본문 바로가기
KERD
논문KCI 등재

조건부(충성)할인과 시장지배력 남용 문제에 대한 고찰 - 대법원 2019. 1. 31. 선고 2013두14726 판결을 중심으로 -

Conditional Discounts and Antitrust: A Critics on Korean Supreme Court Decision 2013Du142726 (January 31, 2019), Qualcomm v. KFTC.

0

조회

0

다운로드

4

인용

0

참고문헌

키워드

초록

In 2019, a chamber of the Supreme Court of Korea decicded that Qualcomm’s conditional discountsoffered to Korean cell phone makers amounted to anticompetitive exclusive dealing for the reasons that the discounts in question caused exclusive or foreclosure effect. This decision is not consistent with the effects-based approach and the rule of reason adopted by the 2007 POSCO full bench decision. First of all, the discounts in question were nothing more than pricing. Second, exclusive effect can not be the same as anticompetitive effect because fair competition also causes exclusive effect. Therefore, exclusive effect cannot distinguish anticompetitive conducts with competitive conducts. That’s why the POSCO full bench adopted the effects-based approach and the rule of reason in 2007. According to the POSCO jurisprudence, courts cannot condemm conditional discounts when the KFTC fails to prove anticompetitive effect. The KFTC had never proved anticompetitive effect of the discounts in question. The Qualcomm chamber made an error by failing to follow the effects-based approach of the 2007 POSCO full bench decision.

Abstract

In 2019, a chamber of the Supreme Court of Korea decicded that Qualcomm’s conditional discountsoffered to Korean cell phone makers amounted to anticompetitive exclusive dealing for the reasons that the discounts in question caused exclusive or foreclosure effect. This decision is not consistent with the effects-based approach and the rule of reason adopted by the 2007 POSCO full bench decision. First of all, the discounts in question were nothing more than pricing. Second, exclusive effect can not be the same as anticompetitive effect because fair competition also causes exclusive effect. Therefore, exclusive effect cannot distinguish anticompetitive conducts with competitive conducts. That’s why the POSCO full bench adopted the effects-based approach and the rule of reason in 2007. According to the POSCO jurisprudence, courts cannot condemm conditional discounts when the KFTC fails to prove anticompetitive effect. The KFTC had never proved anticompetitive effect of the discounts in question. The Qualcomm chamber made an error by failing to follow the effects-based approach of the 2007 POSCO full bench decision.

참고문헌 (67)

