독점규제법 30년 회고: 시장지배적지위 남용행위 규제에 관한 공정거래위원회 심결례의 분석
An Analysis of Cases Regarding the Abuse Control by KFTC under Article 3-2 in the Competition Law
0
조회
0
다운로드
4
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
This analysis is aimed at reviewing briefly how KFTC has been operating the abuse control under Article 3-2 of the Competition Law since its adoption in 1981. Considering our current situation where concentrated market structures in major industries have not been sufficiently improved yet, the abuse control in the competition law will still have significant importance. Before we try to find an answer to the question which role the abuse control should play in order to obtain the goal 'the free and fair competition', a reflective study needs to be done firstly to see the real history of abuse control for last 30years. In terms of methodology, it would be better to analyze cases regarding the abuse control according to the effect of abuse as well as the type of conduct concerned rather than each section of Article 3-2. We can find out that KFTC had focused on the regulation of exploitative and hindering abuse done in relation to trading partners for most of years since its enactment. This could be understood as a necessary and reasonable policy in that concentrated market structures in Korea are supported by the enormous economic powers and strengthened by the systematized distribution networks. However KFTC seems to be moving toward the regulation of exclusionary abuse, since the Supreme Court has applied a more stricter standard for the reasonableness of abusive conducts. It raises doubts whether it is proper to switch to another direction in enforcing the abuse control at this moment. A new direction in competition policy should be backed up with the facts such as de-concentrated market structures or positive change in behavior of market-dominant undertakings generally, because it is likely to depress the enforcement of abuse control considerably. As of now, we cannot say we are confronting so much improved economic realities. Rather, it is time to reflect the nature of abuse control fundamentally, that is, achieving the competitive market structures gradually through the effective regulation
Abstract
This analysis is aimed at reviewing briefly how KFTC has been operating the abuse control under Article 3-2 of the Competition Law since its adoption in 1981. Considering our current situation where concentrated market structures in major industries have not been sufficiently improved yet, the abuse control in the competition law will still have significant importance. Before we try to find an answer to the question which role the abuse control should play in order to obtain the goal 'the free and fair competition', a reflective study needs to be done firstly to see the real history of abuse control for last 30years. In terms of methodology, it would be better to analyze cases regarding the abuse control according to the effect of abuse as well as the type of conduct concerned rather than each section of Article 3-2. We can find out that KFTC had focused on the regulation of exploitative and hindering abuse done in relation to trading partners for most of years since its enactment. This could be understood as a necessary and reasonable policy in that concentrated market structures in Korea are supported by the enormous economic powers and strengthened by the systematized distribution networks. However KFTC seems to be moving toward the regulation of exclusionary abuse, since the Supreme Court has applied a more stricter standard for the reasonableness of abusive conducts. It raises doubts whether it is proper to switch to another direction in enforcing the abuse control at this moment. A new direction in competition policy should be backed up with the facts such as de-concentrated market structures or positive change in behavior of market-dominant undertakings generally, because it is likely to depress the enforcement of abuse control considerably. As of now, we cannot say we are confronting so much improved economic realities. Rather, it is time to reflect the nature of abuse control fundamentally, that is, achieving the competitive market structures gradually through the effective regulation
참고문헌 (12)
- 공정거래위원회, "2008년도 통계연보" (2009), 공정거래위원회
- 권오승, "독과점에 대한 규제", 제4차 정책세미나자료 (2009), 서울대학교 법학연구소 경쟁법센터
- 권오승, "경제법(제8판)" (2010), 법문사
- 이황, "공정거래법상 단독의 위반행위 규제의 체계 - 시장지배적 지위 남용행위로서의 거래거절행위의 위법성, 그 본질과 판단기준", 사법, 1(5), pp.201~263 (2008), 사법발전재단
- 이동규, "독점규제법 시행 30년의 평가와 전망 - 법집행의 관점에서 본 평가와 전망", 서울대학교 법학연구소 경쟁법센터 (2011), 제1차 정책세미나 자료
- 이봉의, "독과점시장과 착취남용의 규제 - 독점규제법 제3조의2 제1항 1호를 중심으로", 경쟁법연구, 22, pp.120~151 (2010), 한국경쟁법학회
- 이호영, "공정거래법상 시장지배적사업자 규제의 재점과 과제", 저스티스, (104), pp.75~99 (2008), 한국법학원
- 조혜신, "독점규제법상 방해남용에 관한 연구", 박사, pp.2011
- 홍대식, "시장지배적 지위 남용행위의 판단기준 개선방안", 경쟁법연구, 21, pp.106~162 (2010), 한국경쟁법학회
- 홍명수, "지배력 남용의 의의와 유형화에 대한 고찰 in 공정거래법과 규제산업" (2007), 법문사
- Immenga, "GWB Kommentar zum Kartellgesetz 3. Aufl" (2001), Verlag C.H. Beck
- Kling, "Kartellrecht" (2007), Verlag Vahlen
