공정거래법상 경쟁제한성 요건의 증명방법에 관한 연구

키워드

참고문헌 (110)

1. 곽상현, "수평결합에 대한 경쟁제한성 판단기준", 저스티스, (116), pp.161~213 (2010), 한국법학원
2. 신광식, "재판매가격유지의 공정거래 법리에 대한 법경제학 분석: 골프용품 사건", 법경제학연구, 6(1), pp.45~90 (2009), 한국법경제학회
3. 신영수, "경성카르텔의 위법성 판단과 관련시장의 획정", 법조, 60(10), pp.189~224 (2011), 법조협회
4. 이민호, "기업결합의 경쟁제한성 판단기준 : 수평결합을 중심으로", 박사, 법학, pp.2012
5. 이봉의, "독과점시장과 착취남용의 규제 - 독점규제법 제3조의2 제1항 1호를 중심으로 -", 경쟁법연구, 22, pp.120~151 (2010), 한국경쟁법학회
6. 이봉의, "독점규제법상 재판매가격유지행위의 성격과 규제체계에 관한 소고", 서울대학교 법학, 48(4), pp.237~259 (2007), 법학연구소
7. 이황, "공정거래법상 단독의 위반행위 규제의 체계 - 시장지배적 지위 남용행위로서의 거래거절행위의 위법성, 그 본질과 판단기준", 사법, 1(5), pp.201~263 (2008), 사법발전재단
8. 이호영, "독점규제법상 상표내 경쟁제한행위의 규제에 관한 연구: 미국 판례 및 학설과의 비교법적 고찰을 중심으로", 박사, 법학, pp.2003
9. 이호영, "공정거래법상 시장지배적사업자 규제의 재점과 과제", 저스티스, (104), pp.75~99 (2008), 한국법학원
10. 이호영, "경쟁법 사건절차상 경제전문가 증언의 활용에 관한 연구", 경쟁법연구, 20, pp.66~106 (2009), 한국경쟁법학회
11. 조성국, "시장지배적 지위남용에 대한 위법성 판단기준에 관한 연구 - 대법원판결을 중심으로 -", 경쟁법연구, 19, pp.367~399 (2009), 한국경쟁법학회
12. 주진열, "공정거래소송에 있어서 경제적 증거 평가에 대한 일고찰", 경쟁법연구, 19, pp.159~192 (2009), 한국경쟁법학회
13. 주진열, "기업결합규제와 효율성 항변 판단기준에 대한 법경제학적 고찰", 경제법연구, 9(1), pp.77~106 (2010), 한국경제법학회
14. 주진열, "최근 독점규제법 주요 판례에 나타난 비교법경제학적 쟁점 분석", 경쟁법연구, 23, pp.338~380 (2011), 한국경쟁법학회
15. 주진열, "카르텔 손해액 추정을 위한 계량경제분석의 규범적 통제", 법학연구, 22(1), pp.157~202 (2012), 법학연구원[DOI]
16. 주진열, "티브로드 사건에 대한 고찰: 시장지배력 전이 이론을 중심으로", 경쟁법연구, 25, pp.244~277 (2012), 한국경쟁법학회[DOI]
17. 홍대식, "시장지배적 지위 남용행위의 판단기준 개선방안", 경쟁법연구, 21, pp.106~162 (2010), 한국경쟁법학회
18. 홍명수, "카르텔 규제의 문제점과 개선방안에 관한 고찰", 경쟁법연구, 11 (2005)
19. 홍명수, "재판매가격유지행위에 관한 대법원판결의 검토", 법학연구, (6) (2007), 명지대
20. 홍명수, "시장지배적 지위 남용으로서 거래거절의 의의와 위법성 판단", 법학연구, 51(1), pp.737~765 (2010), 법학연구소
21. "Comment: The Future of Behavioral Economic Analysis of Law", Vand. L. Rev, 51, pp.1756~ (1998)
22. American Bar Association, "Proving Antitrust Damage: Legal and Economic Issues , 2nd ed" (2010), American Bar Association
23. Areeda, Phillip E., "Antitrust Analysis , 6th ed" (2004), Aspen Publishers
24. Baker, Jonathan B., "Reinvigorating Horizontal Merger Enforcement" (2008)
25. Bain, Joe S., "Industrial Organization" (1959), Wiley
26. Berk, Gerald, "Brandise and the Making of Regulated Competition,1900~1932" (2009), Cambridge University Press
27. Blair, Roger D., "The Implications of Daubert for Economic Evidence in Antitrust Cases", Wash. & Lee L. Rev, 57, pp.801~ (2000)
28. Blaug, Mark, "The Methodology of Economics , 2nd ed" (1992), Cambridge University Press
29. Brennan, Timothy J., "Do Easy Cases Make Bad Law? Antitrust Innovations or Misused Opportunities in United States v. Microsoft", Geo. Wash. L. Rev, 69, pp.1042~ (2001)
30. Bruce, Johnsen D., "Daubert, the Scientific Method, and Economic Expert Testimony", Kan. J.L. & Pub. Pol'y, 9, pp.149~ (2000)
31. Bork, Robert H., "The Rule of Reason and the Per Se Concept: Price Fixing and Market Division II", Yale L.J, 75, pp.373~ (1966)
32. Bork, Robert H., "Antitrust Paradox" (1978), Free Press
33. Boumans, Marcel, "Economic Methodology: Understanding Economics As A Science" (2010), Palgrave Macmillian
34. Carlton, Dennis W., "Modern Industrial Organization , 4th ed" (2005)
35. Chamberlin, Edward Hastings, "The Theory of Monopolistic Competition", pp.7~ (1965), Harvard University Press
36. Chow, Gregory C., "Econometrics" (1983), McGraw-Hill International Book Company
