온라인 플랫폼에 대한 중복규제 방지 방안
Study on How to Prevent the Concurrent Application of Competition Law and Sector-Specific Regulations on Online Platforms
0
조회
0
다운로드
6
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
In Korea, various regulations on online platforms have been currently discussed among regulatory agencies and the concerns about unreasonable overlapping or duplicate regulations are rising. Such duplicate regulations appear in several types, such as duplication of ex ante- and ex post regulation, that of merger filings, and that of prohibited lists of unfair practices which leads to the concurrent application of competition law and sector-specific regulations. Given the regulatory-friendly environment in Korea and the weak independence of independent regulatory agencies, unnecessary and unreasonable overlapping of competition law and sector-specific regulations is likely to occur. Under such circumstances, it is important not to introduce unnecessary regulations in the first instance. Even when ex-ante regulations are required due to the lax enforcement of competition law, given the variety of types and business models of online platforms, comprehensive regulations on them possibly lead to over-inclusiveness and over-deterrence. In particular, sector-specific regulations on online platforms are justifiable mainly when competition law does not effectively work and when their grounds are evidenced through thorough market studies. It is also necessary to clearly demarcate regulatory jurisdictions of multiple agencies through rational construction of existing laws and regulations. Even when the legislation of sector-specific regulations are justifiable, it is necessary to find out how to handle the side effects of the concurrent application of competition law and sector-specific regulations. A joint jurisdiction model like the U.K.’s might be discussed, but it would be more effective to implement cooperations between the competition authority and other regulatory agencies through legislation. It is also worth noting that competition authority and regulatory agencies can reduce the unreasonable duplicate investigations on businesses through the joint investigation, which has been set forth in the Framework Act on Administrative Investigations since 2007 but has not been well-noted. In addition, strengthening the independence of regulatory agencies as well as competition authority and allowing them regulatory discretions to utilize soft and flexible regulatory tools which contributes to improve regulatory outcome and performance of agencies can be a way to reduce unnecessary overlapping of competition law and sector-specific regulations as well as that of sector-specific regulations from a long-term perspective.
Abstract
In Korea, various regulations on online platforms have been currently discussed among regulatory agencies and the concerns about unreasonable overlapping or duplicate regulations are rising. Such duplicate regulations appear in several types, such as duplication of ex ante- and ex post regulation, that of merger filings, and that of prohibited lists of unfair practices which leads to the concurrent application of competition law and sector-specific regulations. Given the regulatory-friendly environment in Korea and the weak independence of independent regulatory agencies, unnecessary and unreasonable overlapping of competition law and sector-specific regulations is likely to occur. Under such circumstances, it is important not to introduce unnecessary regulations in the first instance. Even when ex-ante regulations are required due to the lax enforcement of competition law, given the variety of types and business models of online platforms, comprehensive regulations on them possibly lead to over-inclusiveness and over-deterrence. In particular, sector-specific regulations on online platforms are justifiable mainly when competition law does not effectively work and when their grounds are evidenced through thorough market studies. It is also necessary to clearly demarcate regulatory jurisdictions of multiple agencies through rational construction of existing laws and regulations. Even when the legislation of sector-specific regulations are justifiable, it is necessary to find out how to handle the side effects of the concurrent application of competition law and sector-specific regulations. A joint jurisdiction model like the U.K.’s might be discussed, but it would be more effective to implement cooperations between the competition authority and other regulatory agencies through legislation. It is also worth noting that competition authority and regulatory agencies can reduce the unreasonable duplicate investigations on businesses through the joint investigation, which has been set forth in the Framework Act on Administrative Investigations since 2007 but has not been well-noted. In addition, strengthening the independence of regulatory agencies as well as competition authority and allowing them regulatory discretions to utilize soft and flexible regulatory tools which contributes to improve regulatory outcome and performance of agencies can be a way to reduce unnecessary overlapping of competition law and sector-specific regulations as well as that of sector-specific regulations from a long-term perspective.
