공정거래법의 사적집행제도로서의 사인의 금지청구제도
Injunctive Relief System by Private Persons Under the Fair Trade Act of Korea
0
조회
0
다운로드
7
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
The government's entire amendment (hereinafter 'amendment') to the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act (hereinafter ‘Fair Trade Act’) submitted to the National Assembly on November 11, 2018 contains the introduction of the injunctive relief system. If the relevant content of the amendment is enacted as legislation, the Fair Trade Act will be equipped with the injunctive relief system in addition to damages compensation system and the triple compensation system, thus completing the framework of private enforcement systems. Against this background, this paper first examines whether the injunctive relief system is permitted by general principles of the civil law and, if so, on what requirements based on theories and case law doctrines of the civil law and judicial precedents in cases of preliminary or final injunction claims for violation of Fair Trade Act (Ⅱ). After developing the interpretation theory of the injunctive relief system introduced in the amendment in the order of the subject of the claim, the other party, the object act, the constitution requirements, the nature, the content and the general procedure (Ⅲ), the conclusion will be drawn (Ⅳ). The injunctive relief system is a system that allows a person who injured or has a risk of being injured by unfair trade practices to file a injunction claim against an enterprise or a enterprise association that commit or are likely to commit a violation. The content of the injunction claim is the prohibition or prevention of infringements against oneself. The scope of prohibition or prevention is set to the extent necessary for the victim's relief. Prevention claims as well as prohibition claims are recognized. Therefore, if this system is introduced, it will be able to file injunction claims not only in the cases of continuing infringements that have already occurred, but also in the cases when infringements have been terminated but are likely to occur again or infringements do not occur yet but are likely to occur. The injunction claims are most likely to be filed when the Korea Fair Trade Commission's corrective actions are not expected to be appropriate or there is no room to wait for it, unlike claims for damages. Therefore, in the case of unfair trade practices, stand-alone actions, which are relatively rare compared to follow-on actions, can be an opportunity to be activated. In this respect, the introduction of the injunctive relief system for unfair trade practices is also meaningful in terms of effective allocation of enforcement resources.
Abstract
The government's entire amendment (hereinafter 'amendment') to the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act (hereinafter ‘Fair Trade Act’) submitted to the National Assembly on November 11, 2018 contains the introduction of the injunctive relief system. If the relevant content of the amendment is enacted as legislation, the Fair Trade Act will be equipped with the injunctive relief system in addition to damages compensation system and the triple compensation system, thus completing the framework of private enforcement systems. Against this background, this paper first examines whether the injunctive relief system is permitted by general principles of the civil law and, if so, on what requirements based on theories and case law doctrines of the civil law and judicial precedents in cases of preliminary or final injunction claims for violation of Fair Trade Act (Ⅱ). After developing the interpretation theory of the injunctive relief system introduced in the amendment in the order of the subject of the claim, the other party, the object act, the constitution requirements, the nature, the content and the general procedure (Ⅲ), the conclusion will be drawn (Ⅳ). The injunctive relief system is a system that allows a person who injured or has a risk of being injured by unfair trade practices to file a injunction claim against an enterprise or a enterprise association that commit or are likely to commit a violation. The content of the injunction claim is the prohibition or prevention of infringements against oneself. The scope of prohibition or prevention is set to the extent necessary for the victim's relief. Prevention claims as well as prohibition claims are recognized. Therefore, if this system is introduced, it will be able to file injunction claims not only in the cases of continuing infringements that have already occurred, but also in the cases when infringements have been terminated but are likely to occur again or infringements do not occur yet but are likely to occur. The injunction claims are most likely to be filed when the Korea Fair Trade Commission's corrective actions are not expected to be appropriate or there is no room to wait for it, unlike claims for damages. Therefore, in the case of unfair trade practices, stand-alone actions, which are relatively rare compared to follow-on actions, can be an opportunity to be activated. In this respect, the introduction of the injunctive relief system for unfair trade practices is also meaningful in terms of effective allocation of enforcement resources.
