본문 바로가기
KERD
논문KCI 등재

독점규제법상 시장지배적 사업자 개념과 관련 문제

A Comment on the Definition of “Market Dominant Undertaking” and its Related Problems under the Korean Monopoly Regulation Act

주진열
한국경쟁법학회 (Korean Competition Law Association)|2016.05|경쟁법연구 (Journal of Korean Competition Law)|제33권 |pp. 3-46

0

조회

0

다운로드

16

인용

0

참고문헌

키워드

관련시장시장지배적 지위market powerrelevant market시장지배력market share시장점유율진입장벽시장지배적 사업자market dominant positionbarriers to entrymarket dominant undertaking

초록

The Korean Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act (“MRA”) prohibits the abusive acts of dominant undertaking (“DU”). Therefore, in a case in which the firm in question has not a dominant position, it is not possible to decide that the firm abused its dominant position or market power. For this reason, before deciding whether the conduct in question amounts to abusive practice, the courts must decide first whether the firm in question has market power or not. On the other hand, article 2(7) of the MRA define DU as a undertaking that is able to unilaterally, or with other undertakings, decide, maintain, or change its own price, output, or other trading condition. However it is almost not possible to find out exactly which firm satisfy the definition of DU under article 2(7). For this reason, the Korean Fair Trade Commission (“FTC”) and courts as well have heavily depended on article 4(2) of the MRA that strongly assumes ‘any firm when the total market share of two or three firms is over 75%, except a firm that has below 10% market share’ as DU. According to the article 4(2), even a firm with 10% market share can be identified as DU. Indeed, the Supreme Court decided that a firm with 25% market share is DU in the KIA Motor Car v. FTC (2010. 4. 8 declared 2008Du17707 decision). However, it does not make a sense that any firm when the total market share of two or three firms is over 75% is DU. Because article 4(2) is not confirm with sound competition law and policy, it should be better to delete the article by amending MRA. Or because article 4(2) can only be understood in the context of collective dominance, the article should not be applied to a case in which only one firm’s unilateral conduct matters.

Abstract

The Korean Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act (“MRA”) prohibits the abusive acts of dominant undertaking (“DU”). Therefore, in a case in which the firm in question has not a dominant position, it is not possible to decide that the firm abused its dominant position or market power. For this reason, before deciding whether the conduct in question amounts to abusive practice, the courts must decide first whether the firm in question has market power or not. On the other hand, article 2(7) of the MRA define DU as a undertaking that is able to unilaterally, or with other undertakings, decide, maintain, or change its own price, output, or other trading condition. However it is almost not possible to find out exactly which firm satisfy the definition of DU under article 2(7). For this reason, the Korean Fair Trade Commission (“FTC”) and courts as well have heavily depended on article 4(2) of the MRA that strongly assumes ‘any firm when the total market share of two or three firms is over 75%, except a firm that has below 10% market share’ as DU. According to the article 4(2), even a firm with 10% market share can be identified as DU. Indeed, the Supreme Court decided that a firm with 25% market share is DU in the KIA Motor Car v. FTC (2010. 4. 8 declared 2008Du17707 decision). However, it does not make a sense that any firm when the total market share of two or three firms is over 75% is DU. Because article 4(2) is not confirm with sound competition law and policy, it should be better to delete the article by amending MRA. Or because article 4(2) can only be understood in the context of collective dominance, the article should not be applied to a case in which only one firm’s unilateral conduct matters.

참고문헌 (65)

