공정거래법상 심결제도의 개선에 관한 연구 - 일본 독점금지법상 심판제도의 개정을 중심으로 -

Abstract

System decision by the Fair Trade Commission has various advantages. In other words, systemdecision is more rapidly than civil action to remedy such as consumers affected. Relief of decisionsystem around the victim like this is natural, but it should not be given the burden of unwantedcompany. This thesis present a proposal to rationally improvement measures of decision system. in thefoothold the change of trial system in Japan in this paper. First, it is most important of independence from the politics of the decision system. Fair TradeCommission of Korea has shown a weak appearance is somewhat independent from politics. Completion of the system, that is system by the Fair Trade Commission to be able to serve as anindependent regulatory agency of the true meaning, is required. Second, the decision of the Fair Trade Commission must be fair. That the procedures of thehearing in the trial decision and the adversary system type decision following clause is prepared iswhat a representative to ensure the fairness of the trial decision. It is believed that we specify thecertification of facts by evidence in the trial decision that's strategies to ensure more fairness of thetrial decision. In addition, it would be to document the description of the minority opinion in thevoting certificate also become one approach. Third, the decision system of our country is operated combines both of Appeals type trial andpreliminary review type. Therefore, the situation is often unsuitable in the case of South Korea in therevision of the logic Japan Antimonopoly Act. So, unlike Japan which abolished the trial systemextremely, South Korea is considered desirable to survive the decision system. Fourth, there is a problem with where to the first trial of the court against revocation decision ofthe Fair Trade Law. Seen more preferably be in the Seoul District Court the first trial court whenconsidering the right of access to the courts of the business who are the respondent person. However, it is believed that time and expense will take more damage remedy for victims of the Fair Trade Lawviolations in the case. Given that the respondent settlement of the current has been sufficientlysecured a function of the first trial in effect, given the position that damage relief of consumers, it isconsidered that the current system is also reasonable enough. Fifth, there is a need to consider the introduction of a judge of the administrative court system isfor operation of the system transparent and objective independence more in decision system of the FairTrade Commission.