공정거래소송에 있어서 경제적 증거 평가에 대한 일고찰
A Study on Economic Evidence in Korean Antitrust Cases
0
조회
0
다운로드
13
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
모든 공정거래소송 사건에서 경제적 증거가 항상 절대적으로 요청되는 것은 아니겠지만, 최근 대법원 판결례에서 알 수 있듯이 경제적 증거는 시장획정, 경쟁제한성 존재 여부, 가격담합, 부당지원행위, 기업결합, 손해액 산정 등 여러 분야에 걸쳐 점차 그 중요성이 커져가고 있다. 시장경제의 효율성 달성을 주요 목적으로 하는 공정거래법의 올바른 해석·적용을 위해서는 경제적 증거 평가를 통한 정확한 사실인정이 요청됨은 더 이상의 언급을 필요로 하지 않는다. 독점규제당국은 법 집행에 있어서 가능하다면 최대한 현실적으로 이용 가능한 경제적 증거를 고려해야 할 것이며, 법원은 개별 공정거래사건에서의 사실인정에 있어서 당사자들이 제출한 경제적 증거를 객관적으로 평가해야 할 것이다. 과학적 쟁점이 핵심인 사건에서 과학적 증거를 도출해낸 방법론에 대한 신뢰성이 가장 중요한 것처럼, 경제적 쟁점이 주된 사건에서는 경제적 증거를 도출해낸 방법론의 신뢰성을 중점적으로 검토해야 할 필요가 있는 것으로 사료된다.
Abstract
As the Korean competition law, which mainly purse market efficiency, contains a lot of economic terms, such as "market", "price", "supply", "demand", "competition", and "efficiency", it may be natural to say that economic evidence can play an important role in determining whether or not a firm's conduct is inconsistent with the law. Indeed, recent Supreme Court's antitrust cases well show that economic evidence may be highly valuable in complex and empirical antitrust issues. On the other hand, it should be noted that lay judges are not familiar with economic reasoning and statistical methodologies on which economic evidence is based. Since it is difficult for lay judges to understand the methods of economics, there exists possibility that they could make false-positive or false negative error in evaluating complex economic evidence. When any type of errors occurs, economic efficiency will be hampered by the mistaken decision. It will be ordinary consumers who lastly bear costs occurring from mis-evaluating economic evidence. In order to avoid making an error in evaluating economic evidence, it is suggested that judges actively use court-appointed neutral expert witness or special expert commissioner under the Civil Procedure Act. If judges properly use well-qualified economic experts who are neutral, we may expect that they assess economic evidence as exactly as possible in the way market efficiency can be obtained.
참고문헌 (46)
- 신광식, "흑연전극봉 국제공동행위의 국내수입시장에서의 경쟁제한효과에 대한 경제분석", 법경제학연구, 2 (2005)
- 신광식, "무학-대선 기업결합과 관련한 지리적 시장획정의 경제분석", 산업조직연구, 14(4), pp.17~66 (2006), 한국산업조직학회
- 윤성운, "포스코 시지남용 건 관련 대법원 판결을 통해 본 경쟁제한성 입증의 문제", 경쟁저널, 통권 : 137호 (2008)
- 윤인성, "포스코열연코일 공급거절 판결의 주요 쟁점 및 향후 과제에 관한 소고", BFL, (30) (2008)
- 이봉의, "포스코판결과 방해남용의 향방", 경쟁저널, 통권 : 140호 (2008)
- 이황, "공정거래법상 단독의 위반행위 규제의 체계 - 시장지배적 지위 남용행위로서의 거래거절행위의 위법성, 그 본질과 판단기준", 사법, 1(5), pp.201~263 (2008), 사법발전재단
- 주진열, "Daubert 사건과 독점규제소송상 경제적 증거평가에 대한 소고", 경쟁저널, (128호) (2006)
- 주진열, "How to Deal With Complex Economic Evidence in Korean Antitrust Litigation", 법경제학연구, 5(1), pp.141~167 (2008), 한국법경제학회
- 황창식, "공정거래법상 시장지배력 남용 규제의 해석 및 집행 상의 문제점 : 불공정거래행위 규제와의 법적용 관계를 중심으로", 경쟁저널, 통권 : 139호 (2008)
- 허 선, "공정거래사건에서의 경제분석의 증거력을 논의해 보자", 경쟁저널, 통권 : 132호 (2007)
- American Bar Association Section of Antitrust Law, "Econometrics: Legal, Practical, and Technical Issues" (2005), National Book Network
- Beecher-Monas, Erica, "A Ray of Lights for Judges Blinded by Science: Triers of Science in Scientific Evidence", Ga.L.Rev, 71, pp.1047~ (1999)
- Bernstein, David E, "The Daubert Trilogy in the States", Jurismetrics, 44, pp.351~ (2003)
- Black, Bert, "Science and the Law in the Wake of Daubert: A New Search for Scientific Knowledge", Tex.L. Rev, 72, pp.715~ (1998)
- Blair, Rodger D, "The Implications of Daubert for Economic Evidence in Antitrust Cases", Wash. & Lee L. Rev, 57, pp.801~ (2000)
- Brown, Hon. Harvey, "Procedural Issues Under Daubert", Hous. L. Rev, 36, pp.1133~ (1999)
- Bruce, Johnsen D, "Daubert, the Scientific Method, and Economic Expert Testimony", Kan. J.L. & Pub. Pol'y, 9, pp.149~ (1999)
