공정거래 관련 분쟁조정제도의 현황 및 활성화 방안 검토
A Study on the fair trade disputes mediation system’s current status and activation plan
1
조회
0
다운로드
2
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
The fair trade dispute mediation system has been implemented in 2008 for the purpose of processing efficiency of the Fair Trade Commission and for reviving substantial damage relief. In the Korean judicial procedure for damage relief, it is difficult for small and medium-sized businesses to receive remedies through litigation because it costs a lot of time and expenses. However, the mediation system enables faster and easier remedial action without costs. At the time of introducing the mediation system in 2008, 520 cases of disputes were filed in two fields of fair trade and franchise business. In 2018, 3480 disputes in 6 areas of fair trade, franchise business, subcontract, large franchise and retail business, terms and conditions, agency transactions were filed, and the fair trade dispute mediation system has been successfully established. Therefore, I would like to examine whether the fair trade related mediation system is operating well according to the purpose of the introduction and the issues raised recently. In addition, 10 years after the introduction of the fair trade related mediation system, I am going to examine the recent changes in the “Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act” and recent amendments to the mediation system. This article examines ways to expand the scope of mediation providers and mediation objects for the revitalization of actual damages. Because, in many cases, businesses that have been damaged by unfair trade practices can not receive relief through mediation system. The fair trade mediation system may have various advantages such as social cost reduction due to the dispute, so it is necessary to actively review measures to expand the scope of mediation system related to fair trade.
Abstract
The fair trade dispute mediation system has been implemented in 2008 for the purpose of processing efficiency of the Fair Trade Commission and for reviving substantial damage relief. In the Korean judicial procedure for damage relief, it is difficult for small and medium-sized businesses to receive remedies through litigation because it costs a lot of time and expenses. However, the mediation system enables faster and easier remedial action without costs. At the time of introducing the mediation system in 2008, 520 cases of disputes were filed in two fields of fair trade and franchise business. In 2018, 3480 disputes in 6 areas of fair trade, franchise business, subcontract, large franchise and retail business, terms and conditions, agency transactions were filed, and the fair trade dispute mediation system has been successfully established. Therefore, I would like to examine whether the fair trade related mediation system is operating well according to the purpose of the introduction and the issues raised recently. In addition, 10 years after the introduction of the fair trade related mediation system, I am going to examine the recent changes in the “Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act” and recent amendments to the mediation system. This article examines ways to expand the scope of mediation providers and mediation objects for the revitalization of actual damages. Because, in many cases, businesses that have been damaged by unfair trade practices can not receive relief through mediation system. The fair trade mediation system may have various advantages such as social cost reduction due to the dispute, so it is necessary to actively review measures to expand the scope of mediation system related to fair trade.
참고문헌 (24)
- 신동권, "독점규제법" (2016), 박영사
- 이호영, "독점규제법" (2013), 홍문사
- 권오승, "독점규제 및 공정거래관련법의 집행시스템", 서울대학교 법학, 51(4), pp.211~228 (2010), 법학연구소
- 공정거래 관련 분쟁의 조정을 통한 피해구제, "김건식", 한국공정거래조정원, ~, pp.KOFAIR 연구보고서 2014-2 (2014)
- 김건식, "공정거래관련 집단분쟁조정제도에 관한 연구", 서울법학, 21(3), pp.67~98 (2014), 서울시립대학교 법학연구소[DOI]
- 김건식, "공정거래 관련 분쟁의 피해구제 활성화를 위한 조정제도 확대 방안 고찰", 法學論文集, 40(1), pp.273~298 (2016), 법학연구원[DOI]
- 공정거래 관련 분쟁의 ADR 활성화 방안, "김건식", 한국공정거래조정원, ~ (2017)
- 박영규, "지적재산권" (2009), 한국지적재산권법제연구원
- 배진철, "공정거래 분쟁조정제도에 대하여", 경쟁저널, (185) (2016)
- 신영수, "현행 공정거래조정제도의 미비점 및 실효성 제고를 위한 보완 방안", 중앙법학, 12(2), pp.403~438 (2010), 중앙법학회[DOI]
- 공정거래분야에 있어서 분쟁조정제도의 실효성 제고방안, "신영수", 한국공정거래조정원, ~ (2009)
- 이봉의, "질서정책적 과제로서의 경쟁 -과거와 미래", 경쟁법연구, 23, pp.194~218 (2011), 한국경쟁법학회
- 정기화, "공생발전을 위한 법의 역할: 대 중소기업 관계를 중심으로", 저스티스, 134(2), pp.239~260 (2013), 한국법학원
- 대안적 갈등해결방식(ADR)제도의 운영실태 및 개선방안 연구, "임동진", 한국행정연구원, ~, pp.KIPA 연구보고서 2012-39 (2012)
- 정수정, "소상공인 불공정거래 현황 및 대응과제", 중소기업 포커스, 17(7) (2017)
- 최요섭, "The Recent Enforcement of Competition Law Damages Actions in the European Union", EU연구, (41), pp.3~32 (2015), EU연구소[DOI]
- 공정거래위원회, "공정거래위원회 30년사, 제2권" (2011), 공정거래위원회
- ADR 제도 활성화를 위한 변호사의 역할에 관한 연구, "법무부", 법무부, ~ (2016)
- 한국공정거래조정원, "한국공정거래조정원 10년사" (2017)
- Herbert Hovenkamp, "Federal Antitrust Policy" (2011)
- Howard Adler Jr, "The Expanding Role of ADR in Antitrust Cases", Disp. Resal. Mag, 9(2), pp.34~ (2003)
- Laurel J. Harbour, "The Emerging European Class Action: Expanding Multi-Party Litigation to A Shrinking World", The Practical Litigator, American Law Institute-American Bar Association Committee on Continuing Professional Education, 23~24 (2007)
- Robert H. Lande, "Comparative Deterrence from Private Enforcement and Criminal Enforcement of the U.S. Antitrust Laws", B.Y.U. L. Rev, 2011, pp.315~ (2011)
- "Model Standards of Conduct for Mediators", American Arbitration Association, the American Bar Association’s Section of Dispute Resolution and the Association for Conflict Resolution, ~ (2005)