독점규제법상 부당지원행위 - 법과 정책의 조화를 위한 시도-
Study on Unfair Supporting Practices - An Attempt to Harmonize Law and Policy
0
조회
0
다운로드
10
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
A prohibition of unfair supporting practices by Subparagraph (7), Paragraph (1),Article 23 of The Monopoly Regulations and Fair Trade Act, which is defined as assisting practices of a specially related person or other corporations through the provision of excessive economic benefit by providing or transacting them with funds, assets, goods and mans, can be implemented effectively, only if its criteria are set with high clarity and rationality. Furthermore, the regulated subjects are to be confined teleologically, i.e. with regard to control of excessive general concentration of economic power in Korea. In this respect, the prohibition of such unfair supporting practices should be reduced to transactions between affiliated companies and specially related persons of a large corporate group. Supporting practices occurred in a large corporate group, in other words internal trade, may have positive effects like reduction of transaction costs and not always threaten fair trade order. As refusal to deal or discrimination is left in principle to a free decision of an undertaking, trade practices which support other companies controlled by the same corporate group should be deemed illegal, only if it hamper competition in the market where the supported company is active or it is likely to create or strengthen general concentration of economic power. The problem raised in the implementing process of that prohibiton lies especially in that the criterion of economic concentration seems so vague and far from being legal assessment. Rather it is a policy objective, which is in its nature inappropriate for being incorporated to normative decision process. The unfair supporting practices should be therefore de lege lata understood just as an extension of unfair trade practices. For an effective prohibition of supportingpractices by large volumes which tend to strengthen general concentration by large corporate groups, an introduction of ex ante regulation should be de lege ferenda. considered.
Abstract
A prohibition of unfair supporting practices by Subparagraph (7), Paragraph (1),Article 23 of The Monopoly Regulations and Fair Trade Act, which is defined as assisting practices of a specially related person or other corporations through the provision of excessive economic benefit by providing or transacting them with funds, assets, goods and mans, can be implemented effectively, only if its criteria are set with high clarity and rationality. Furthermore, the regulated subjects are to be confined teleologically, i.e. with regard to control of excessive general concentration of economic power in Korea. In this respect, the prohibition of such unfair supporting practices should be reduced to transactions between affiliated companies and specially related persons of a large corporate group. Supporting practices occurred in a large corporate group, in other words internal trade, may have positive effects like reduction of transaction costs and not always threaten fair trade order. As refusal to deal or discrimination is left in principle to a free decision of an undertaking, trade practices which support other companies controlled by the same corporate group should be deemed illegal, only if it hamper competition in the market where the supported company is active or it is likely to create or strengthen general concentration of economic power. The problem raised in the implementing process of that prohibiton lies especially in that the criterion of economic concentration seems so vague and far from being legal assessment. Rather it is a policy objective, which is in its nature inappropriate for being incorporated to normative decision process. The unfair supporting practices should be therefore de lege lata understood just as an extension of unfair trade practices. For an effective prohibition of supportingpractices by large volumes which tend to strengthen general concentration by large corporate groups, an introduction of ex ante regulation should be de lege ferenda. considered.
참고문헌 (12)
- 공정거래위원회, "공정거래20년사", ~ (2001)
- 권오승, "독점규제법의 개요와 쟁점, In 자유경쟁과 공정거래" (2002), 법문사
- 서정, "부당한 지원행위 규제에 관한 연구", 박사, 법학, pp.2008
- 서정, "부당지원행위 규제 만능 치유책인가?", 연세법학, 3(2) (2011)
- 신영수, "독점규제법상 부당지원행위 규제에 대한 비판적 고찰", 서울대학교 법학, 53(1) (2012)
- 이봉의, "상품·용역거래의 지원행위 해당여부", 경쟁저널, (110) (2004), 한국공정경쟁연합회
- 이봉의, "질서정책적 과제로서의 경쟁 -과거와 미래", 경쟁법연구, 23, pp.194~218 (2011), 한국경쟁법학회
- 이호영, "독점규제법" (2010), 법문사
- 이호영, "공정거래법상 특수관계인에 대한 부당지원행위의 규제", 행정법연구, 12, pp.381~402 (2004), 행정법이론실무학회(行政法理論實務學會)
- 정병덕, "부당지원행위의 규제목적과 적용범위", 상사판례연구, 19(4), pp.379~402 (2006), 한국상사판례학회
- 주진열, "공정거래법상 부당지원행위 규제에 대한 비판적 고찰", 서울대학교 법학, 53(1), pp.637~667 (2012), 법학연구소
- 홍대식, "자본거래 관련 부당지원행위의 성립", 경쟁법연구, 17, pp.147~174 (2008), 한국경쟁법학회
