공정거래법상 사업활동방해의 공정거래저해성 - 공정거래위원회 의결 제2013-142호(2013.7.11.)의 사실관계를 중심으로
Tendency to Impede Fair Trade of Interfering Business Activities under the Monopoly Regulation Act
0
조회
0
다운로드
4
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
Unreasonable interference of business activities, a type of unfair trade practices prohibited under Article 23 of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act has a unique nature in that it is very hard to distinguish illegal unreasonable interference from legal aggressive pro-competitive business practices which the Act should encourage. In particular, when interference with the competitor’s business is performed by means of rendering beneficial treatments to dealers for promoting one’s own business, the distinction between illegal and legal one is blurred. The issue is what contents and judging criteria of the requirement of tendency to impede fair trade as provided for in Article 23(1) are. This issue is inter-wound with the regulation scheme for unilateral conduct under the Korea Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act. This article looks into the legislative history of the prohibition on unreasonable interference of business activities on the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act and compares it with related provision under the Japanese Antimonopoly Act. Then, it discusses the theories and court decisions on the requirement of tendency to impede fair trade. On the foundation of those discussions, it analyses the policy basis for prohibiting unreasonable interference of business activities under a competition law and figures out judging criteria for tendency to impede fair trade in unreasonable interference of business activities cases.
Abstract
Unreasonable interference of business activities, a type of unfair trade practices prohibited under Article 23 of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act has a unique nature in that it is very hard to distinguish illegal unreasonable interference from legal aggressive pro-competitive business practices which the Act should encourage. In particular, when interference with the competitor’s business is performed by means of rendering beneficial treatments to dealers for promoting one’s own business, the distinction between illegal and legal one is blurred. The issue is what contents and judging criteria of the requirement of tendency to impede fair trade as provided for in Article 23(1) are. This issue is inter-wound with the regulation scheme for unilateral conduct under the Korea Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act. This article looks into the legislative history of the prohibition on unreasonable interference of business activities on the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act and compares it with related provision under the Japanese Antimonopoly Act. Then, it discusses the theories and court decisions on the requirement of tendency to impede fair trade. On the foundation of those discussions, it analyses the policy basis for prohibiting unreasonable interference of business activities under a competition law and figures out judging criteria for tendency to impede fair trade in unreasonable interference of business activities cases.
참고문헌 (15)
- 강우찬, "공정거래법 제3조의2(시장지배적 지위 남용금지)와 제23조(불공정거래행위금지)의 관계에 관한 연구-규범의 중복현상을 중심으로", 사법논집, 44 (2007)
- 권오승, "경제법" (2008), 법문사
- 양명조, "시장지배적사업자의 사업활동방해행위- 현대자동차(주) 사건판결의 두 가지 논점 -", 경쟁법연구, 24, pp.168~193 (2011), 한국경쟁법학회
- 불공정거래행위에 대한 합리적 규제방안 연구, "원용수", 공정거래 위원회, ~ (1999)
- 대규모유통업자의 착취남용 규제 개선방안, "이봉의", 한국법제연구원, ~, pp.비교법제 연구 12-20- ⑬ (2012)
- 이호영, "독점규제법(제5판)" (2015), 홍문사
- 이호영, "공정거래법상 시장지배적사업자 규제의 재점과 과제", 저스티스, (104), pp.75~99 (2008), 한국법학원
- 이호영, "공정거래법상 단독행위 규제체계의 현황 및 개선방안", 경쟁저널, (169) (2013), 공정경쟁연합회
- 정재훈, "공정거래법상 거래거절규제: 시장지배적 지위 남용행위와 불공정거래행위의관계를 중심으로", 경쟁저널, (169) (2013)
- 홍대식, "경쟁법연구 제18권" (2008), 법문사
- 황창식, "경제법판례연구 제5권" (2008), 법문사
- 財團法人公正去來協會, "獨占禁止法制定時の回顧錄" (1997)
- 田中寿, "不公正な取引方法" (1982), 商事法務研究会
- 根岸哲, "注釈独占禁止法" (2009), 有斐閣
- 金井貴嗣外, "独占禁止法" (2013), 弘文堂
