본문 바로가기
KERD
논문KCI 등재

약탈적 가격인하와 가격(이윤)압착 문제에 대한 고찰: 기업메시징서비스 사건(대법원 2021. 6. 30. 선고 2018두37700 판결)을 중심으로

Predatory Price Cutting and Price(Margin) Squeeze in Korean Competition Law: A Critique on the Korean Supreme Court Decisions 2018Du37700 and 2018Du37980 (June 30, 2021)

주진열
한국경쟁법학회 (Korean Competition Law Association)|2021.09|경쟁법연구 (Journal of Korean Competition Law)|제44권 |pp. 125-176|DOI 10.35770/jkcl.2021.44..125

0

조회

0

다운로드

3

인용

0

참고문헌

키워드

이윤압착경쟁costconsumer welfare소비자후생competition비용fair price시장지배력 남용predatory pricing가격압착margin squeeze약탈적 가격인하통상거래가격Abuse of dominace

초록

In 2015 the Korean Fair Trade Commission (FTC) charged that both LGU+ and KT, as a vertically integrated telecommunication firm, had separately and unduly set each of theirs prices below the so-called ‘normal trading price (NTP)’ termed in the Korean Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act Decree (MRFTAD) to exclude rivals in the business text messaging service (BTMS) market. It was clear that the issue was about predatory price cutting rather than a price or margin squeeze. In June 2021, neverthless, the Supreme Court of Korea erroneously framed the two cases as a margin squeeze in both FTC v. LGU+ and FCT v. KT by manipulating ‘pricing below NTP’ as a margin squeeze. The Court should have interpreted NTP as a properly estimated cost in the context of predatory price cutting. The Court’s two decisions are neither understandable nor explainable. Even suppose that the two cases were about a margin squeeze, the Court should have addressed the antitust duty to deal. As neither LGU+ nor KT bear that kind of duty, the Court should have required the KFTC to prove the existence of predatory price cutting by LGU+ and KT.

Abstract

In 2015 the Korean Fair Trade Commission (FTC) charged that both LGU+ and KT, as a vertically integrated telecommunication firm, had separately and unduly set each of theirs prices below the so-called ‘normal trading price (NTP)’ termed in the Korean Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act Decree (MRFTAD) to exclude rivals in the business text messaging service (BTMS) market. It was clear that the issue was about predatory price cutting rather than a price or margin squeeze. In June 2021, neverthless, the Supreme Court of Korea erroneously framed the two cases as a margin squeeze in both FTC v. LGU+ and FCT v. KT by manipulating ‘pricing below NTP’ as a margin squeeze. The Court should have interpreted NTP as a properly estimated cost in the context of predatory price cutting. The Court’s two decisions are neither understandable nor explainable. Even suppose that the two cases were about a margin squeeze, the Court should have addressed the antitust duty to deal. As neither LGU+ nor KT bear that kind of duty, the Court should have required the KFTC to prove the existence of predatory price cutting by LGU+ and KT.

참고문헌 (86)

