온라인 플랫폼 사업자의 이용약관에 대한 경쟁법적 규제 - 독일 Facebook 사건의 시사점을 중심으로 -
Regulation on the Terms and Conditions of Online Platforms under Competition law: Focusing on the Implications of the Facebook Case in Germany
0
조회
0
다운로드
12
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
In regulating abuse of dominance cases concerning online platforms under competition law, exploitative abuse should be the main focus in light of the practices that violate the interests of platform users by platform undertakings. The exploitative practices of online platforms include excessive pricing or imposition of any terms and conditions on users. In particular, considering that major online platforms are generally dominant undertakings in the relevant market, prohibition of abuse undermining consumer interests stipulated in Article 3-2 (1) of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act may have significant implications. In this sense, the German Facebook case could provide important implications. Due to the complexity and opacity which arise from the contract made by online platforms, consumers in online platforms are not only structurally inferior to information or to bargaining power, but they are also in a situation where there is not effective competition due to the presence of dominant undertakings in the relevant market. It would be difficult for consumers to refuse to enter into contracts with dominant undertakings and have opportunities to enter into contracts with other undertakings. Under these dual constraints, the purpose of the latter part of paragraph 5 in Article 3-2 of the Korean Competition Law is to protect consumers whose interests are likely to be infringed directly. Furthermore, this would require a broader interpretation of the concept of consumer interests. The reference for this concept of consumer interests could be the ‘selfdetermination’ that is the premise of freedom of contract, and the basic rights of consumers under the Framework Act on Consumers. In particular, factors that violate consumer self-determination include constraints on the possibility of alternative choices, restrictions on accessing the information on which choices are based, or imposition of disadvantages terms and conditions of contract, which are the main reasons for undermining consumer interests.
Abstract
In regulating abuse of dominance cases concerning online platforms under competition law, exploitative abuse should be the main focus in light of the practices that violate the interests of platform users by platform undertakings. The exploitative practices of online platforms include excessive pricing or imposition of any terms and conditions on users. In particular, considering that major online platforms are generally dominant undertakings in the relevant market, prohibition of abuse undermining consumer interests stipulated in Article 3-2 (1) of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act may have significant implications. In this sense, the German Facebook case could provide important implications. Due to the complexity and opacity which arise from the contract made by online platforms, consumers in online platforms are not only structurally inferior to information or to bargaining power, but they are also in a situation where there is not effective competition due to the presence of dominant undertakings in the relevant market. It would be difficult for consumers to refuse to enter into contracts with dominant undertakings and have opportunities to enter into contracts with other undertakings. Under these dual constraints, the purpose of the latter part of paragraph 5 in Article 3-2 of the Korean Competition Law is to protect consumers whose interests are likely to be infringed directly. Furthermore, this would require a broader interpretation of the concept of consumer interests. The reference for this concept of consumer interests could be the ‘selfdetermination’ that is the premise of freedom of contract, and the basic rights of consumers under the Framework Act on Consumers. In particular, factors that violate consumer self-determination include constraints on the possibility of alternative choices, restrictions on accessing the information on which choices are based, or imposition of disadvantages terms and conditions of contract, which are the main reasons for undermining consumer interests.
참고문헌 (23)
- 강보선, "디지털 플랫폼 사업자의 시장지배적 지위 남용과 “소비자이익 저해행위” 금지에 관한 연구", 석사, pp.2020
- 권오승, "경제법" (2019), 법문사
- 권오승, "시장경제와 법" (2006), 서울대학교출판부
- 권오승, "계약자유와 소비자 보호,", 서울대학교 법학, 42(2) (2001)
- 김재완, "현대 계약법상 신의칙의 법규범성과 그 적용의 확장에 관한 고찰", 외법논집, 35(2), pp.139~163 (2011), 법학연구소[DOI]
- 김진우, "유럽연합 디지털콘텐츠지침안의 의의와 적용범위", 아주법학, 10(3), pp.158~182 (2016), 법학연구소[DOI]
- 백경일, "약관규제법의 규범적 정당성에 관한 고찰", 고려법학, (74), pp.43~75 (2014), 법학연구원
- 성준호, "인터넷포털 서비스 이용약관의 공정성문제에 관한 소고", 소비자문제연구, (39), pp.41~55 (2011), 한국소비자원[DOI]
- 심재한, "독일경쟁법의 인터넷 플랫폼 적용 사례연구", 경쟁과 법, (7) (2016)
- 유영국, "개인정보보호(Schutz personenbezogener Daten)와 경쟁법 적용 - 연방카르텔청의 Facebook 결정 및 뒤셀도르프 고등법원의 결정(VI-Kart 1", 19 (V))을 중심으로 -, 2019, pp.40, 306~339[DOI]
- 윤인성, "‘不當하게 消費者의 利益을 顯著히 沮害할 憂慮가 있는 行爲’에 관한 小考", 행정판례연구, 16(2), pp.187~231 (2011), 한국행정판례연구회
- 이봉의, "독과점시장과 착취남용의 규제 - 독점규제법 제3조의2 제1항 1호를 중심으로 -", 경쟁법연구, 22, pp.120~151 (2010), 한국경쟁법학회
- 이봉의, "ICT 분야 플랫폼의 개념과 경쟁법적 함의", 경쟁과 법, (7) (2016), 서울대학교 경쟁법센터
- 이봉의, "독점규제법 제3조의2 제1항 제5호 후단 “소비자이익 저해행위” 금지의 위헌성 판단 - 명확성의 원칙을 중심으로 -", 서울대학교 법학, 49(3), pp.241~280 (2008), 법학연구소
- 4차 산업혁명에 따른 경쟁법 현대화 방안, "이봉의", 공정거래위원회, ~ (2018)
- 이상윤, "디지털 플랫폼 사업자의 소비자 착취 행위에 대한 경쟁법의 적용: 독일 페이스북 사건", 선진상사법률연구, (91), pp.211~248 (2020), 법무부
- 조혜신, "독점규제법상 방해남용에 관한 연구", 박사, 경제법, pp.2011
- 조혜신, "온라인 플랫폼 경쟁에 대한 경쟁법의 적용 — 규범적 접근방법의 모색", 경쟁과법, (7) (2016), 서울대학교 경쟁법센터
- 최난설헌, "디지털 시장에서의 독과점 규제 적용 가능성에 대한 검토- 독일의 Facebook 사례를 중심으로 -", 법학논총, 42(2), pp.399~427 (2018), 법학연구소[DOI]
- Baur, Jürgen, "Der Miβbrauch im deutschen Kartellrecht" (1972), J.C.B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck) Tübingen
- Gal, "The hidden costs of free goods: Implications for Antitrust enforcement", Antitrust Law Journal, 80(3) (2016)
- Immenga, "GWB Kommentar zum Kartellgesetz" (2001), Verlag C.H.Beck
- Zäch, "Efficiency or freedom to compete? Toward an axiomatic theory of competition law", ZWeR, 3 (2009)
