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.
이용수
초록· 키워드
오류제보하기
In many jurisdictions around the world, the abuse of market dominance is not as actively regulated by competition authorities as it should be considering its significance. This is because, first of all, it is difficult to establish the illegality of an act of a dominant firm. Also, behaviors of a dominant firm take so many variations that it is not easy to categorize abusive activities of dominant position in written provisions and then come up with judging standards for each type of such behaviors. Against this backdrop, this study starts by looking at Korea’s legal and regulatory systems regarding abuse of dominant market position.
First of all, Korea’s Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act (hereinafter “MRFTA”) has considerable duplication between the provisions of the abuse of dominant market position and those of unfair trade practices. Actually, such duplicate provisions are rarely found together in other nations’ competition laws except for Japanese competition law. This study examines various problems arising from Korea"s current regime. Centering around the screening guidelines and decisions of the Korea Fair Trade Commission (hereinafter “KFTC”) and court rulings, this study deliberates on this issue step by step in relevant stages.
Regarding the proof of the unfairness of the abuse of dominance, the Supreme Court of Korea has put in place rigorous requirements since its POSCO ruling in 2007, asking for subjective requirement-intent to maintain or strengthen monopoly/oligopoly - as well as objective requirement - a potential anti-competitive effect. However, very few advanced jurisdictions demand the subjective requirement. From the theoretical point of view, the subjective requirement itself can hardly be a target of substantiation.
Therefore, the Supreme Court has recently shown some signs of alleviating the subjective requirement in its Nonghyup ruling, and other court decisions are treading a similar path. Building on this trend, courts, the KFTC and the academic circle need to have a multi-faceted discussion and come up with improvement the measures on proving the unfairness of abuse of dominance and searching for a desirable regulatory regime. Hearings and seminars would be helpful to formulate a reasonable consensus and to build a common understanding on this issue.
This study also touches on the issue of the Intel case study. Few competition law cases have received as much attention as the General Court"s Intel judgement of 12 June 2014, in which it upheld the Commission"s decision that Intel had breached Article 102 and the imposed fine of €1.06 billion. With regard to the case, this study introduces extensive opinions from various fields and looks at this issue in a constructive manner.
In conclusion, this study spells out problems that the current legal and regulatory systems are faced with in the area of the abuse of dominant market position in competition law, and presents several suggestions to address such problems. Also this study deals with the Posco case and the Intel case from various angles. Hopefully, this study can help contribute to the work of
legislative improvement of the MRFTA and other related KFTC guidelines in the short run. Furthermore, in the long run, this study can also be useful in helping the enactment or amendment of Korean antitrust law and civil law in general.
First of all, Korea’s Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act (hereinafter “MRFTA”) has considerable duplication between the provisions of the abuse of dominant market position and those of unfair trade practices. Actually, such duplicate provisions are rarely found together in other nations’ competition laws except for Japanese competition law. This study examines various problems arising from Korea"s current regime. Centering around the screening guidelines and decisions of the Korea Fair Trade Commission (hereinafter “KFTC”) and court rulings, this study deliberates on this issue step by step in relevant stages.
Regarding the proof of the unfairness of the abuse of dominance, the Supreme Court of Korea has put in place rigorous requirements since its POSCO ruling in 2007, asking for subjective requirement-intent to maintain or strengthen monopoly/oligopoly - as well as objective requirement - a potential anti-competitive effect. However, very few advanced jurisdictions demand the subjective requirement. From the theoretical point of view, the subjective requirement itself can hardly be a target of substantiation.
Therefore, the Supreme Court has recently shown some signs of alleviating the subjective requirement in its Nonghyup ruling, and other court decisions are treading a similar path. Building on this trend, courts, the KFTC and the academic circle need to have a multi-faceted discussion and come up with improvement the measures on proving the unfairness of abuse of dominance and searching for a desirable regulatory regime. Hearings and seminars would be helpful to formulate a reasonable consensus and to build a common understanding on this issue.
This study also touches on the issue of the Intel case study. Few competition law cases have received as much attention as the General Court"s Intel judgement of 12 June 2014, in which it upheld the Commission"s decision that Intel had breached Article 102 and the imposed fine of €1.06 billion. With regard to the case, this study introduces extensive opinions from various fields and looks at this issue in a constructive manner.
