시장지배적사업자의 사업활동방해행위- 현대자동차(주) 사건판결의 두 가지 논점 -
Interfering Others’ Business Activities by a Market-dominating Firm: Comments on the Supreme Court Decision of Hyundai Motor Company Case
0
조회
0
다운로드
4
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
In this article, the author reviews the case of Hyundai Motor Company’s abuse of market-dominant position under the Korean competition law, the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act (“MRFTAct”). The Korea Fair Trade Commission (“KFTC”) rendered corrective orders and imposed administrative fine against Hyundai Motor’s three practices; to restrict dealers’ change of their business locations; to restrict the number of dealers’ agents; to force the fulfillment of each dealer’s sales target. Out of three alleged illegal acts, the Seoul High Court found the former two types of Hyundai’s practices unlawful but denied the illegality of the last one. The High Court ruled that the last type of Hyundai’s act lacked the restraint of competition which is one of the requirements to find abuse of the market-dominant position. The author regrets the KFTC could have decided the last type of Hyundai’s practice in this case under the unfair business practices provision of the MRET Act. Where an act comes under the both provisions of the MRFT Act,i.e., the abuse of market-dominant position and the unfair business practices,a majority view asserts that only the former provision should be applied. However, the legislative intent or purpose to ban each type of unlawful practices differs substantially. Restricting the abuse of market-dominant position is to control the preservation and solidification of a firm’s monopolistic power. On the other hand, the prohibition of unfair business practices is to promote fair competition and to restrain improper activities in the market. Both provisions could be applied concurrently. The Supreme Court decision about the Hyundai Motor Company case indicated rather complicated and technical assessment of the relevant sales amount. The directed assessing method seems to reduce the measuring basis for the administrative fine. However, such intricate and difficult calculation would render too heavy burden to the KFTC in deciding similar cases. The KFTC has to surmount the difficult technicality in assessing the relevant sales amount.
Abstract
In this article, the author reviews the case of Hyundai Motor Company’s abuse of market-dominant position under the Korean competition law, the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act (“MRFTAct”). The Korea Fair Trade Commission (“KFTC”) rendered corrective orders and imposed administrative fine against Hyundai Motor’s three practices; to restrict dealers’ change of their business locations; to restrict the number of dealers’ agents; to force the fulfillment of each dealer’s sales target. Out of three alleged illegal acts, the Seoul High Court found the former two types of Hyundai’s practices unlawful but denied the illegality of the last one. The High Court ruled that the last type of Hyundai’s act lacked the restraint of competition which is one of the requirements to find abuse of the market-dominant position. The author regrets the KFTC could have decided the last type of Hyundai’s practice in this case under the unfair business practices provision of the MRET Act. Where an act comes under the both provisions of the MRFT Act,i.e., the abuse of market-dominant position and the unfair business practices,a majority view asserts that only the former provision should be applied. However, the legislative intent or purpose to ban each type of unlawful practices differs substantially. Restricting the abuse of market-dominant position is to control the preservation and solidification of a firm’s monopolistic power. On the other hand, the prohibition of unfair business practices is to promote fair competition and to restrain improper activities in the market. Both provisions could be applied concurrently. The Supreme Court decision about the Hyundai Motor Company case indicated rather complicated and technical assessment of the relevant sales amount. The directed assessing method seems to reduce the measuring basis for the administrative fine. However, such intricate and difficult calculation would render too heavy burden to the KFTC in deciding similar cases. The KFTC has to surmount the difficult technicality in assessing the relevant sales amount.
참고문헌 (10)
- 권오승, "경제법(제9판)" (2011), 법문사
- 신현윤, "경제법(제3판)" (2010), 법문사
- 양명조, "경제법강의(제9판)" (2011), 신조사
- 이호영, "독점규제법(제3판)" (2011), 홍문사
- 정호열, "경제법(제3판)" (2010), 박영사
- 홍명수, "경제법론 II" (2010), 경인문화사
- 신영수, "시장지배적 사업자에 의한 사업활동방해행위의 성립요건", 경제법판례연구, 6 (2010)
- 조성국, "시장지배적 지위남용에 대한 위법성 판단기준에 관한 연구 - 대법원판결을 중심으로", 경쟁법연구, 19, pp.367~399 (2009), 한국경쟁법학회
- 홍대식, "시장지배적 지위 남용행위의 판단기준 개선방안", 경쟁법연구, 21, pp.106~162 (2010), 한국경쟁법학회
- 공정거래위원회, "공정거래위원회 심결사례 30선" (2011), 공정거래위원회