37. Coate, Malcolm B., "Can Post-Chicago Economics Survive Daubert", Akron L. Rev, 34, pp.795~ (2001)
38. Colella, Francis J., "Neutrality and Advocacy: A Challenge for Forensic Economics", J. Legal Econ, 8, pp.71~ (1999)
39. Chicago, Post-Chicago, and Neo-Chicago, "Crane, Daniel A.", ~, pp.Cardozo Legal Studies Research Paper No. 259 (2009)
40. Cucinotta, Antonio, "Post-Chicago Developments in Antitrust Law" (2002), Edward Elgar
41. Directorate-General for Competition European Commission, "Quantifying Antitrust Damages: Towards Non-Binding Guidance for Courts" (2010), Dictus Publishing
42. Easterbrook, Frank H., "The Limits of Antitrust", Tex. L. Rev, 63, pp.1~ (1984)
43. Editor's Note, "Post-Chicago Analysis after Kodak: Interview with Professor Steven C. Salop", Antitrust, 7, pp.20~ (1992)
44. Ellig, Jerry, "Dynamic Competition and Public Policy: Technology, Innovation, and Antitrust Issues" (2001), Cambridge University Press
45. European Commission Competition DG, "Best Practices for the Submission of Economic Evidence and Data Collection in Cases Concerning the Application of Article 101 and 102 TFEU And in Merger Cases", ~ (2010)
46. Evans, David S., "Platform Economics: Essays on Multi-Sided Business" (2011), Competition Policy International
47. Foster, Kenneth R., "Judging Science: Scientific Knowledge and the Federal Courts" (1999), The MIT Press
48. Fortenberry, Joseph E., "Antitrust Litigation and the Court-Appointed Economic Expert", Antitrust L. & Econ. Rev, 12, pp.41~ (1980)
49. Fox, Eleanor, "The Efficiency Paradox" (2008)
50. Friedman, Milton, "The Methodology of Positive Economics, In Milton Friedman, Essays in Positive Economics" (1966), University of Chicago Press
51. "Keynes on econometric method. A reassessment of his debate with Tinbergen and other econometricians, 1938-1943" (2004)[URL]
52. Gavil, Andrew I., "After Daubert: Discerning the Increasingly Fine Line between the Admissibility and Sufficiency of Expert Testimony in Antitrust Litigation", Antitrust L. J, 65, pp.663~ (1997)
53. Gavil, Andrew I., "Defining Reliable Forensic Economics in the Post-Daubert", Kumho Tire Era: Case Studies from Antitrust, 2000, pp.57, 831~
54. Gerber, David, "Law and Competition in Twentieth Century Europe: Protecting Prometheus" (1998), Clarendon Press
55. Gormsen, Liza Lovdahl, "A Principled Approach to Abuse of Dominance in European Competition Law" (2010), Cambridge University Press
56. Goldschmid, Harvey J., "Comment on Hebvert Hovenkamp and the Dominant Firm: The Chicago School Has Made Us Too Cautious About False Positives and the Use of Section 2 of the Sherman Act" (2008)
57. Hansen, John D., "Taking Behavioralism Seriously: The Problem of Market Manipulation", N.Y.U. L. Rev, 74, pp.630~ (1999)
58. Hildebrand, Doris, "The Role of Economic Analysis in the EC Competition Rules , 3rd ed" (2009), Kluwer Law International
59. Hovenkamp, Herbert, "Antitrust Policy after Chicago", Mich. L. Rev, 84, pp.213~ (1985)
60. Hovenkamp, Herbert, "The Antitrust Enterprise: Principle and Execution" (2006), Harvard University Press
61. Hovenkamp, Herbert, "The Harvard and Chicago Schools and the Dominant Firm" (2008)
62. Hovenkamp, Herbert, "Federal Antitrust Policy: The Law of Competition And Its Practice, 4th ed" (2011), West Publishing Co.