  1. 박추환, "국내 이동통신서비스시장의 소비자 후생 및 자중손실 (Deadweight Cost) 분석", 경제연구, 32(4), pp.115~141 (2014), 한국경제통상학회
  2. 조성국, "공정거래법상 시장지배력 판단기준에 관한 고찰", 중앙법학, 15(2), pp.275~304 (2013), 중앙법학회[DOI]
  3. 이기종, "공정거래법상 시장지배적사업자 여부의 판단을 위한 관련시장의 획정 및 시장지배력의 평가에 관한 연구", 기업법연구, 20(4), pp.327~352 (2006), 한국기업법학회
  4. 이봉의, "경제적 동일체이론과 공동의 시장지배에 관한 소고", 경제법판례연구, 5 (2009)
  5. 이호영, "경쟁법상 ‘공동의 시장지배력’ 개념에 관한 연구", 법학논총, 26(2), pp.197~228 (2009), 법학연구소
  6. 주진열, "공정거래법상 ‘통상거래가격보다 낮은 가격’ 규제에 대한 비판적 고찰 - 시장지배적지위 남용 관련 LGU+", KT 기업메시징서비스 사건을 중심으로 -, 2015, pp.9(2), 257~282[DOI]
  7. 주진열, "기아자동차의 시장지배적 지위 남용 사건에 대한 비판적 고찰 - 대법원 2010. 4. 8. 선고 2008두17707 판결 및서울고법 2008. 9. 11. 선고 2007누30897 판결 -", 법경제학연구, 12(3), pp.308~336 (2015), 한국법경제학회
  8. 주진열, "카르텔 손해액 추정을 위한 계량경제분석의 규범적 통제", 법학연구, 22(1), pp.157~202 (2012), 법학연구원[DOI]
  9. 홍대식, "관련시장 획정에 있어서의 주요 잼점 검토 -행위 유형별 관련시장 획정의 필요성 및 기준을 중심으로-", 경쟁법연구, 23, pp.302~337 (2011), 한국경쟁법학회
  10. Areeda, Phillip E., "Antitrust Analysis:Problems, Text, and Cases" (2004), Aspen Publisher
  11. Bain, Joe S., "Industrial Organization" (1968), Wiley & Sons
  12. Bain, Joe S., "The Profit Rate as a Measure of Monopoly Power", The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 55(2) (1941)
  13. Baker, Jonathan B., "Empirical Methods of Identifying and Measuring Market Power", Antitrust L.J, 61(3) (1992)
  14. Blair, Roger D., "Antitrust Economics" (2009), Oxford University Press
  15. Blair, Roger D., "Antitrust Policy and Monopsony", Cornell Law Review, 76, pp.277~ (1991)
  16. Barriers to Entry, "Blees, Jasper", SCALES, ~, pp.Research Report H200301 (2003)
  17. Boy, Laurence, "The Evolution of European Competition Law" (2005), Edward Elgar
  18. Carlton, Dennis W., "Modern Industrial Organization" (2005), Pearson
  19. Coate, Malcolm B., "Practical Guide to the Hypothetical Monopolist Test for Market Definition", J. Comp. L. & Econ, 4, pp.1031~ (2008)
  20. Coate, Malcolm B., "In Defense of Market Definition", Antitrust Bull, 57, pp.667~ (2012)
  21. Chamberlin, Edward Hastings, "The Theory of Monopolistic Competition" (1965), Harvard University Press
  22. Crane, Daniel A., "Market Power without Market Definition", Notre Dame L. Rev, 90, pp.31~ (2014)
  23. Chirita, Anca Daniela, "The Analysis of Market Dominance and Restrictive Practices under German Antitrust Law in Light of EC Antitrust Law", Eur. Competition J, 4, pp.415~ (2008)
  24. Demsetz, Harold, "Barriers to Entry", American Economic Review, 72(1) (1982)
  25. Elhauge, Einer R., "Global Antitrust Law and Economics" (2011), Foundation Press
  26. European Commission, "DG Competition discussion paper on the application of Article 82 of the Treaty to exclusionary abuses", ~ (2005)
  27. Gerber, David J., "Law and Competition in Twentieth Century Europe: Protecting Prometheus" (1998), Clarendon Press
  28. Gould, J. P., "Microeconomic Theory" (1980), Richard D. Irwin
  29. Hausman, Jerry A., "Evaluating Market Power Using Competitive Benchmark Prices instead of the Herfindahl-Hirschman Index", Antitrust L.J, 74, pp.387~ (2007)
  30. Henderson, James M., "Microeconomic Theory: A Mathematical Approach" (1980), McGraw-Hill
  31. Hildebrand, Doris, "The Role of Economic Analysis in the EC Competition Rules" (2002), Kluwer International
  32. Horowtiz, Ira, "Market Definition in Antitrust Analysis: A Regression-Based Approach", J. Reprints Antitrust L. & Econ, 14, pp.1131~ (1984)
  33. Hotelling, Harold, "Stability in Competition", Economic Journal, 39(153) (1929)
  34. Hovenkamp, Herbert, "Federal Antitrust Policy" (2011), West
  35. Kaplow, Louis, "Market Definition: Impossible and Counterproductive", Antitrust L.J, 79, pp.361~ (2013)
  36. Krattenmaker, Thomas G., "Anticompetitive Exclusion:Raising Rivals' Costs to Achieve Power over Price", Yale L. J, 96, pp.209~ (1986)
  37. Krattenmaker, Thomas G., "Monopoly Power and Market Power in Antitrust Law", Geo. L. J, 76, pp.241~ (1987)
  38. Kaysen, Carl, "Antitrust Policy: An Economic and Legal Analysis" (1959), Harvard University Press
  39. Kwoka, John, "Research Handbook on the Economics of Antitrust Law" (2012), Edward Elgar
  40. Landes, William M., "Market Power in Antitrust Cases", Harv. L. Rev, 94, pp.937~ (1981)
  41. Leibenstein, Harvey, "Allocative Efficiency vs. X-Efficiency", American Economic Review, 56(3) (1966)
  42. Lerner, Abba P., "The Concept of Monopoly and the Measurement of Monopoly Power", Review of Economic Studies, 1(3) (1934)
  43. Lipczynski John, "Industrial Organization:Cometition, Strategy, Policy" (2005), Prentice Hall
  44. Mason, Edward S., "Market Power and Business Conduct: Some Comments", American Economic Review, 46(2) (1956)
  45. Markert, Kurt E., "The Control of Abuses by Market-Dominating Enterprises under German Antitrust Law", Cornell Int'l L.J, 11, pp.275~ (1978)
  46. McAfee, R. Preston, "What Is a Barrier to Entry?", American Economic Review, 94(2) (2004)
  47. Niels, Gunnar, "Economics for Competition Lawyers" (2011), Oxford University Press
  48. Richards, Douglas, "Is Market Definition Necessary in Sherman Act Cases:When Anticompetitive Effects Can Be Shown with Direct Evidence", Antitrust, 26, pp.53~ (2012)
  49. Rittner, Fritz, "Wettbewerbs- und Kartellrecht: Eine systematische Darstellung des deutschen und europäischen Rechts" (2014), C.F. Müller GmbH
  50. Rockefeller, Edwin S., "The Antitrust Religion" (2007), Cato Institute
  51. Salop, Steven C., "Exclusionary Vertical Restraints Law: Has Economics Mattered?", American Economic Review, 83(2) (1993)
  52. Salop, Steven C., "Raising Rivals' Costs", American Economic Review, 73(2) (1983)
  53. Scheffman, David, "Statistical Measures of Market Power: Uses and Abuses", Antitrust L.J, 60, pp.901~ (1992)
  54. Schmalensee, Richard, "Industrial Economics: An Overview", Economic Journal, 98(392) (1988)
  55. Schmalensee, Richard, "Another Look at Market Power", Harv. L. Rev, 95, pp.1789~ (1982)
  56. Schmalensee, Richard, "Sunk Costs and Antitrust Barriers to Entry", American Economic Review, 94(2) (2004)
  57. Schumpeter, Joseph A., "Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy" (1976), George Allen & Unwin
  58. Shubik, Martin, "Market Structure and Behavior" (1980), Harvard University Press
  59. Stocking, George W., "The Cellophane Case and the New Competition", American Economic Review, 45(1) (1955)
  60. Stigler, George, "The Organization of Industry" (1968), R. D. Irwin
  61. Sullivan E.Thomas, "Antitrust Law, Policy and Procedure: Cases, Materials, Problems" (2014), LexisNexis
  62. Utton, M. A., "Market Dominance and Antitrust Policy" (1995), Edward Elgar
  63. Varian, Hal R., "Microeconomic Analysis" (1984), W.W. Norton & Company
  64. Vanberg, Viktor J., "The Freiburg School: Walter Eucken and Ordoliberalism", Freiburger Diskussionspapiere zur Ordnungsökonomik 04, 2011
  65. Whish, Richard, "Competition Law" (2009), Oxford University Press