참고문헌 (55)
- 권오승, "경제법" (2019), 법문사
- 김종석, "규제개혁 30년: 평가와 과제", 규제연구, 29(2), pp.3~13 (2020), 한국규제학회[DOI]
- 김태오, "규제행정법적 관점에서 본 유료방송 인수ㆍ합병의 쟁점 -최근 종합유선방송사업자 인수ㆍ합병 사례를 중심으로-", 법과 기업 연구, 10(1), pp.95~128 (2020), 법학연구소[DOI]
- 김태오, "방송통신 규제기관의 최종결정권과 사법심사 -독일 연방행정법원'(BVerwG)의 규제재량을 중심으로 -", 성균관법학, 26(3), pp.107~142 (2014), 법학연구원[DOI]
- 김태오, "인앱 결제 강제화 금지와 규제 관할", 문화일보(기고), 2021. 8. 13, ~ (2021)
- 김태호, "방송통신시장 경쟁규제에서 일반경쟁규제기관과 전문규제기관 간의 권한 배분", 경제규제와 법, 1(2) (2008)
- 디지털경제연합, "성명서, “성급한 플랫폼 규제를 중단하고 차기 정부에서 논의할 것을촉구한다.”, 2021. 11. 24", ~ (2021)
- 매일경제, "기사, “검증없는 졸속 의원입법에… 한국, 과잉규제 늪에 빠지다”, 2021. 11.10", ~ (2021)
- 박상철, "플랫폼법", 저스티스, 188, pp.347~406 (2022), 한국법학원[DOI]
- 박재윤, "독일 공법상 국가임무론과 보장국가론" (2019), 경인문화사
- 박재현, "미국 행정법상 규제 및 규제완화에 관한 연구", 법학연구, 48(1), pp.569~588 (2007), 법학연구소
- 박재현, "프랑스의 독립행정청", 법학논총, 25(2), pp.237~260 (2018), 법학연구원[DOI]
- 설민수, "규제완화와 공정거래법의 적용 : 행정지도가 개입된 가격담합을 중심으로", 저스티스, (118), pp.234~276 (2010), 한국법학원
- 손혁상, "인터넷 생태계에서의 규제기관과 경쟁집행기관의 권한배분 - 미국에서의 망 중립성 논의를 중심으로 -", 법학연구, 21(4), pp.141~167 (2011), 법학연구원
- 신영수, "통신시장의 경쟁촉진을 위한 규제기관의 권한 조정", 중앙법학, 6(1), pp.217~258 (2004), 중앙법학회
- 유영국, "독일 경쟁제한방지법 제10차 개정(안)의 주요 내용과 독점규제법상 시사점", 경쟁법연구, 42, pp.216~256 (2020), 한국경쟁법학회[DOI]
- 이기종, "플랫폼 경쟁법" (2021), 삼영사
- 금융회사 불공정거래에 대한 규제체계: 해외사례를 중심으로, "이병윤", 한국금융연구원, 4~5 (2007)
- 이봉의, "공정거래위원회의 독립성에 관한 단상(斷想)", 법학연구, 31(1), pp.213~237 (2021), 법학연구원[DOI]
- 이봉의, "전기통신사업법상 소매규제의 개편방안", 경제규제와 법, 1(2) (2008)
- 이상식, "방송 산업의 전문규제기관과 일반경쟁규제기관의 관계에 대한 연구", 방송통신연구, (91), pp.102~128 (2015), 한국방송학회[DOI]
- 이석연, "국가경쟁력 제고를 위한 국민불편법령 개폐 현황 및 방향", 아주대학교 u-SOC 최고위과정특강 자료(2010. 4. 14.), ~ (2010)
- 이성엽, "미디어 산업에서 M&A 인가의 쟁점과 개선방향", 경제규제와 법, 10(2), pp.285~300 (2017), 법학연구소
- 이승민, "온라인 플랫폼에 대한 합리적 규제 방안", 행정법연구, (64), pp.127~156 (2021), 행정법이론실무학회[DOI]
- 이승민, "행정지도의 개념과 실제 ― 공정거래법상 부당한 공동행위와의 관계를 중심으로 ―", 행정법연구, (38), pp.49~81 (2014), 행정법이론실무학회
- 이연호, "한국의 규제국가적 개혁과 관료제의 강화", 동서연구, 28(1), pp.233~258 (2016), 동서문제연구원
- 이원우, "규제국가의 전개와 공법학의 과제 - 과학기술혁신에 따른 공법적 대응을 중심으로 -", 경제규제와 법, 14(2), pp.7~29 (2021), 법학연구소[DOI]
- 이원우, "경제규제법론" (2010), 홍문사
- 이지헌, "디지털 환경에 대응한 독일 경쟁제한방지법 개정", KISDI 정책동향, (2) (2021)
- 이희정, "인터넷상 부가서비스 규제에 대한 일고(一考)", 경제규제와 법, 8(1), pp.146~168 (2015), 법학연구소
- 이희정, "通信市場에 대한 競爭規制權限의 配分과 調和 - 英國 모델의 示唆點 -", 토지공법연구, 37(1), pp.319~348 (2007), 한국토지공법학회
