act) (limited to where that decision has become final and binding), has, with regard to an act in violation of Article 19 of the Antimonopoly Act Before the 2009 Amendment (limited to an act equivalent to an act prescribed in that item), received an order under Article 20 of the Antimonopoly Act Before the 2009 Amendment (limited to where that order has become final and binding) or received a decision under Article 66, paragraph (4) of the Antimonopoly Act Before the 2009 Amendment (limited to one rescinding the whole of the original disposition) (limited to where that decision has become final and binding), or has, with regard to an act in violation of Article 19 of the Antimonopoly Act Before the 2013 Amendment (limited to an act falling under that item), received a decision under Article 66, paragraph (4) of the Antimonopoly Act Before the 2013 Amendment (limited to one rescinding the whole of the original disposition) (limited to where that decision has become final and binding), that decision or order is deemed to be an order under Article 20-2 of the New Antimonopoly Act that has become final and binding. The same applies to the application of Article 20-2 of the New Antimonopoly Act to that enterprise where a wholly owned subsidiary company of that enterprise (limited to one that was a wholly owned subsidiary company of that enterprise on the day it received that decision or order) has, within 10 years going back from the investigation start date for the case relating to that violation, received that decision or order.

②In the application of Article 20-3 of the New Antimonopoly Act, where that enterprise has, within 10 years going back from the investigation start date for the case relating to a violation prescribed in that Article, received a decision under Article 48, paragraph (4), Article 53-3 or Article 54 of the Antimonopoly Act Before the 2005 Amendment with regard to an act in violation of Article 19 of the Antimonopoly Act Before the 2005 Amendment (limited to an act equivalent to an act prescribed in Article 2, paragraph (9), item (ii) of the Antimonopoly Act) (limited to where that decision has become final and binding), has, with regard to an act in violation of Article 19 of the Antimonopoly Act Before the 2009 Amendment (limited to an act equivalent to an act prescribed in that item), received an order under Article 20 of the Antimonopoly Act Before the 2009 Amendment (limited to where that order has become final and binding) or received a decision under Article 66, paragraph (4) of the Antimonopoly Act Before the 2009 Amendment (limited to one rescinding the whole of the original disposition) (limited to where that decision has become final and binding), or has, with regard to an act in violation of Article 19 of the Antimonopoly Act Before the 2013 Amendment (limited to an act falling under that item), received a decision under Article 66, paragraph (4) of the Antimonopoly Act Before the 2013 Amendment (limited to one rescinding the whole of the original disposition) (limited to where that decision has become final and binding), that decision or order is deemed to be an order under Article 20-3 of the New Antimonopoly Act that has become final and binding. The same applies to the application of Article 20-3 of the New Antimonopoly Act to that enterprise where a wholly owned subsidiary company of that enterprise (limited to one that was a wholly owned subsidiary company of that enterprise on the day it received that decision or order) has, within 10 years going back from the investigation start date for the case relating to that violation, received that decision or order.

③In the application of Article 20-4 of the New Antimonopoly Act, where that enterprise has, within 10 years going back from the investigation start date for the case relating to a violation prescribed in that Article, received a decision under Article 48, paragraph (4), Article 53-3 or Article 54 of the Antimonopoly Act Before the 2005 Amendment with regard to an act in violation of Article 19 of the Antimonopoly Act Before the 2005 Amendment (limited to an act equivalent to an act prescribed in Article 2, paragraph (9), item (iii) of the Antimonopoly Act) (limited to where that decision has become final and binding), has, with regard to an act in violation of Article 19 of the Antimonopoly Act Before the 2009 Amendment (limited to an act equivalent to an act prescribed in that item), received an order under Article 20 of the Antimonopoly Act Before the 2009 Amendment (limited to where that order has become final and binding) or received a decision under Article 66, paragraph (4) of the Antimonopoly Act Before the 2009 Amendment (limited to one rescinding the whole of the original disposition) (limited to where that decision has become final and binding), or has, with regard to an act in violation of Article 19 of the Antimonopoly Act Before the 2013 Amendment (limited to an act falling under that item), received a decision under Article 66, paragraph (4) of the Antimonopoly Act Before the 2013 Amendment (limited to one rescinding the whole of the original disposition) (limited to where that decision has become final and binding), that decision or order is deemed to be an order under Article 20-4 of the New Antimonopoly Act that has become final and binding. The same applies to the application of Article 20-4 of the New Antimonopoly Act to that enterprise where a wholly owned subsidiary company of that enterprise (limited to one that was a wholly owned subsidiary company of that enterprise on the day it received that decision or order) has, within 10 years going back from the investigation start date for the case relating to that violation, received that decision or order.

