카르텔에 대한 징벌적 배상제도의 도입론
Awarding Punitive Damages for Victims of Cartels
0
조회
0
다운로드
3
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
The purpose of this article is to determine whether awarding punitive damages for victims of cartels would be plausible and adequate under the Korea Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act (hereinafter “Fair Trade Act”) in the light of competition policy. Cartels are considered to be one of the most serious breaches of competition law. And it is surely the most serious threat to competition and consumers. In Korea, cartel is prohibited by § 19 of the Fair Trade Act. Any contract, agreement, or commitment designed for cartels shall be null and void between relevant parties. If a cartel is detected, the Fair Trade Commission may order the enterprisers concerned to cease and discontinue such an act and may impose surcharges on the relevant enterprisers within the limits not exceeding the amount equivalent to 10/100 of the relevant turnover. However private plaintiffs could be entitled to recover only real harm caused by the cartel under the existing law. I think that amount be insufficient not only for the victims of cartels but also for the deterrence of future violations. Part II of this Article briefly looks into the punitive damages generally: concept of punitive damages, history of adopting punitive damages. Globally, the common law countries such as USA, UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, India, and a few continental law countries such as Brazil and Norway, punitive damages are awarded to the victims to punish the wrong-doer and to deter that person and others from similar bad conduct in the future. And then I shift my focus into the treble damages of U.S. federal antitrust laws. Part Ⅲ analyses the function, history and purpose of the treble damages in U.S. federal antitrust laws and introduces policy debate about private enforcement of antitrust law. In Part Ⅳ, I discuss on the plausibility and adequateness of awarding punitive damages for the victims of cartels under the Fair Trade Act. Article 35(2) of the Korea Fair Transactions in Subcontracting Act has introduced treble damages for the victims of abuses of the acquired technical data by a principal contractor since 2011 revision. This is the first legislation of punitive damages in modern Korean law, and I regard it as a friendly experience for an introduction of punitive damages for victims of cartels in the Fair Trade Act. This is because the inconsistency with the Civil Code has been major obstacle for introduction of punitive damages into Korean law. Finally, Part V concludes by offering positive policy suggestions that follow from my analysis.
Abstract
The purpose of this article is to determine whether awarding punitive damages for victims of cartels would be plausible and adequate under the Korea Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act (hereinafter “Fair Trade Act”) in the light of competition policy. Cartels are considered to be one of the most serious breaches of competition law. And it is surely the most serious threat to competition and consumers. In Korea, cartel is prohibited by § 19 of the Fair Trade Act. Any contract, agreement, or commitment designed for cartels shall be null and void between relevant parties. If a cartel is detected, the Fair Trade Commission may order the enterprisers concerned to cease and discontinue such an act and may impose surcharges on the relevant enterprisers within the limits not exceeding the amount equivalent to 10/100 of the relevant turnover. However private plaintiffs could be entitled to recover only real harm caused by the cartel under the existing law. I think that amount be insufficient not only for the victims of cartels but also for the deterrence of future violations. Part II of this Article briefly looks into the punitive damages generally: concept of punitive damages, history of adopting punitive damages. Globally, the common law countries such as USA, UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, India, and a few continental law countries such as Brazil and Norway, punitive damages are awarded to the victims to punish the wrong-doer and to deter that person and others from similar bad conduct in the future. And then I shift my focus into the treble damages of U.S. federal antitrust laws. Part Ⅲ analyses the function, history and purpose of the treble damages in U.S. federal antitrust laws and introduces policy debate about private enforcement of antitrust law. In Part Ⅳ, I discuss on the plausibility and adequateness of awarding punitive damages for the victims of cartels under the Fair Trade Act. Article 35(2) of the Korea Fair Transactions in Subcontracting Act has introduced treble damages for the victims of abuses of the acquired technical data by a principal contractor since 2011 revision. This is the first legislation of punitive damages in modern Korean law, and I regard it as a friendly experience for an introduction of punitive damages for victims of cartels in the Fair Trade Act. This is because the inconsistency with the Civil Code has been major obstacle for introduction of punitive damages into Korean law. Finally, Part V concludes by offering positive policy suggestions that follow from my analysis.