관련 논문AI추천

공정거래법상 시장지배력 판단기준에 관한 고찰조성국중앙법학회 · 중앙법학2013 · 제15권 제2호독점규제법상 ‘관련시장’ 획정의 의미와 입법적 개선이호영사단법인 법조협회 · 법조2014 · 제63권 제5호관련시장 획정에 있어서의 주요 잼점 검토 -행위 유형별 관련시장 획정의 필요성 및 기준을 중심으로-정성무, 홍대식한국경쟁법학회 · 경쟁법연구2011 · 제23권 시장지배적사업자의 사업활동방해행위- 현대자동차(주) 사건판결의 두 가지 논점 -양명조한국경쟁법학회 · 경쟁법연구2011 · 제24권 독점규제법상 착취남용에 대한 손해배상명령이봉의한국경쟁법학회 · 경쟁법연구2014 · 제30권 사법적 관점에서 본 공정거래법 ― 시장지배적지위 남용행위를 중심으로 ―홍대식한국상사법학회 · 상사법연구2008 · 제27권 제2호

이 간행물의 다른 논문 (12건)

시장지배적 지위남용행위와 불공정거래행위의 관계와 단독행위 규제체계의 개선홍명수pp. 47-79시장지배적 지위남용행위로서의 불이익 강제행위에 관한 소고강상욱pp. 80-100‘부당한 소비자이익의 현저한 저해행위’에 관한 고찰양대권pp. 101-123독점규제법의 현대화권오승pp. 125-164공정거래법상 국제적 M&A에 대한 역외적 관할권 - 비교법적 고찰을 포함하여 -이봉의pp. 165-193
원문 보기