한·미 FTA와 경쟁정책- 법적 쟁점을 중심으로 -

Abstract

The Free Trade Agreement between the Republic of Korea and United States of America (hereinafter “KORUS FTA”) was signed in April 2007 and went into effect March 2012. KORUS FTA has 24 chapters and 3 annexes, which includes several chapters related to the competition policy such as Competition-Related Matter(chapter 16), Pharmaceutical Products and Medical Devices(chapter 5), and Telecommunications(chapter 14). This article is intended to provide the several legal issues derived from the KORUS FTA,and to show the desirable settlements especially in Competition-Related Matter related to competition law and anticompetitive business conduct containing consent order issue, designated monopolies, state enterprises,differences in pricing, transparency, cross-border consumer protection,consultations, and dispute settlement etc. In particular, there are three main issues among them as follows;In the first place, the relationship between the trade agreement and competition law is of great significance for the economic efficiency and consumer welfare,which could be attained by application of the competition law by protecting anticompetitive behaviors of enterprises of the Party. In the second place, each Party shall provide its authorities responsible for the enforcement of its national competition laws with the authority to resolve their administrative or civil enforcement actions by mutual agreement with the subject of the enforcement action, which was enacted by the name of “consent order” in Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act in Korea. In the third place, the designated monopolies shall act in a manner that is not inconsistent with the Party’s obligations under the KORUS FTA wherever such a monopoly exercises any regulatory, administrative, or other governmental authority that the Party has delegated to it, act solely in accordance with commercial considerations in its purchase or sale of the monopoly good or service in the relevant market, provides non-discriminatory treatment to covered investments, and shall not use its monopoly position to engage in anticompetitive practices. So shall the state enterprises comply with two obligations among these obligations.