참고문헌 (80)
- 곽윤직, "신정판 채권총론" (1995), 박영사
- 권오승, "제11판 경제법" (2014), 법문사
- 박길준, "한국독점규제법" (1983), 삼영사
- 박세일, "개정판 법경제학" (2001), 박영사
- 손주찬, "경제법" (1994), 법경출판사
- 신현윤, (2014), 법문사
- 양명조, (2014), 신조사
- 이기수, "제9판 경제법" (2012), 세창출판사
- 이호영, "제3판 독점규제법" (2011), 홍문사
- 임영철, "개정판 공정거래법 : 해설과 논점" (2010), 법문사
- 정호열, (2012), 박영사
- 고세일, "대륙법에서 징벌적 손해배상 논의- 민법의 관점에서 -", 법조, 63(1), pp.142~190 (2014), 법조협회
- 공정거래법 및 소비자관련법상 징벌적 손해배상제도 도입방안 연구, "김두진", 한국법제연구원, ~ (2007)
- 징벌적 손해배상제도와 소비자피해구제, "김성천", 한국소비자보호원, ~ (2003)
- 김영호, "독점규제법위반행위와 손해배상, ｢손해배상법의 제문제｣(황적인박사화갑기념논문집)", ~ (1990)
- 김제완, "징벌적 배상 법리의 발전과정과 현황 -영국과 캐나다 등의 법리와 우리나라에서의 논의를 중심으로-", 한국법제연구원 워크샵 자료집 (2007)
- 김차동, "공정거래법 위반행위에 대한 징벌적 손해배상제도 도입방안", 법학논총, 29(4), pp.175~198 (2012), 법학연구소
- 김현수, "징벌적 손해배상액의 산정기준- 소비자보호 등 개별법 분야에서의 징벌배상제 도입가능성을 전제로 -", 법학논집, 18(1), pp.155~184 (2013), 법학연구소
- 손봉현, "공정거래법상 손해배상액 산정에 관한 연구", 박사, 법학과, pp.2013
- 신영수, "징벌적 손해배상제도와 공정거래법 -제도도입의 타당성분석을 중심으로-", 기업법연구, 24(1), pp.427~457 (2010), 한국기업법학회
- 이선희, "부당한 공동행위에 대한 손해배상청구에서 손해전가항변과 책임제한", 고려법학, (70), pp.53~98 (2013), 법학연구원
- 임영재, "한국 공정거래 정책의 도전과제", 한국경쟁포럼 발표문 (2011)
- 장재옥, "위자료에 관한 몇 가지 고찰, 한국민법이론의 발전(이영준박사 화갑기념논문집)", ~ (1999)
- 정환, "하도급법상 징벌적 손해배상제도", 경쟁법연구, 27, pp.37~65 (2013), 한국경쟁법학회
- 주진열, "카르텔 억지 및 피해자의 효과적 구제를 위한 독점규제법의 사적 집행 방안", 행정법연구, (34), pp.371~395 (2012), 행정법이론실무학회(行政法理論實務學會)
- 홍명수, "공정거래법상 징벌적 손해배상제도의 도입에 관한 검토", 성균관법학, 20(2), pp.521~538 (2008), 법학연구소
- 징벌적 배상제의 도입방안, "사법제도개혁추진위원회", ~ (2005)
- "징벌적 배상제도 참고자료(1)" (2006), 사법제도개혁추진위원회[URL]
- "징벌적 배상제도 참고자료(2)" (2006), 사법제도개혁추진위원회[URL]
- ABA, "Antitrust Law Developments, Sixth ed., Vol. Ⅰ, Ⅱ", ~ (2007)
- Alison Jones, "EC Competition Law: Text, Cases, and Materials" (2008), Oxford University Press
- Andrew I. Gavil, "Antitrust Law in Perspective: Cases, Concepts and Problems in Competition Policy" (2008), Thomson WEST
- Maher M. Dabbah, "Anti-Cartel Enforcement Worldwide" (2009), Cambridge University Press
- Bellamy and Child, "European Community Law of Competition" (2008), Oxford
- Daniel Crane, "The Institutional Structure of Antitrust Enforcement" (2011), Oxford
- Herbert Hovenkamp, "Federal Antitrust Policy : The Law of Competition and its Practice" (2004), West Group
- Jonathan Faull, "The EC Law of Competition" (2007), Oxford University Press
- Lawrence A. Sullivan, "The Law of Antitrust: An Integrated Handbook" (2006), West Group
- Richard L. Blatt, "Punitive Damages: A State-By-State Guide to Law and Practice", ~ (2000)
- Richard Posner, "Economic Analysis of Law" (1986), Little, Brown And Company
- Richard Whish, "Competition Law" (2009), Oxford
- E. Kintner, "The Legislative History of the Federal Antitrust Laws and Related Statutes, Vol. Ⅰ" (1978)
- A. Mitchell Polinsky, "Detrebling Versus Decoupling Antitrust Damages: Lessons from the Theory of Enforcement", Geo. L. J, 74, pp.1231~ (1986)
- Andrew Kull, "Restitution’s Outlaws", Chi.-Kent. L. Rev, 78, pp.17~ (2003)
- Anthony J. Sebok, "Introduction: What Does It Mean To Say That A Remedy Punishes?", Chi.-Kent. L. Rev, 78, pp.3~ (2003)
- Anthony J. Sebok, "What Did Punitive Damages Do? Why MIisunderstanding The History Of Punitive Damages Matters Today", Chi.-Kent. L. Rev, 78, pp.163~ (2003)
- Austin, "Negative Effects of Treble Damage Actions: Reflections on the New Antitrust Strategy", Duke L.J, 1353 (1978)
- Bruce Chapman, "Punitive Damages: Divergence in Search of Rationale", Ala. L. Rev, 40, pp.741~ (1989)
- Comment, "Consent Decrees and Private Antitrust Actions: An Antitrust Dilemma", Cal. L. Rev, 53, pp.627~ (1965)
- Comment, "Damages: An ldea whose Time has come?", Tulane L. Rev, 61, pp.781~ (1987)