In conclusion, this study spells out problems that the current legal and regulatory systems are faced with in the area of the abuse of dominant market position in competition law, and presents several suggestions to address such problems. Also this study deals with the Posco case and the Intel case from various angles. Hopefully, this study can help contribute to the work of
legislative improvement of the MRFTA and other related KFTC guidelines in the short run. Furthermore, in the long run, this study can also be useful in helping the enactment or amendment of Korean antitrust law and civil law in general.
목차
Ⅰ. 들어가며
Ⅱ. 시장지배적지위 남용행위에 대한 집행체제의 문제점
Ⅲ. 부당성 판단에 관한 판례 분석과 최근 국제적 집행동향
Ⅳ. 맺는말
참고문헌
Abstract
참고문헌 (29)
참고문헌 신청
이 논문과 연관된 판례 (2)
-
대법원 2009. 7. 9. 선고 2007두22078 판결
[1] 배타조건부 거래행위가 구 독점규제 및 공정거래에 관한 법률(2007. 4. 13. 법률 제8382호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제3조의2 제1항 제5호 전단의 시장지배적 사업자의 지위남용행위에 해당하려면 그 배타조건부 거래행위가 부당하게 거래상대방이 경쟁사업자와 거래하지 아니할 것을 조건으로 그 거래상대방과 거래하는 행
자세히 보기 -
대법원 2007. 11. 22. 선고 2002두8626 전원합의체 판결
[1] 독점규제 및 공정거래에 관한 법률 제3조의2 제1항 제3호에서 금지하는 시장지배적 지위남용행위로서의 거래거절행위는 `시장지배적 사업자가 부당하게 특정 사업자에 대한 거래를 거절함으로써 그 사업자의 사업활동을 어렵게 하는 행위’이다.
자세히 보기
함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문
논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!
-
中国法对企业滥用市场支配地位行为的规制
중국법연구
2016 .01
-
对韩国滥用市场支配地位行为的研究
국제법무
2017 .05
-
인터넷 검색서비스에 대한 경쟁법 집행에 있어 관련시장 획정에 대한 검토- 대법원 2014. 11. 13 선고 2009두20366판결을 중심으로 -
法學論文集
2015 .01
-
공정거래법상 ‘통상거래가격보다 낮은 가격’ 규제에 대한 비판적 고찰 - 시장지배적지위 남용 관련 LGU+/KT 기업메시징서비스 사건을 중심으로 -
아주법학
2015 .01
-
간격 좁히기: 국제 경쟁법으로의 수렴 또는 그로부터의 분산 -한국 경쟁법상 단독행위 규제를 중심으로-
경쟁법연구
2015 .05
-
배제적 리베이트 사건에서 경제적 분석방법 적용 문제 - EU 법원 Intel 판결을 중심으로 -
경쟁법연구
2015 .11
-
시장지배적 지위와 남용 행위의 관계에 관한 연구
법학연구
2019 .01
-
코로나19 시대의 가격급등에 대한 공정거래위원회의 역할 - 보건용 마스크 사례를 중심으로 -
법학연구
2020 .08
-
거래상지위남용 규제 집행의 효율성 제고방안
경쟁법연구
2018 .01
-
공정거래법상 거래상지위남용의 공정거래저해성 - 대법원 2015. 9. 10. 선고 2012두18325판결을 중심으로 -
국제거래와 법
2021 .07
-
시장지배적 지위 남용 사건에서 시장지배력 전이 이론 원용의 문제점
서울법학
2024 .02
-
중소사업자 보호와 관련한 거래상 지위남용 규제 법률의 고찰
아주법학
2016 .01
-
거래상 지위와 남용행위의 판단기준
경쟁법연구
2017 .11
-
거래상 지위남용 규제의 의의
기업법연구
2015 .03
-
수직적 구조에서 지배력 남용 판단에 관한 고찰
경쟁법연구
2017 .05
-
2019년 경쟁법 중요판례평석
인권과 정의
2020 .01
-
온라인플랫폼 사업자의 자사우대 행위의 위법성에 대한 소고
원광법학
2024 .06
-
공정거래법상 단독의 거래거절 규제에 관하여
법경제학연구
2020 .04
-
｢온라인 플랫폼 사업자의 시장지배적지위 남용행위에 대한 심사지침｣의 시행과 온라인 플랫폼 규제 측면에서의 시사점
경제법연구
2023 .04
이 논문의 저자 정보
이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0
UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2017-360-001971819