공정거래제도 30년의 운영성과와 향후 정책방향 -공정거래법상 실체법 규정의 운영성과와 그 평가를 중심으로-
Enforcement Performance of Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act for 50 Years and Its Policy Implication
0
조회
0
다운로드
4
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
It’s difficult to sum up enforcement performance of Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act for 30 years in a word, but it seems that more considerable outcome has been achieved in the regulation of entrepreneurs’ conducts damaging fair and free competition such as abuse of market dominant positions, unlawful collaborative acts (cartel agreements) and unfair trade practices than in the remedy of monopoly or oligopoly in market structures and the repression of the economic power concentration. However, it’s not always desirable that there was quite an achievement in the regulation of unfair trade practices. Considering the work burden of Korea Fair Trade Commission(hereinafter ‘KFTC’), their relations with abuse of market dominant positions and the character as private dispute, it is necessary to improve the regulation system of unfair trade practices. In the regulation of abuse of market dominant positions and unlawful collaborative acts, KFTC should continue to strongly enforce the law. Since global economic crisis began in USA in 2008, KFTC has selected several enterprises as priority surveillance business and closely monitored them. It expresses KFTC’s strong will for law enforcement, though it should not degenerate into a means of price stabilization. In a way the remedy of monopoly or oligopoly in market structures is the most urgent problem for solution, that is however hard and time-consuming to solve. In the review of substantial lessening of competition in a combination of enterprises, KFTC may consider public interests or industrial policy as well as competition policy. This issue relates to the independence of KFTC and requires the practical independence of KFTC. Finally, the repression of the economic power concentration is more difficult issue than the remedy of monopoly or oligopoly in market structures. For it depends not only on the enforcement will or competence of the competition authorities, but also on the government’s perception of the need for regulation. The repression system of economic power concentration was introduced into the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act in order to prevent harmful effect due to the general concentration of economic power. If the very problem of general concentration of economic power has not been solved,effective system to resolve it is still needed.
Abstract
It’s difficult to sum up enforcement performance of Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act for 30 years in a word, but it seems that more considerable outcome has been achieved in the regulation of entrepreneurs’ conducts damaging fair and free competition such as abuse of market dominant positions, unlawful collaborative acts (cartel agreements) and unfair trade practices than in the remedy of monopoly or oligopoly in market structures and the repression of the economic power concentration. However, it’s not always desirable that there was quite an achievement in the regulation of unfair trade practices. Considering the work burden of Korea Fair Trade Commission(hereinafter ‘KFTC’), their relations with abuse of market dominant positions and the character as private dispute, it is necessary to improve the regulation system of unfair trade practices. In the regulation of abuse of market dominant positions and unlawful collaborative acts, KFTC should continue to strongly enforce the law. Since global economic crisis began in USA in 2008, KFTC has selected several enterprises as priority surveillance business and closely monitored them. It expresses KFTC’s strong will for law enforcement, though it should not degenerate into a means of price stabilization. In a way the remedy of monopoly or oligopoly in market structures is the most urgent problem for solution, that is however hard and time-consuming to solve. In the review of substantial lessening of competition in a combination of enterprises, KFTC may consider public interests or industrial policy as well as competition policy. This issue relates to the independence of KFTC and requires the practical independence of KFTC. Finally, the repression of the economic power concentration is more difficult issue than the remedy of monopoly or oligopoly in market structures. For it depends not only on the enforcement will or competence of the competition authorities, but also on the government’s perception of the need for regulation. The repression system of economic power concentration was introduced into the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act in order to prevent harmful effect due to the general concentration of economic power. If the very problem of general concentration of economic power has not been solved,effective system to resolve it is still needed.
참고문헌 (17)
- 공정거래위원회 30년사: 시장경제창달의 발자취 - 1981∼2010, "공정거래위원회", 공정거래위원회, ~ (2011)
- 권오승, "경제법(제8판)" (2010), 법문사
- 신현윤, "경제법" (2006), 법문사
- 이기수, "경제법(제8판)" (2009), 세창출판사
- 이호영, "독점규제법(개정판)" (2010), 홍문사
- 임영철, "공정거래법 - 해설과 논점" (2007), 법문사
- 정호열, "경제법(제3판)" (2010), 박영사
- 김현수, "부당공동행위의 적발유인제도 ― 자진신고자 감면제도를 중심으로 ―", 경영법률, 19(3), pp.309~343 (2009), 한국경영법률학회
- 김현수, "인터넷 포털의 양면시장성에 관한 경쟁법적 연구", 박사, pp.2010
- 양명조, "한국 독점규제법의 평가와 전망", 경쟁법연구, 8 (2002)
- 불공정거래행위에 대한 합리적 규제방안 연구, "원용수", 공정거래위원회, ~, pp.용역보고서 (1999)
- 유진희, "소프트웨어 끼워팔기의 규제", 경제법연구, 7(1), pp.25~54 (2008), 한국경제법학회
- 유진희, "EU경쟁법상 비수평적 기업결합에 대한 판단기준”, 횡천이기수선생 정년기념 「세계화시대의 기업법」" (2010), 박영사
- 이봉의, "불공정거래행위의 위법성 in 공정거래와 법치" (2004), 법문사
- 조성국, "시장지배적 지위남용에 대한 위법성 판단기준에 관한 연구 - 대법원판결을 중심으로", 경쟁법연구, 19, pp.367~399 (2009), 한국경쟁법학회
- 지철호, "공동행위 인가제도", 경쟁법연구, 20, pp.240~262 (2009), 한국경쟁법학회
- 미국의 개정 수평 기업결합 가이드라인에 관한 법적 검토, "황태희", 법․경제분석그룹 (LEG), ~, pp.법․경제분석그룹 (LEG) 연구보고서 (2010)