- Daniel Crane, "Optimizing Private Enforcement", Vand. L. Rev, 63, pp.675~ (2010)
- Douglas H. Ginsburg, "Determinants of Private Antitrust Enforcement in the United States, Competition Policy Int’l, Autumn", ~ (2005)
- Edward D. Cavanagh, "Detrebling Antitrust Damages", Tul. L. Rev, 61, pp.777~ (1987)
- Edward D. Cavanagh, "Statement at AMC Civil Remedies Hearing", ~ (2005)
- Ernest J. Weinrib, "Punishment And Disgorgement As Contract Remedies", Chi.-Kent. L. Rev, 78, pp.55~ (2003)
- Herbert Hovenkamp, "Antitrust’s Protected Classes", Mich. L. Rev, 88, pp.1~ (1989)
- John Y. Gotanda, "Chatering Developments Concerning Punitive Damages: Is The Tide Changing?", Colum. J. Transnat’l L, 45, pp.507~ (2007)
- Jonathan Turley, "A Crisis of Faith: Tobacco and the Madisonian Democracy", Harv. J. on Legis, 37, pp.433~ (2000)
- Joshua P. Davis, "Toward An Empirical And Theoretical Assessment Of Private Antitrust Enforcement", Seattle U. L. Rev, 36, pp.1269~ (2013)
- L. Vold, "Are Threefold Damages Under the Anti-Trust Act Penal or Compensatory?", Ky. L. J, 28, pp.118~ (1940)
- Neil Vidmar, "Punitive Damages by Juries in Florida: In Terrorem and in Reality", Harv. J. on Legis, 38, pp.487~ (2001)
- Neil Vidmar, "The Frequency, Predictability, and Proportionality of Jury Awards of Punitive Damages in State Courts in 2005: A New Audit", Suffolk U. L. Rev, 43, pp.855~ (2010)
- Note, Developments, "The Paths of Civil Litigation", Harv. L.Rev, 113, pp.1783~ (2000)
- Note, "Exemplary Damages in the Law of Torts", Harv. L. Rev, 70, pp.517~ (1957)
- Richard A. Posner, "Statistical Study of Antitrust Enforcement, in the Causes and Consequences of Antitrust: The Public-Choice Perspective 80" (1995)
- Robert A. Klinck, "The Punitive Damage Debate", Harv. J. on Legis, 38, pp.469~ (2001)
- Robert H. Lande, "Are Antitrust 'Treble' Damages Really Single Damages?", Ohio St. L.J, 54, pp.115~ (1983)
- Robert H. Lande, "Comparative Deterrence from Private Enforcement and Criminal Enforcement of the U.S. Antitrust Laws", B.Y.U. L. Rev, pp.315~ (2011)
- Spencer Weber Waller, "The Incoherence Of Punishment In Antitrust", Chi.-Kent. L. Rev, 78, pp.207~ (2003)
- Steven C. Salop, "Economic Analysis of Private Antitrust Litigation", Geo. L. J, 74, pp.1001~ (1986)
- Steven Salop, "Private Antitrust Litigation: An Introduction and Framwork in Private Antitrust Litigation" (1988), New Learning
- Thomas S. Mackay, "Litigation Involving Damages to U.S. Plaintiffs Caused by Private Corporate Japanese Defendants", Transnat’l Law, 5, pp.131~ (1992)
- Volker Behr, "Punitive Damages in American and German Law - Tendencies Toward Approximation of Apparently Irreconcilable Concepts", Chi.-Kent L. Rev, 78, pp.105~ (2003)
- William Breit, "Private Antitrust Enforcement: The New Learning", J.L. & Econ, 28, pp.405~ (1985)
- William Breit, "Antitrust Enforcement and Economic Efficiency: The Uneasy Case for Treble Damages", J.L. & Econ, 17, pp.329~ (1974)
- William M. Landes, "Optimal Sanctions for Antitrust Violations", U. Chi. L. Rev, 50, pp.652~ (1983)
- Report and Recommendations, "Antitrust Modernization Commission", ~ (2007)
- Damages Actions for Breach of the EC Antitrust Rules, "Commission of the European Communities Green", ~ (2005)
- Commission of the European Communities White Paper on Damages Actions for Breach of the EC Antitrust Rules, , COM, ~ (2008)
- Proposal for a Directive of The European Parliament and of The Council on certain rules governing actions for damages under national law for infringements of the competition law provisions of the Member States and of the European Union, "Commission of the European Communities", COM, ~ (2013)