  1. 김두진, "충성할인(Loyalty Rebate)에 대한 경쟁법상 규제 연구", 경제법연구, 15(3), pp.167~207 (2016), 한국경제법학회[DOI]
  2. 조성진, "퀄컴의 가격결정행위에 대한 분석: Fidelity Rebate 가격정책을 중심으로", 응용경제, 13(2), pp.273~298 (2011), 한국응용경제학회
  3. 정인석, "충성할인의 경쟁제한성 판단방법에 대하여", 법경제학연구, 7(2), pp.223~250 (2010), 한국법경제학회
  4. 주진열, "수요자의 배타조건부거래(구매)와 시장지배력 남용 문제 – 대법원 2009. 7. 9. 선고 2007두22078 판결 -", 경쟁법연구, 34, pp.190~214 (2016), 한국경쟁법학회
  5. 주진열, "현대모비스의 전속대리점 관련 배타조건부거래 사건에 대한 비판적 고찰: 대법원 2014. 4. 10. 선고 2012두6308 판결", 법학연구, 19(4), pp.317~349 (2016), 법학연구소
  6. 주진열, "이베이지마켓(온라인 거래중개서비스 사업자)의 배타조건부거래 사건에 대한 비판적 고찰 - 대법원 2011. 6. 10. 선고 2008두16322 판결 -", 법경제학연구, 13(3), pp.485~508 (2016), 한국법경제학회
  7. Allan, Bill, "Loyalty and fidelity rebates: a sense of déjà vu again", Competition Law & Policy Debate, 1, pp.50~ (2015)
  8. ABA Section of Antitrust Law, "Antitrust Law Developments" (2002), ABA
  9. Ahlborn, Christian, "Discounts, Rebates and Selective Pricing by Dominant Firms: A Trans-Altlantic Comparison", European Competition Journal, 2, pp.101~ (2006)
  10. Areeda, Phillip E., "Antitrust Analysis: Problems, Text, and Cases" (2004), Aspen Publisher
  11. Baker, Jonathan B., "Taking the Error Out of ‘Error Cost’ Analysis: What’s Wrong with Antitrust’s Right", Antitrust L. J, 80, pp.1~ (2015)
  12. Baker, Jonathan B., "The Antitrust Paradigm: Restoring a Competitive Economy" (2019), Harvard University Press
  13. Blair, Roger D., "Antitrust Economics" (2009), Oxford University Press
  14. Bok, Derek C., "The Tampa Electric Case and the Problem of Exclusive Arrangements under the Clayton Act", Sup. Ct. Rev, 1961, pp.267~ (1961)
  15. Brennan, Timothy J., "Bundled Rebates as Exclusion rather than Predation", J. Comp. L. & Econ, 4, pp.335~ (2008)
  16. "Intel and the Tale of Rebates: The (More) Economic Approach to the Rescue!" (2017)[URL]
  17. Intel and Article 102 TFEU Case Law: Making Sense of a Perpetual Controversy, "Colomo, Pablo Ibáñez", LSE Law, Society and Economy, ~, pp.29, 2014
  18. Crane, Daniel A., "Mixed Bundling, Profit Sacrifice, and Consumer Welfare", Emory L.J, 55, pp.424~ (2006)
  19. Devlin, Alan, "Antitrust Error", Wm. & Mary L. Rev, 52, pp.75~ (2010)
  20. Edlin, Aaron S., "Stopping Above-cost Predatory Pricing", Yale L.J, 111, pp.941~ (2002)
  21. 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)
  22. Elhauge, Einer, "How Loyalty Discounts Can Pervesely Discourage Discounting", J. Comp. L. & Econ, 5, pp.189~ (2009)
  23. Elhauge, Einer, "Tying, Bundled Discounts, and the Death of the Single Monopoly Profit Theory", Har. L .Rev, 123, pp.397~ (2009)
  24. Easterbrook, Frank H., "Workable Antitrust Policy", Mich. L. Rev, 84, pp.1696~ (1986)
  25. Evans, David S., "Why Do Firms Bundle and Tie? Evidence from Competitive Markets and Implications for Tying Law", Yale J. On Reg, 22, pp.37~ (2005)
  26. Faella, Gianluca, "The Antitrust Assessment of Loyalty Discounts and Rebates", Journal of Competition Law & Economics, 4, pp.375~ (2008)
  27. Federico, Giulio, "The Antitrust Treatment of Loyalty Discounts in Europe: Towards a More Economic Approach", Journal of European Competition Law & Practice, 2 (2011)
  28. Friend, Mark, "Loyalty Rebates and Abuse of Dominance", Cambridge L.J, 77, pp.25~ (2018)
  29. Fumagalli, Chiara, "On the Use of Price-Cost Tests in Loyalty Discounts and Exclusive Dealing Arrangements: Which Implications from Economic Theory Should Be Drawn", Antitrust L.J, 81, pp.537~ (2017)
  30. Gaudin, Germain, "Margin Squeeze: An Above-Cost Predatory Pricing Approach", J. Comp. L. & Econ, 12, pp.151~ (2016)
  31. Greenlee, Patick, "Distinguishing competitive and exclusionary uses of loyalty discounts", Antitrust Bull, 50, pp.463~ (2005)
  32. Giosa, Penelope, "Book Reviews: Fidelity Rebates in Competition Law: Application of the ‘as Efficient Competitor’ Test", Eur. Competition & Reg. L. Rev, 4, pp.249~ (2020)
  33. Heide, Jan B., "Exclusive Dealing and Business Efficiency: Evidence from Industry Practice", J.L. & Econ, 41, pp.387~ (1998)
  34. Hovenkamp, Herbert, "Federal Antitrust Policy" (2011), West