  1. 권오승, "독점규제법: 이론과 실무" (2017), 법문사
  2. 邊東烈, "掠奪的價格設定과 不當廉賣의 判斷基準", 저스티스, 76, pp.217~275 (2003), 한국법학원
  3. 신동권, "독점규제법" (2011), 박영사
  4. 신영수, "부담염매의 위법성판단기준에 관한 소고-대법원의 견해에 대한 비판적 검토를 중심으로-", 法學論文集, 30(1), pp.193~216 (2006), 법학연구원
  5. 이기종, "경제법" (2016), 삼영사
  6. 이봉의, "공정거래법상 저가입찰의 부당염매 해당요건-대법원 2001. 6. 12. 선고 99두4686 판결을 중심으로-", 상사판례연구, 13 (2002)
  7. 이호영, "이윤압착행위에 대한 공정거래법의 적용에 관한 연구", 법경제학연구, 16(3), pp.335~364 (2019), 한국법경제학회[DOI]
  8. 주진열, "조건부(충성)할인과 시장지배력 남용 문제에 대한 고찰 - 대법원 2019. 1. 31. 선고 2013두14726 판결을 중심으로 -", 경쟁법연구, 43, pp.133~173 (2021), 한국경쟁법학회[DOI]
  9. 주진열, "공정거래법상 ‘통상거래가격보다 낮은 가격’ 규제에 대한 비판적 고찰 - 시장지배적지위 남용 관련 LGU+", KT 기업메시징서비스 사건을 중심으로 -, 2015, pp.9(2), 257~282[DOI]
  10. 황태희, "시장지배적 사업자의 이윤압착 행위의 부당성 판단", 사법, 1(38), pp.699~734 (2016), 사법발전재단[DOI]
  11. 홍명수, "EU 경쟁법상 약탈적 가격 규제 법리의 검토와 시사점 - France Telecom 판결을 중심으로 -", 법학논고, (59), pp.259~284 (2017), 법학연구원[DOI]
  12. Aarts, Jack W., "Antitrust Policy versus Economic Power" (1975), H.E. Stenfert Kroese BV
  13. Areeda, Phillip E., "Predatory Pricing (1980)", Antitrust L. J, 49, pp.897~ (1980)
  14. Areeda, Phillip, "Predatory Pricing and Related Practices under Section 2 of the Sherman Act", Harv. L. R, 88, pp.697~ (1975)
  15. Bain, Joe S., "Barriers to New Competition: Their Character and Consequences in Manufacturing Industries" (1956), Harvard University Press
  16. Bain, Joe S., "Industrial Organization" (1968), Wiley & Sons
  17. Baumol, William J., "Quasi-Permanence of Price Reductions: A Policy For Prevention of Predatory Pricing", Yale L. J, 89, pp.1~ (1979)
  18. Ball, Michael L., "The Vertical Price Squeeze as Predatory Pricing Under Section 2 of the Sherman Act", N.C. L. Rev, 56, pp.735~ (1978)
  19. Behrens, Peter, "Hanns Ulrich" (2005)
  20. "Abusive margin squeeze: The Frankenstein monster of Article 102 TFEU?" (2021)[URL]
  21. Birrell, George A., "The Integrated Company and the Price Squeeze under the Sherman Act and Section 2(a) of the Clayton Act, as Amended", ABA Section of Antitrust Law, 9, pp.49~ (1956)
  22. Bolton. Patrick, "Predatory Pricing: Strategic Theory and Legal Policy", Geo. L. J, 88, pp.2239~ (2000)
  23. Bork, Robert H., "The Antitrust Paradox: A Policy at War With Itself" (1978), Free Press
  24. Bork, Robert H., "Legislative Intent and the Policy of the Sherman Act", J.L. & Econ, 9, pp.7~ (1966)
  25. Boy, Laurence, "Hanns Ulrich" (2005)
  26. Chandler Jr., Alfred, "Scale and Scope: The Dynamics of Industrial Capitalism" (1990), Belknap Press
  27. Chao, Becky, "Preventing the Politicization of Antitrust Enforcement", New America Weekly (May 9, 2019), ~ (2019)
  28. Carlton, Dennis W., "Should Price Squeeze Be a Recognized Form of Anticompetitive Conduct", J. Comp. L. & Econ, 4, pp.271~ (2008)
  29. Carlton, Dennis W., "Modern Industrial Organization" (2005)
  30. Demsetz, Harold, "Barriers to Entry", American Economic Review, 72(1) (1982)
  31. Easterbrook, Frank H., "Predatory Strategies and Counterstrategies", U. Chi. L. Rev, 48, pp.263~ (1981)
  32. Edlin, Aaron S., "Predatory Pricing: Limiting Brooke Group to Monopolies and Sound Implementation of Price-Cost Comparisons", Yale L. J. F, 127, pp.996~ (2018)
  33. Elhauge, Einer, "Why Above-Cost Price Cuts to Drive out Entrants Are Not Predatory - and the Implications for Defining Costs and Market Power", Yale L. J, 112, pp.681~ (2003)
  34. Elzinga, Kenneth G., "Trumping the Areeda-Turner Test: The Recoupment, Standard in Brooke Group", Antitrust L. J, 62, pp.559~ (1994)
  35. Epstein, Richard, "Beware of Populist Antitrust Law", Fobes (Jan 23, 2019), ~ (2019)
  36. Forkosch, Morris D., "Anti-trust and the Consumer" (1956), Dennis & Co., Inc.
  37. Funk, Michael, "The More Economic Approach to Predatory Pricing", J. Comp. L. & Econ, 14, pp.292~ (2018)
  38. Granitz, Elizabeth, "Monopolization by “Raising Rivals’ Costs”: The Standard Oil Case", J.L. & Econ, 39, pp.1~ (1996)
  39. Gaudin, Germain, "Margin Squeeze: An Above-Cost Predatory Pricing Approach", J. Comp. L. & Econ, 12, pp.151~ (2016)
  40. Greenfield, "Antitrust Populism and the Consumer Welfare Standard: What Are We Actually Debating?", Antitrust Law Journal, 83, pp.393~ (2020)
  41. Greenspan, Alan, "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal" (1986), A Signet Book
  42. Goelzhauser, Greg, "Price Squeeze in a Deregulated Electric Power Industry", Fla. St. U. L. Rev, 32, pp.225~ (2004)
  43. Hemphill, C. Scott, "Beyond Brooke Group: Bringing Reality to the Law of Predatory Pricing", Yale L. J, 127, pp.2048~ (2017)
  44. Huddleston, Jennifer, "Continuing A Principled Approach to Antitrust", American Action Forum Insight (July 30, 2020), ~ (2020)
