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
The concept of market dominant entrepreneur in the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act(MRFTA) can be traced to the concept of monopolistic and oligopolistic entrepreneurs in the Prices Stabilization and Fair Trade Act enacted in 1975. The object of designation system of monopolistic and oligopolistic entrepreneurs was to control market prices through price report to the government by them. The definition of the monopolistic and oligopolistic entrepreneurs in Prices Stabilization and Fair Trade Act was similar to that of the present market dominant entrepreneurs. However, the Enforcement Decree of Prices Stabilization and Fair Trade Act defined them as one or a small number of entrepreneurs in markets with high concentration, which is different from market dominant entrepreneurs in MRFTA. As a result, the monopolistic and oligopolistic entrepreneurs came to mean entrepreneurs which should be regulated through price reports. In the MRFTA enacted in 1980, the market dominant entrepreneur was defined in a similar manner to that in German Competition Law(GWB). However, the Enforcement Decree of the MRFTA defined the market dominant entrepreneur based to market shares like the previous Prices Stabilization and Fair Trade Act. Therefore, Korea Fair Trade Commission had designated the market dominant entrepreneurs according to the previous practices. There was no room for the concept of collective dominance discussed in EU competition law. In the 1999 revision of MRFTA, the preliminary designation of the market dominant entrepreneurs was abolished and ex post facto test was introduced instead. However, there were no big differences in practices of Korea Fair Trade Commission, because the Act used the previous market share criteria to evaluate market dominant position similarly. Practices like this have some problems in that there is no considerations about competition situations and they are against basic economic theory. There seems to be need for revision of MRFTA on this moment.
목차
등록된 정보가 없습니다.
참고문헌 (20)
참고문헌 신청
이 논문과 연관된 판례 (1)
-
대법원 2005. 12. 9. 선고 2003두6283 판결
[1] 독점규제 및 공정거래에 관한 법률은, 제2조 제1호에서 `사업자’라 함은 제조업, 서비스업, 기타 사업을 행하는 자를 말한다고 규정하고 있고, 제2조 제7호에서 `시장지배적 사업자’라 함은 일정한 거래분야의 공급자나 수요자로서 단독으로 또는 다른 사업자와 함께 상품이나 용역의 가격·수량·품질 기
자세히 보기
이 논문의 저자 정보
이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0
UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2016-360-002567808