인문학
사회과학
자연과학
공학
의약학
농수해양학
예술체육학
복합학
DBpia AI
AI 에이전트
AI 아이디어
AI 리더
AI 뷰어
Citeasy
크롬 서지관리 다운로드
개인구독
소속 기관이 없으신 경우, 개인 정기구독을 하시면 저렴하게
논문을 무제한 열람 이용할 수 있어요.
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.
학술저널
Full-text
오류 신고하기해당 페이지 내 제목·저자·목차·페이지정보가 잘못된 경우 알려주세요!
초록·키워드
The Korea Supreme Court recently held that even minimum resale price maintenance should be allowed under the Korea Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act (hereinafter ‘KMRFTA’ or ’Act) if its pro-competitive effect outweighs its anti-competitive effect. This holding was quite surprising because most of commentators including Korea Fair Trade Commission (hereinafter ‘KFTC’), the Korean competition authority had long opined that the minimum resale price maintenance was illegal per se in light of the explicit provisions on Section 29 (1) of the KMRFTA. The Korea Supreme Court was presumably influenced by the Leegin decision rendered by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2007.
The U.S. Supreme Court also overruled the per se rule applied to minimum resale price maintenance which was one of the oldest antitrust precedents. The Court explicitly based its holding upon various pro-competitive potentials of resale price maintenance which mainstream economists have consistently suggested. It relinquished old common law ‘rule against unreasonable restraints upon alienation of property’ reflected in the per se rule against the minimum resale maintenance. Instead the Court emphasized its actual effect upon competition as antitrust guiding principle applied to practices setting resale prices.
Now, it is time to consider legislative amendments on the prohibition of resale price maintenance and make up proper rules to evaluate trade practices fixing resale price under the KMRFTA. The legislative amendments and law enforcement rules should fully take into consideration both the harms to competition and offsetting economic benefits of resale price maintenance. The focus should be upon its effect on inter-brand competition, intra-brand competition and efficient distribution of branded goods, not the old notion of free exercise of price setting power by resellers.
The U.S. Supreme Court also overruled the per se rule applied to minimum resale price maintenance which was one of the oldest antitrust precedents. The Court explicitly based its holding upon various pro-competitive potentials of resale price maintenance which mainstream economists have consistently suggested. It relinquished old common law ‘rule against unreasonable restraints upon alienation of property’ reflected in the per se rule against the minimum resale maintenance. Instead the Court emphasized its actual effect upon competition as antitrust guiding principle applied to practices setting resale prices.
Now, it is time to consider legislative amendments on the prohibition of resale price maintenance and make up proper rules to evaluate trade practices fixing resale price under the KMRFTA. The legislative amendments and law enforcement rules should fully take into consideration both the harms to competition and offsetting economic benefits of resale price maintenance. The focus should be upon its effect on inter-brand competition, intra-brand competition and efficient distribution of branded goods, not the old notion of free exercise of price setting power by resellers.
인공지능 문자 인식 모델을 통해 추출된 텍스트로, 일부 오타나 오류가 포함될 수 있으나 지속적으로 개선 중입니다.
오류를 발견하셨다면 해당 부분을 드래그한 후 ' 를 통해 신고해주세요.
오류를 발견하셨다면 해당 부분을 드래그한 후 ' 를 통해 신고해주세요.
최근 본 자료 전체보기