  45. Hjelmfelt, David C., "A Price Squeeze Theory for Implementation of Federal Power Commission v. Conway Corp", U. Colo. L. Rev, 50, pp.459~ (1979)
  46. Hovenkamp, Herbert, "Principles of Antitrust" (2017), West Academic Publishing
  47. Hovenkamp, Erik N., "The Viability of Antitrust Price Squeeze Claims", Ariz. L. Rev, 51, pp.273~ (2009)
  48. Jones, Clifford A., "The Evolution of European Competition Law: Whose Reugulation, Which Competition?" (2005), Edward Elgar
  49. Joskow, Paul L., "A Framework for Analyzing Predatory Pricing Policy", Yale L. J, 89, pp.213~ (1979)
  50. Kaplow, Louis, "Recoupment and Predatory Pricing Analysis", Journal of Legal Analysis, 10, pp.46~ (2018)
  51. Khan, Lina, "Amazon’s Antitrust Paradox", Yale L. J, 126, pp.710~ (2017)
  52. Klobuchar, Amy, "Antitrust: Taking on Monopoly Power from the Gilded Age to the Digital Age" (2021), Deckle Edge
  53. Koller II, Roland H., "The Myth of Predatory Pricing: An Empirical Study", Antitrust L. & Econ. Rev, 4, pp.105~ (1971)
  54. Leslie, Christopher R., "Predatory Pricing and Recoupment", Colum. L. R, 113, pp.1695~ (2013)
  55. Leslie, Christopher R., "Revisiting the Revisionist History of Standard Oil", S. Cal. L. Rev, 85, pp.573~ (2012)
  56. Lopatka, John E., "Another Look at Alcoa: Raising Rivals’ Costs Does Not Improve the View", Journal of Law & Economics, 35, pp.311~329 (1992)
  57. May, James, "Antitrust Stories" (2007), Foundation Press
  58. Mayhew, Anne, "Narrating the Rise of Big Business in the USA: How economists explain Standard Oil and Wal-Mart" (2008), Routledge
  59. McAfee, R. Preston, "What Is a Barrier to Entry?", American Economic Review, 94(2) (2004)
  60. McGee, John S., "Predatory Price Cutting: The Standard Oil (N.J.) Case", J.L. & Econ, 1, pp.137~157 (1958)
  61. Milgrom, Paul, "Predation, Reputation, and Entry Deterrence", J. Econ. Theory, 27, pp.280~ (1982)
  62. Neale, A.D., "The Antitrust Law of the U.S.A.: A Study of Competition Enforced by Law" (1980), Cambridge University Press
  63. Orbach, Barak, "Antitrust Populism", N.Y.U. J.L. & Bus, 14, pp.1~ (2017)
  64. OECD, "Margin Squeeze, DAF", COMP(2009)36, 2009
  65. Parrert, Laura, "The Goals of Competition Law" (2012), Edwar Elgar
  66. "Price Squeezes with Positive Margins in EU Competition Law: Economic and Legal Anatomy of a Zombie (May 7, 2014)"[URL]
  67. Posner, Richard A., "Antitrust Law: An Economic Perspective" (1976), University of Chicago Press
  68. Raymond, Robert L., "The Standard Oil and Tobacco Cases", Harv. L. Rev, 25, pp.31~ (1911)
  69. Rudaz, Caroline Cavaleri, "Did Trinko Really Kill Antitrust Price Squeeze Claims - A Critical Approach to the Linkline Decision through a Comparison of E.U. and U.S. Case Law", Vand. J. Transnat'l L, 43, pp.1077~ (2010)
  70. Shapiro, Carl, "Antitrust in a time of populism", International Journal of Industrial Organization, 61, pp.714~ (2018)
  71. Scherer, F. M., "Predatory Pricing and the Sherman Act: A Comment", Harv. L. Rev, 89, pp.869~ (1976)
  72. Scherer, F. M., "Standard Oil as a Technological Innovator", Review of Industrial Organization, 38(3) (2011)
  73. Sidak, J. Gregory, "Abolishing the Price Squeeze as a Theory of Antitrust Liability", J. Comp. L. & Econ, 4, pp.279~ (2008)
  74. Smith, George David, "Form Monopoly to Competition: The Transformations of Alcoa, 1888-1986" (1988), Cambridge University Press
  75. "Predatory prosecution"[URL]
  76. Spiwak, Lawrence J., "Is the Price Squeeze Doctrine Still Viable in Fully-Regulated Energy Markets", Energy L. J, 14, pp.75~ (1993)
  77. Stigler, George, "The Organization of Industry" (1968), R. D. Irwin
  78. Stoyanova, Milena, "Regulatory and Competition Law Approaches to Price Squeeze: Access Pricing in the Telecommunications Sector", Eur. Competition J, 1, pp.47~ (2005)
  79. Stoller, Matt, "Goliath: The 100-Year War Between Monopoly Power and Democracy" (2020), Simon & Schuster
  80. Sullivan, "Antitrust Law, Policy, and Procedure" (2013), LexisNexis
  81. Weinberge, Steve, "Taking on the Trust: How Ida Tarbell Broght Down John D. Rockefeller and Standard Oil" (2008)
  82. Whish, Richard, "Competition Law" (2009), Oxford University Press
  83. Wright, Joshua, "Antitrust Populism: Towards a Taxonomy", Stanford Journal of Law, Business, and Finance, 21(1) (2020)
  84. Wu, Tim, "The Curse of Bigness: Antitrust in the New Gilded Age" (2018), Columbia Global Reports
  85. Yamey, Basil S., "Predatory Price-Cutting: Notes and Comments", Journal of Law and Economics (1972)
  86. Zimmer, Daniel, "The Goals of Competition Law" (2012), Edwar Elgar