④In the application of Article 20-5 of the New Antimonopoly Act, where that enterprise has, within 10 years going back from the investigation start date for the case relating to a violation prescribed in that Article, received a decision under Article 48, paragraph (4), Article 53-3 or Article 54 of the Antimonopoly Act Before the 2005 Amendment with regard to an act in violation of Article 19 of the Antimonopoly Act Before the 2005 Amendment (limited to an act equivalent to an act prescribed in Article 2, paragraph (9), item (iv) of the Antimonopoly Act) (limited to where that decision has become final and binding), has, with regard to an act in violation of Article 19 of the Antimonopoly Act Before the 2009 Amendment (limited to an act equivalent to an act prescribed in that item), received an order under Article 20 of the Antimonopoly Act Before the 2009 Amendment (limited to where that order has become final and binding) or received a decision under Article 66, paragraph (4) of the Antimonopoly Act Before the 2009 Amendment (limited to one rescinding the whole of the original disposition) (limited to where that decision has become final and binding), or has, with regard to an act in violation of Article 19 of the Antimonopoly Act Before the 2013 Amendment (limited to an act falling under that item), received a decision under Article 66, paragraph (4) of the Antimonopoly Act Before the 2013 Amendment (limited to one rescinding the whole of the original disposition) (limited to where that decision has become final and binding), that decision or order is deemed to be an order under Article 20-5 of the New Antimonopoly Act that has become final and binding. The same applies to the application of Article 20-5 of the New Antimonopoly Act to that enterprise where a wholly owned subsidiary company of that enterprise (limited to one that was a wholly owned subsidiary company of that enterprise on the day it received that decision or order) has, within 10 years going back from the investigation start date for the case relating to that violation, received that decision or order.

In the case where an enterprise that committed a violation prescribed in Article 7-2, paragraph (1), (2) or (4) or Articles 20-2 through 20-6 of the Former Antimonopoly Act is a juridical person, and before the Effective Date that juridical person transferred all of the business relating to that violation to one or more of its subsidiary companies, etc. (meaning the subsidiary company, etc. prescribed in Article 7-2, paragraph (13), item (i) of the Former Antimonopoly Act; the same applies hereinafter in this Article), or that juridical person (limited to a company) had one or more of its subsidiary companies, etc. succeed through a split to all of the business relating to that violation, and ceased to exist for a reason other than a merger, the provisions then in force continue to govern the surcharge ordered against that subsidiary company, etc.

①Where an enterprise that, on or after the Effective Date, made a report of facts and submission of materials regarding a violation prescribed in Article 7-2, paragraph (1) or Article 8-3 of the New Antimonopoly Act or an act equivalent to that violation is a person that, before the Effective Date, committed an act equivalent to the act prescribed in Article 7-6, item (v) of the New Antimonopoly Act (including as applied mutatis mutandis following the deemed replacement of terms pursuant to Article 8-3 of the New Antimonopoly Act; the same applies hereinafter in this paragraph) (limited to where, on or after the Effective Date, it has not committed the act prescribed in Article 7-6, item (v) of the New Antimonopoly Act), Article 7-6 of the New Antimonopoly Act (limited to the part relating to that item) does not apply to the reduction of the amount of the surcharge and the exemption from payment of the surcharge for the violation relating to that act.

②Where an enterprise that, on or after the Effective Date, made a report of facts and submission of materials regarding a violation prescribed in Article 7-2, paragraph (1) or Article 8-3 of the New Antimonopoly Act or an act equivalent to that violation is a person that, before the Effective Date, committed an act equivalent to the act prescribed in Article 7-6, item (vi) of the New Antimonopoly Act (including as applied mutatis mutandis following the deemed replacement of terms pursuant to Article 8-3 of the New Antimonopoly Act; the same applies hereinafter in this paragraph) (limited to where, on or after the Effective Date, it has not committed the act prescribed in Article 7-6, item (vi) of the New Antimonopoly Act against a person prescribed in that item other than the counterparty to that act), Article 7-6 of the New Antimonopoly Act (limited to the part relating to that item) does not apply to the reduction of the amount of the surcharge and the exemption from payment of the surcharge for the violation relating to that act.

Dispositions, procedures and other acts done before this Act (or, with regard to the provisions listed in Article 1, item (ii) of the Supplementary Provisions, those provisions; the same applies hereinafter in this Article) comes into effect, pursuant to the provisions of the Antimonopoly Act prior to its amendment by this Act or of orders based on it, for which there are corresponding provisions in the Antimonopoly Act as amended by this Act or orders based on it, are deemed, except as otherwise provided in these Supplementary Provisions, to have been done pursuant to the corresponding provisions of the Antimonopoly Act as amended by this Act or orders based on it.

Beyond what is provided for in Article 2 through the preceding Article of the Supplementary Provisions, transitional measures necessary in connection with the enforcement of this Act (or, with regard to the provisions listed in the items of Article 1 of the Supplementary Provisions, those provisions) are specified by Cabinet Order.

When five years have elapsed after this Act comes into effect, the government is to, taking into account the status of enforcement of the Antimonopoly Act as amended by this Act, and if it finds it necessary, review the provisions of the Antimonopoly Act as amended by this Act, and take required measures based on the results.