지원사업
학술연구/단체지원/교육 등 연구자 활동을 지속하도록 DBpia가 지원하고 있어요.
커뮤니티
연구자들이 자신의 연구와 전문성을 널리 알리고, 새로운 협력의 기회를 만들 수 있는 네트워킹 공간이에요.
초록· 키워드
오류제보하기
In 2002, the Korea Fair Trade Commission (KFTC) made its first decision regarding the extraterritorial application of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act (MRFTA), in a case concerning international cartels. The KFTC decided to impose a surcharge of 11,242 million won (equivalent to US$ 8,532,000) on six graphite electrode manufacturers from the U.S., Germany and Japan that participated in an international cartel. The commission asserted that "the six companies (that comprise about 80% of the worldwide graphite electrode market) held several meetings in London, Tokyo and other cities from May 1992 to February 1998; later reaching agreements on price-fixing and market allocation targeting the world market, including the Korean market, consequently implementing their agreements." According to the KFTC, two companies, Tokai Carbon and Showa Denko, declined to attend the hearings because of lack of jurisdiction: The commission replied by alleging that the extraterritorial application of antitrust laws to international cartels had become a global standard and Korean markets had been affected severely by the cartels. The commission demonstrated that because of this international cartel, Korean steel manufacturers that used electric arc furnaces had incurred significant financial losses. The losses were further compounded by the fact that the manufacturers are completely dependent on imports. However, being dissatisfied with the Commission's decision, Tokai Carbon(and other 5 companies) filed lawsuit.
As for the application of the MRFTA to a foreign enterpriser, the MRFTA does not have any clear provision. With the proposition that the MRFTA should be applied to enterprisers, it merely states that the term 'enterpriser' means a person who conducts a manufacturing business, service, or any other business(§2, 1). Even though not approved by all commentators, it is generally recognized that foreign enterprisers are included in this definition.
On this case, the Supreme Court of Korea held that the provision should not be any blockade to exercise jurisdiction. And the Court addressed that national jurisdiction can be accepted on the ground of the effects doctrine, conduct outside a territory that has or intended to have substantial effect within our territory justifies our jurisdiction.
Nowadays, the world's economic activities are interdependent. And they need to cooperate to eradicate international cartels widely. To keep with this tendency, the extraterritorial application of antitrust law(or MRFTA) must be accepted as a general rule. Regarding this situation, the Court's decision should be deemed of a proper conclusion.
As for the application of the MRFTA to a foreign enterpriser, the MRFTA does not have any clear provision. With the proposition that the MRFTA should be applied to enterprisers, it merely states that the term 'enterpriser' means a person who conducts a manufacturing business, service, or any other business(§2, 1). Even though not approved by all commentators, it is generally recognized that foreign enterprisers are included in this definition.
On this case, the Supreme Court of Korea held that the provision should not be any blockade to exercise jurisdiction. And the Court addressed that national jurisdiction can be accepted on the ground of the effects doctrine, conduct outside a territory that has or intended to have substantial effect within our territory justifies our jurisdiction.
Nowadays, the world's economic activities are interdependent. And they need to cooperate to eradicate international cartels widely. To keep with this tendency, the extraterritorial application of antitrust law(or MRFTA) must be accepted as a general rule. Regarding this situation, the Court's decision should be deemed of a proper conclusion.
#국제카르텔
#공동행위
#의사의 합치(합의)
#역외적용
#국가관할권
#영향이론
#이익형량이론
#경제적 단일체이론
#실행이론
#국제카르텔
#International cartel
#collaborative act
#meeting of minds
#extraterritorial application of antitrust law
#state jurisdiction
#effect doctrine
#jurisdictional rule of reason
#economic unit doctrine
#implementation doctrine
#international cartel
목차
Ⅰ. 사안과 판결의 내용
Ⅱ. 문제의 제기
Ⅲ. 국내카르텔과 국제카르텔
Ⅳ. 국제카르텔과 域外適用
Ⅴ. 국제카르텔에 대한 국내 독점규제법의 적용
Ⅵ. 맺는말- 본 판결의 의미
참고문헌
〈Abstract〉
참고문헌 (23)
참고문헌 신청
이 논문과 연관된 판례 (1)
-
대법원 2006. 3. 23. 선고 2003두11124 판결
자세히 보기
함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문
논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!
-
국제카르텔과 독점규제법
기업법연구
2005 .03
-
부당한 공동행위의 성립 : 사례연구
서강법학
2008 .06
-
흑연전극봉 국제공동행위의 국내수입시장에서의 경쟁제한효과에 대한 경제분석
법경제학연구
2005 .12
-
카르텔 규제의 형사적 집행 효과에 관한 의문들: 공정거래법 전면개편안의 전속 고발권 폐지 관련 내용을 중심으로
고려법학
2019 .01
-
중국 반독점법상 카르텔 규제의 쟁점과 사례 분석
중국과 중국학
2013 .02
-
대법원 판결에 나타난 공동행위 성립요건으로서 상호성에 관한 고찰
경쟁법연구
2020 .01
-
Earnings Management in Price Cartel Firms and the Case of Distribution Industry
유통과학연구
2019 .01
-
카르텔 억지 및 피해자의 효과적 구제를 위한 독점규제법의 사적 집행 방안
행정법연구
2012 .12
-
공정거래법상 수직적 공동행위의 규제에 관한 연구
경영법률
2011 .01
-
硬性카르텔(Hard Core Cartels) 規制의 最近動向 : OECD의 보고서(2000년)를 중심으로
통상법률
2001 .06
-
한국 독점규제법의 역외적용 및 면제 요건에 대한 고찰 : 항공사 국제카르텔 관련 대법원 2014. 5. 16. 선고 2012두13689 판결을 중심으로
통상법률
2017 .04
-
경쟁법의 역외적용에 대한 법적검토 - 역외적용 이론의 발전 및 적용상의 문제점을 중심으로 -
외법논집
2009 .01
-
The Issue of Information Exchanges Regarding Price under Competition Law : Comments on the Supreme Court’s Judgment on the Ramen Cartel from a Comparative Perspective
법학논총
2016 .07
-
상식과 직관에 부합하는 경제분석의 필요성- 경성카르텔에 시장획정을 요구하는 대법원 판례에 대한 코멘트 -
고려법학
2016 .01
-
카르텔과 시장진입제한의 효율성
산업혁신연구
2012 .01
-
미국(美國) 카르텔 규제법리(規制法理)의 발전(發展)과 우리나라에 주는 시사점(示唆點)
중앙법학
2007 .05
-
자진신고자 감면제도하의 담합 적발률 추정과 담합분석모형 개발
한국경영과학회 학술대회논문집
2013 .05
-
공정거래법상 카르텔 규제의 쟁점 : 실체법적 쟁점을 중심으로
규제연구
2010 .12
-
Does cartel leadership facilitate collusion?
Journal of Economic Research (JER)
2011 .01
-
不當한 共同行爲(카르텔)의 成立要件
법학연구
2010 .06
이 논문의 저자 정보
이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0
UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2009-366-017616744