  35. Hovenkamp, Herbert, "Principles of Antitrust" (2017), West Academic Publishing
  36. Hovenkamp, Herbert, "Post-Chicago Antitrust: A Review and Critique", Colum. Bus. L. Rev, 2001, pp.257~ (2001)
  37. Hovenkamp, Herbert, "Complex Bundled Discounts and Antitrust Policy", Buffalo L. Rev, 57, pp.1227~ (2009)
  38. Jacobson, Jonathan M., "No Economic Sense Makes No Sense for Exclusive Dealing", Antitrust L.J, 73, pp.779~ (2006)
  39. Jones, Alison, "The European way — reflections on the Intel judgment", Competition Law & Policy Debate, 1, pp.32~ (2015)
  40. Kjølbye, Lars, "The Intel controversy: an introduction", Competition Law & Policy Debate, 1, pp.28~ (2015)
  41. Klein, Benjamin, "Exclusive Dealing as Competition for Distribution on the Merits", Geo. Mason L. Rev, 12, pp.119~ (2003)
  42. Klein, Benjamin, "The Expanded Economics of Free-Riding: How Exclusive Dealing Prevents Free-Riding and Creates Undivided Loyalty", Antitrust L.J, 74, pp.473~ (2007)
  43. Klein, Benjamin, "Exclusive Dealing Intensifies Competition for Distribution", Antitrust L.J, 75, pp.433~ (2008)
  44. Kobayashi, Bruce H., "Does Economics Provide a Reliable Guide to Regulating Commodity Bundling by Firms? A Survey of the Economic Literature", Journal of Competition Law & Economics, 1(4), pp.707~ (2005)
  45. Lambert, Thomas A., "Evaluating Bundled Discounts", Minn. L. Rev, 89, pp.1688~ (2005)
  46. Lave, Jonathan M., "The Law and Economics of De Facto Exclusive Dealing", Antitrust Bull, 50, pp.143~ (2005)
  47. Lockhart, William B., "The Relevance of Economic Factors in Determining Whether Exclusive Arrangements Violate Section 3 of the Clayton Act", Harv. L. Rev, 65, pp.913~ (1952)
  48. McLaren, Richard W., "Related Problems of “Requirements” Contracts and Acquisitions in Vertical Integration under the AntiTrust Laws", Ill. L. Rev, 45, pp.141~ (1950)
  49. Melamed, A. Douglas, "Exclusive Dealing Agreements and Other Exclusionary Conduct — Are There Unifying Principles", Antitrust L.J, 73, pp.375~ (2006)
  50. Meese, Alan J., "Exclusive Dealing, the Theory of the Firm, and Raising Rivals’ Costs: Toward a New Synthesis", Antitrust Bull, 50, pp.371~ (2005)
  51. Moore, Derek W., "Conditional Discounts and the Law of Exclusive Dealing", Geo. Mason L. Rev, 22, pp.1205~ (2015)
  52. Morton, Fiona M. Scott, "A Unifying Analytical Framework for Loyalty Rebates", Antitrust L.J, 81, pp.777~ (2017)
  53. Oppenheim, S. Chesterfield, "Federal Antitrust Legislation: Guideposts to a Revised National Antitrust Policy", Mich. L. Rev, 50, pp.1139~ (1951)
  54. Ornstein, Stanley I., "Exclusive Dealing and Antitrust", Antitrust Bull, 34, pp.65~ (1989)
  55. Orbach, Barak, "Antitrust Populism", N.Y.U. J.L. & Bus, 14, pp.1~ (2017)
  56. Orbach, Barak, "The Present New Antitrust Era", Wm. & Mary L. Rev, 60, pp.1439~ (2019)
  57. Posner, Richard A., "Antitrust Law: An Economic Perspective" (1975), University of Chicago Press
  58. Rey, Patrick, "An Effects-Based Approach to Article 102: A Response to Wouter Wils", World Competition, 38, pp.3~ (2015)
  59. Schwartz, Maurice, "ABA Section of Antitrust Law, Issues in Competition Law and Policy" (2008)
  60. Steuer, Richard M., "Exclusive Dealing in Distribution", Cornell L. Rev, 69, pp.101~ (1983)
  61. Steuer, Richard M., "Discounts and Exclusive Dealing", Antitrust, 7, pp.28~ (1993)
  62. Steuer, Richard M., "Customer-Instigated Exclusive Dealing", Antitrust L.J, 68, pp.239~ (2001)
  63. Sullivan, "Antitrust Law, Policy and Procedure" (2014), LexisNexis
  64. Sullivan, E. Thomas, "Understanding Antitrust And Its Economic Implications" (2019), Carolina Academic Press
  65. Sunderland, Thomas E., "Changing Legal Concepts in the Antitrust Field", Syracuse L. Rev, 3, pp.60~ (1951)
  66. Tom, Willard K., "Anticompetitive Aspects of Market-Share Discounts and Other Incentives to Exclusive Dealing", Antitrust L.J, 67, pp.615~ (2000)
  67. Venit, James S., "Case T-286", 09 Intel v Commission—The Judgment of the General Court: All Steps Backward and No Steps Forward, 2014, pp.10, 203~

관련 논문AI추천

이 간행물의 다른 논문 (8건)