관련 논문AI추천

공정거래법상 ‘통상거래가격보다 낮은 가격’ 규제에 대한 비판적 고찰 - 시장지배적지위 남용 관련 LGU+/KT 기업메시징서비스 사건을 중심으로 -주진열법학연구소 · 아주법학2015 · 제9권 제2호미국 경쟁법상 이윤압착(margin squeeze)에 대한 규제 동향 분석신영수IT와 법연구소 · IT와 법연구2018 · 제17호2021년 공정거래 주요 판례 회고손동환한국경쟁법학회 · 경쟁법연구2022 · 제45권 통신사업자의 결합할인 판매와 시장지배력 전이 문제: 전기통신사업법과 독점규제법의 비교 분석주진열한국경쟁법학회 · 경쟁법연구2019 · 제40권 티브로드 사건에 대한 고찰: 시장지배력 전이 이론을 중심으로주진열한국경쟁법학회 · 경쟁법연구2012 · 제25권 조건부(충성)할인과 시장지배력 남용 문제에 대한 고찰 - 대법원 2019. 1. 31. 선고 2013두14726 판결을 중심으로 -주진열한국경쟁법학회 · 경쟁법연구2021 · 제43권

이 간행물의 다른 논문 (8건)

정보교환 담합행위 규율의 변화와 쟁점최난설헌pp. 3-26공정거래위원회의 최근 하도급법 위반 심결례 회고 – 조선업에서의 부당한 하도급대금 결정 사례를 중심으로 -윤신승pp. 27-652020년 공정거래법 전부개정의 절차법적 검토 – 공정위 심의절차를 중심으로 -박준영pp. 66-97공정거래법제에 있어서의 동의의결 활성화 방안황태희pp. 98-121온라인 플랫폼 사업자의 자사우대에 대한경쟁법상 허용 범위의 한계 - 네이버쇼핑 사건과 EU Google Shopping 사건, 영국 Streetmap 사건을 중심으로 -임지영, 강지원pp. 177-223
원문 보기