- 장범후, "금융산업에서의 경쟁법 집행에 관한 연구: 영국의 공동관할권 제도를 중심으로", 금융법연구, 16(3), pp.129~162 (2019), 한국금융법학회[DOI]
- 제20대 국회 입법활동 분석, "전진영", 국회입법조사처, ~ (2020)
- 정인영, "미국 연방거래위원회의 민사상 화해절차를 통한 제재처분의 공법적 검토", 경제규제와 법, 13(2), pp.160~177 (2020), 법학연구소[DOI]
- 정재훈, "기업결합 심사의 절차적 공정성과 사법심사-United Parcel Service 판결을 중심으로", 경쟁법연구, 40, pp.215~234 (2019), 한국경쟁법학회[DOI]
- 정호열, "은행업 분야의 전문규제와 경쟁법집행의 조화", 고려법학, (70), pp.99~126 (2013), 법학연구원
- 조성국, "인터넷 검색사업자의 경쟁법적 규제에 관한 연구 - 검색중립성 논의와 규제사례 및 그 시사점을 중심으로 -", 경쟁법연구, 31, pp.268~305 (2015), 한국경쟁법학회
- 조소영, "독립규제위원회의 전문성 제고를 위한 시스템에 관한 연구 - 방송통신위원회의 기능과 역할을 중심으로 -", 공법학연구, 10(1), pp.475~500 (2009), 한국비교공법학회[DOI]
- 중앙일보, "기사, “국민은행 한국시티 이자 522억 더 받아”, 2006. 6. 7", ~ (2006)
- 최병선, "한국 규제개혁시스템의 혁신방안", 규제연구, 23, pp.3~42 (2014), 한국규제학회
- 최승필, "금융산업에 있어서 전문규제기관과 일반규제기관과의 관계 - 이중규제의 문제와 영국의 사례를 통한 해결방안의 모색 -", 법제연구, (35), pp.305~335 (2008), 한국법제연구원
- 최지은, "통신시장규제에 있어서 전문규제와 경쟁상황평가의 관계 - 독일 연방행정법원의 판결을 중심으로", 경제규제와 법, 1(2) (2008)
- 최진욱, "미국 독립규제위원회 제도의 위상과 시사점", 행정법학, (6) (2014)
- 홍대식, "방송시장에서의 금지행위 규제의 문제점과 개선방안", 경제규제와 법, 1(1) (2008)
- Alan Brinkely, "있는 그대로의 미국사(The Unfinished Nation) 제2권" (2005), 휴머니스트
- Aleksandra Boutin, "Enforcement in European e-Commerce - The Way Forward", Evolution of Antitrust in the Digital Era, 1 (2020), Competition Policy International
- Bruce M. Owen, "Media Markets and Competition Law: Multinational Perspectives" (2019), Competition Policy International
- Bruno Lasserre, "“L'Etat régulateur”, Rencontre avec les élèves de la nouvelle promotion de l'ENA, 2019. 1. 25", ~ (2019)
- Francesco Ducci, "Natural Monopolies in Digital Platform Markets" (2020), Cambridge University Press
- Jacqueline Morand-Deviller, "Droit Administratif" (2017), LGDJ
- Jacques Crémer, "Competition policy for the digital era" (2019), Publications Office of the European Union
- JanZiekow, "Gewährleistungsstaat und Regulierungsreform in Deutschland: From deregulation to smart regulation", 법학논집, 19(4), pp.81~124 (2015), 법학연구소
- Ministère de l’économie, des finances et de la relance, "Bruno Le Maire et Cédric O s’accordent avec leurs homologues néerlandais et allemand pour renforcer le Digital Markets Act", ~ (2021)
- Stephen G. Breyer, "Administrative Law and Regulatory Policy: Problems, Text, and Cases" (2011)
- Yves Gaudemet, "Droit administratif" (2018), LGDJ