관련시장 획정에 있어서의 주요 잼점 검토 -행위 유형별 관련시장 획정의 필요성 및 기준을 중심으로-
Review of Major Issues on Defining a Relevant Market: Focused On Necessity of and Standard for the Market Definition by Conduct Types
0
조회
0
다운로드
29
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
In an abuse of dominance case, market definition plays a critical role throughout the legal analysis of the Korea Fair Trade Commission (the “KFTC”): from the initial assessment whether the entity at issue is indeed dominant in the relevant market, to the assessment of the anticompetitive effect generated by the entity’s conduct, to the final assessment of the legality of the conduct. Likewise, in a cartel case, market definition should be required if the KFTC is to assess whether the parties to the agreement at issue constitute competitors and to what extent the agreement at issue restrains competition in the relevant market, irrespective of whether the parties’ conduct should be classified as hard-core cartel activity. Further, when viewed in the context of existing KFTC guidelines and Korean Supreme Court precedent, the market definition methodology is substantively the same whether the conduct at issue involves abuse of dominance, a business combination that restrains competition, or a cartel. That is to say,whereas the exact process by which a relevant market is defined could vary depending on the specific case, the overall methodology should remain the same. When defining the relevant market in a case, emphasis should be placed on the nature of the conduct at issue rather than the superficial classification of the conduct. Thus, a case requiring a prospective analysis of potential anticompetitive effects should be distinguished from a case requiring a retrospective analysis of past or existing anticompetitive effects, and vice versa. Meanwhile, whereas the degree of precision required in defining a relevant market varies depending on the specific case, a rigorous analysis of anticompetitive effects accompanied by a concrete definition of the relevant market should be employed where the conduct at issue requires a detailed analysis, e.g., where the presence or degree of anticompetitive effects depends on the market definition, where it is unclear whether the parties to an agreement constitute competitors, etc.
Abstract
In an abuse of dominance case, market definition plays a critical role throughout the legal analysis of the Korea Fair Trade Commission (the “KFTC”): from the initial assessment whether the entity at issue is indeed dominant in the relevant market, to the assessment of the anticompetitive effect generated by the entity’s conduct, to the final assessment of the legality of the conduct. Likewise, in a cartel case, market definition should be required if the KFTC is to assess whether the parties to the agreement at issue constitute competitors and to what extent the agreement at issue restrains competition in the relevant market, irrespective of whether the parties’ conduct should be classified as hard-core cartel activity. Further, when viewed in the context of existing KFTC guidelines and Korean Supreme Court precedent, the market definition methodology is substantively the same whether the conduct at issue involves abuse of dominance, a business combination that restrains competition, or a cartel. That is to say,whereas the exact process by which a relevant market is defined could vary depending on the specific case, the overall methodology should remain the same. When defining the relevant market in a case, emphasis should be placed on the nature of the conduct at issue rather than the superficial classification of the conduct. Thus, a case requiring a prospective analysis of potential anticompetitive effects should be distinguished from a case requiring a retrospective analysis of past or existing anticompetitive effects, and vice versa. Meanwhile, whereas the degree of precision required in defining a relevant market varies depending on the specific case, a rigorous analysis of anticompetitive effects accompanied by a concrete definition of the relevant market should be employed where the conduct at issue requires a detailed analysis, e.g., where the presence or degree of anticompetitive effects depends on the market definition, where it is unclear whether the parties to an agreement constitute competitors, etc.
참고문헌 (24)
- 공정거래위원회, "공정거래위원회 20년사 - 시장경제 창달의 발자취" (2001), 공정거래위원회
- 인터넷포털사업의 특성과 경쟁정책적 시사점, "공정거래위원회", 공정거래위원회, ~, pp.주요산업 경쟁정책보고서 시리즈 2008-2 (2008)
- 권남훈, "경쟁정책 적용을 위한 시장획정 방법론 및 시장집중지표", 산업조직연구, 14(2), pp.63~93 (2006), 한국산업조직학회
- 권오승, "경제법(제6판)" (2008), 법문사
- 양면시장(two-sided market) 이론에 따른 방송통신 서비스 정책 이슈 연구, "김성환", 정보통신정책연구원, ~ (2008)
- 김성환, "방송 송출채널 제공부문의 시장획정 및 지배력 평가", 정보통신정책학회 학술 대회 발표자료 (2009), 정보통신정책학회
- 방송․통신 융합 환경에서의 플랫폼 경쟁정책, "손상영", 정보통신정책연구원, ~ (2009)
- 신영수, "시장지배적 사업자에 의한 사업활동방해 행위의 성립요건-유료방송시장을 중 심으로" (2010), 법문사
- 신일순, "인터넷 포털 시장획정 및 관련 이슈", 경상논집, 23(1) (2009), 인하대학교 산업경제연구소
- 신현윤, "(제2판)경제법" (2007), 법문사
- 양명조, "경제법강의(제8판)" (2010), 신조사
- 이호영, "(제2판)독점규제법" (2010), 홍문사
- 공동행위 심사기준 개선방안 연구, "이황", 공정거래위원회, ~, pp.공정거래위원회 연구용역 보고서 (2008)
- 전성훈, "경쟁정책 목적의 시장획정 방법론 및 사례:2005년 하이트-진로 기업결합을 중심으로", 한국경제연구, 19, pp.75~116 (2007), 한국경제연구학회
- 최승재, "티브로드 사건과 양면시장이론의 적용 가능성", 경쟁저널, (143) (2009), 한국공정경쟁연합회
- 홍대식, "「기업결합 심사기준」의 개정 내용에 대한 검토 - 경쟁제한성 판단기준을 중심으로", 법조, 57(7), pp.148~204 (2008), 법조협회
- 홍대식, "공정거래법상 카르텔 규제의 쟁점 -실체법적 쟁점을 중심으로", 규제연구, 19(2), pp.105~136 (2010), 한국규제학회
- 홍대식, "시장지배적 지위 남용행위의 판단기준 개선방안" (2010), 법문사
- 홍명수, "시장획정 방식의 개선과 과제", 법과사회, (29), pp.241~273 (2005), 법과사회이론학회
- 홍명수, "카르텔 규제의 문제점과 개선방안에 관한 고찰" (2005), 법문사
- 황창식, "다면적 플랫폼 사업자에 대한 공정거래규제 -양면시장이론의 경쟁법적 적용 및 대법원의 티브로드 강서방송 판결 등의 사례분석을 중심으로-", 정보법학, 13(2), pp.97~148 (2009), 한국정보법학회
- David S. Evans, "Antitrust Issues Raised by the Emerging Global Internet Economy" (2008), Northwestern University School of Law Review Colloquy
- David S. Evans, "Lightening Up on Market Definition in RESEARCH HANDBOOK ON THE ECONOMICS OF ANTITRUST LAW" (2010), Edward Elgar
- Jonathan B. Baker, "Market Definition: An Analytical Overview", Antitrust Law Journal, 74(1) (2007), American Bar Association