참고문헌 (45)
- 권오승, "독점규제법" (2018), 법문사
- 권오승, "독점규제법: 이론과 실무" (2017), 법문사
- 김기영, "특허와 침해" (2012), 육법사
- 공정거래법 집행제도의 개선방안, "김두진", 한국법제연구원, ~ (2003)
- 새라 워딩턴, "형평법" (2006), 소화
- 공정거래법상 금지청구와 손해배상청구: OECD 국가들의 비교법적 고찰, "장승화", 대외경제정책연구원, ~ (2001)
- 강우찬, "공정거래법상 금지청구권과 가처분", 민사판례연구, (31), pp.875~916 (2009), 민사판례연구회
- 곽상현, "공정거래법의 집행과 금지청구제도- 미국의 판례 및 도입과 관련된 쟁점을 중심으로 -", 법조, 56(4)통권 : 607, pp.80~145 (2007), 법조협회[DOI]
- 권영준, "불법행위와 금지청구권-eBay vs. MercExchange 판결을 읽고-", Law ＆ Technology, 4(2) (2008)
- 권영준, "불법행위법의 사상적 기초와 그 시사점 - 예방과 회복의 패러다임을 중심으로 -", 저스티스, (109), pp.73~107 (2009), 한국법학원
- 권오승, "경쟁질서와 사법상의 법률관계", 비교사법, 14(1), pp.77~108 (2007), 한국사법학회[DOI]
- 김병일, "정보법 판례백선(Ⅱ)" (2016), 박영사
- 김상중, "불법행위의 사전적 구제수단으로서 금지청구권의 소고 - 대법원 2010.8.25.자 2008마1541 결정에 관한 평석 -", 비교사법, 17(4), pp.141~172 (2010), 한국사법학회[DOI]
- 김재형, "민법학의 현대적 양상: 나암 서 민 교수 정년기념논문집" (2006), 법문사
- 김차동, "공정거래법의 사적 집행 제도 변경 및 그 보완 방안", 경쟁법연구, 11 (2005)
- 김형석, "所有物妨害排除請求權에서 妨害의 槪念 ― 大法院 2003.3.28. 선고, 2003다5917 판결의 평석을 겸하여 ―", 서울대학교 법학, 45(4), pp.394~431 (2004), 법학연구소
- 박성호, "지적재산법의 비침해행위와－반불법행위 －불법행위법리에 의한 지적재산법의 보완 문제를 중심으로－", 정보법학, 15(1), pp.197~237 (2011), 한국정보법학회
- 박수곤, "손해배상의 방법에 대한 비교법적 고찰 - 원상회복과 금전배상의 개념에 대한 재고 -", 비교사법, 19(1), pp.47~80 (2012), 한국사법학회[DOI]
- 박시훈, "위법행위에 대한 금지청구권의 연구 - 위법성 판단의 문제를 중심으로 -", 민사법학, 71, pp.49~82 (2015), 한국민사법학회
- 신현윤, "일본 독점금지법상의 위법행위 유지청구권", 경쟁법연구, 7 (2001)
- 서정, "한국의 사적 집행 사례와 시사점", 경쟁법연구, 28, pp.144~175 (2013), 한국경쟁법학회
- 유영선, "부정한 경쟁행위와 관련한 불법행위 성립요건 및 그에 기한 금지청구권의 허용 여부", 사법논집, 53 (2011)
- 윤진수, "損害賠償의 方法으로서의 原狀回復 ― 民法改正案을 계기로 하여 ―", 비교사법, 10(1), pp.77~119 (2003), 한국사법학회
- 윤진수, "민법논고 Ⅰ" (2007), 박영사
- 윤태영, "競爭秩序 違反行爲에 대한 不法行爲責任", 비교사법, 14(1), pp.139~166 (2007), 한국사법학회[DOI]
- 이봉의, "공정거래법의 실효적 집행", 경쟁법연구, 10 (2004)
- 이선희, "우리 나라의 독점규제법과 사적 집행의 발전", 성균관법학, 23(1), pp.25~64 (2011), 법학연구원[DOI]
- 이선희, "독점규제법 30년" (2011), 법문사
- 한국정보법학회, "정보법 판례백선(Ⅱ)" (2016), 박영사
- 이상현, "개정 부정경쟁방지법상 금지청구권에 관한 소고", 저스티스, 159, pp.319~341 (2017), 한국법학원
- 장승화, "민사판례연구 24권" (2002), 박영사
- 장승화, "공정거래법과 규제산업" (2007), 법문사
- 정기웅, "不法行爲 成立要件으로서의 違法性에 대한 考察", 안암법학, (36), pp.419~458 (2011), 안암법학회[DOI]
- 최두진, "지적재산권 침해에 대한 금지청구", 기업법연구, 21(2), pp.355~384 (2007), 한국기업법학회
- 최민수, "부정경쟁행위와 불법행위법상 금지청구권 - 대법원 2010. 8. 25.자 2008마1541 결정 -", 법조, 62(1), pp.255~299 (2013), 법조협회[DOI]
- 최흥섭, "이영준 박사 화갑기념논문집: 한국민법이론의 발전(Ⅱ)" (1999), 박영사
- 허성욱, "권리남용금지 법리에 관한 법경제학적 고찰(상)", 법조, 54(12), pp.208~233 (2005), 법조협회
- 허승, "법관연수 어드밴스 과정 연구논문집" (2017), 사법연수원
- 홍대식, "독점규제법 30년" (2011), 법문사
- 홍대식, "시장경제와 사회조화" (2015), 법문사
- "ABA Section of Antitrust Law, Antitrust La Developments, Vol. 1", ~ (2012)
- European Commission, "COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER accompanying the WHITE PAPER on Damages actions for breach of the EC antitrust rules", COM(2008) 165 final, ~ (2008)
- Hovenkamp, Herbert, "Federal Antitrust Policy: The Law of Competition and its Practice" (2016), West Academic Publishing
- T. Hartley, "Explanatory Report on the 2005 Hague Choice of Court Convention", Proceedings of the Twentieth Session (2005), Tome III, Choice of Court Agreements (2010)
- Public vs. Private Enforcement of Antitrust Law: A Survey, "Segal, Ilya R.", ~, pp.Stanford Law and Economics Olin Working Paper No. 335 (2006)