- Chesebro, K, "Taking Daubert’s Focus Seriously: The Methodology", Conclution Distinction, 1994, pp.15, 1745~
- Chow, Gregory C, "Econometrics" (1983), McGraw-Hill International Book Company
- Colchagoff, Cassandra C, "A New Era for Science and the Law: The Face of Scientific Evidence in the Federal Courts after Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaeuticals, Inc", Tulsa L.J, 29, pp.735~ (1994)
- "Development in Law: Confronting the New Challenges of Scientific Evidence", Harv.L.Rev, 108, pp.1481~ (1994)
- Friedman, Milton, "The Methodology of Positive Economics in Essays in Positive Economics" (1966), University of Chicago Press
- Gavil, Andrew I, "After Daubert: Discerning the Increasingly Fine Line between the Admissibility and Sufficiency of Expert Testimony in Antitrust Litigation", Antitrust L.J, 65, pp.663~ (1996)
- Gavil, Andrew I, "Defining Reliable Forensic Economics in the Post-Daubert", Kumho Tire Era: Case Studies from Antitrust, 2000, pp.57, 831~
- Gotts, Ilens Knable, "Just the Facts: The Role of Customer and Economic Evidence in M&A Analysis", Geo. Mason L. Rev, 13, pp.1217~ (2006)
- Houthkker, Hendrick S, "Expert Testimony by Economists: What Makes It Effective? in : The Role of the Academic Economist in Litigation Support" (1999), Elsevier
- Fisher, Alan A, "Efficiency Considerations in Merger Enforcement", Cal. L. Rev, 71, pp.1580~ (1983)
- Foster, Kenneth R, "Judging Science: Scientific Knowledge and the Federal Courts" (1999), The MIT Press
- Hovenkamp, Herbert, "The Antitrust Enterprise" (2005), Harvard University Press
- Hovenkamp, Herbert, "Federal Antitrust Policy, 3rd ed" (2005), West Group Publishing
- Imwinkelried, Edward J, "Evidence Law Visits Jurassic Park: The Far-Reaching Implication of the Daubert Court’s Recognition of the Uncertainty the Scientific Enterprise", Iowa L. Rev, 81, pp.55~ (1995)
- Jones, Alison, "EC Competition Law, 3rd ed" (2008), Oxford University Press
- Lanzillotti, Robert F, "Coming to Terms with Daubert in Sherman Act Complaints: A Suggested Economic Approach", Neb. L. Rev, 77, pp.83~ (1998)
- Mahaney, Erin K.L, "Assessing the Fitness of Novel Scientific Evidence in the Post-Daubert Era: Pesticide Exposure Cases as a Paradigm for Determining Admissibility", Envtl. L, 26, pp.1161~ (1996)
- Mansfield, John H, "Scientific Evidence under Daubert", St.Mary’s L.J, 28, pp.1~ (1996)
- Margolin, Ephraim, "Daubert: Comments on the Scientific Evidence Symposium", U.C. Davis L. Rev, 30, pp.1249~ (1997)
- Milich, Paul S, "Controversial Science in the Courtroom: Daubert and the Law's Hubris", Emory L. J, 43, pp.913~ (1994)
- Molyneaux, Michele, "Quality Control of Economic Expert Testimony: The Fundamental Methods of Proving Antitrust Damages", Ariz. St. L.J, 35, pp.1049~ (2003)
- Polentz, Michael C, "Post-Daubert Confusion with Expert Testimony", Santa Clara L.Rev, 36, pp.1187~ (1996)
- Poulter, Susan R, "Daubert and Scientific Evidence: Assessing Evidentiary Reliability in Toxic Tort Litigation", Utah L. Rev, 1993, pp.1307~ (1993)
- Solow, John L, "Doing Good Economics in the Courtroom: Thoughts on Daubert and Expert Testimony in Antitrust", J. Corp. L, 31, pp.489~ (2006)
- Solterer, Josef, "Relations Between Economics and Juridical Science", Geo.L.J, 21, pp.9~ (1932)
- Ulen, Thomas S, "Economics as a Science: Robert Nelson’s Economics as Religions", Case W. Res. L. Rev, 56, pp.649~ (2006)
- Viscusi, W. Kip, "Economics of Regulation and Antitrust, 3rd ed" (2000), The MIT Press
- Werden, Gregory J, "Economic Evidence on the Existence of Collusion: Reconciling Antitrust Law with Oligopoly Theory", Antitrust L.J, 71, pp.719~ (2004)
- Zohn, Molly L, "How Antitrust Damages Measure up with Respect to the Daubert Factors", Geo. Mason L. Rev, 13, pp.697~ (2005)