63. Hovenkamp, Herbert J., "Antitrust and Innovation: Where We Are and Where We Should Be Going", Antitrust L. J, 77, pp.749~ (2011)
64. Kaysen, Carl, "Antitrust Policy: An Economic and Legal Analysis" (1959), Harvard University Press
65. Kauper, Thomas E., "Influence of Conservative Economic Analysis on the Development of the Law of Antitrust" (2008)
66. Keuzenkamp, Hugo A., "Probability, Econometrics and Truth: The Methodology of Econometrics" (2000), Cambridge University Press
67. Kirkwood, John B., "The Chicago School’s Foundation Is Flawed: Antitrust Protects Consumers, Not Efficiency" (2008)
68. Knight, Frank, "The Rôle of Principles in Economics and Politics", American Economic Review, XLI(1) (1951)
69. Krattenmaker, Thomas G., "Anticompetitive Exclusion: Raising Rivals’ Costs to Achieve Power over Price", Yale L.J, 96, pp.209~ (1986)
70. Lao, Marina, "Free Riding: An Overstated, and Unconvincing, Explanation for Resale Price Maintenance" (2008)
71. Industry-Specific Antitrust Policy for Innovation, "Lemley, Mark A.", ~, pp.Stanford Law and Economics Olin Working Paper No. 397 (2010)
72. Innovation and the Limits of Antitrust, "Manne, Geoffrey A.", ~, pp.George Mason Law & Economics Research Paper No. 09-54 (2009)
73. Mansfield, John H., "Scientific Evidence under Daubert", St.Mary’s L.J, 28, pp.1~ (1996)
74. McCloskey, Deirdre N., "The Rhetoric of Economics" (1998), University of Wisconsin Press
75. Milich, Paul S., "Controversial Science in the Courtroom: Daubert and the Law's Hubris", Emory L. J, 43, pp.913~ (1994)
76. Molyneaux, Michele, "Quality Control of Economic Expert Testimony: The Fundamental Methods of Proving Antitrust Damages", Ariz. St. L.J, 35, pp.1049~ (2003)
77. Nelson, Robert H., "Economics As Religion: From Samuelson to Chicago and Beyond" (2002), Pennsylvania State Univ. Press
78. Nelson, Robert H., "Economics As Religion: A Reply to the Commenters", Case W. Res. L. Rev, 56, pp.3~ (2006)
79. Page, William H., "The Chicago School and the Evolution of Antitrust: Characterization, Antitrust Injury, and Evidentiary Sufficiency", Va. L. Rev, 75, pp.1221~ (1989)
80. Peter, Davis, "Quantitative Technique for Competition and Antitrust Analysis" (2010), Princeton University Press
81. Pierce, Richard J. Jr., "Is Post-Chicago Economics Ready for the Courtroom", Geo. Wash. L. Rev, 69, pp.1103~ (2001)
82. Polentz, Michael C., "Post-Daubert Confusion with Expert Testimony", Santa Clara L. Rev, 36, pp.1187~ (1996)
83. Posner, Richard A., "Antitrust Law, 2nd ed" (2001), University Of Chicago Press
84. Posner, Richard A., "The Chicago School of Antitrust Analysis", U. Pa. L. Rev, 127, pp.925~ (1979)
85. Pitofsky, Robert, "How the Chicago School Overshot the Mark: The Effect of Conservative Economic Analysis on U.S. Antitrust" (2008), Oxford University Press
86. Pitofsky, Robert, "Introduction: Setting the Stage" (2008)
87. Reeves, Amanda P., "Behavioral Antitrust", Indiana Law Journal, 86 (2010)
88. Riordan, Michael H., "Evaluating Vertical Mergers: A Post-Chicago Approach", Antitrust L.J, 63, pp.513~ (1995)
89. Rubinfeld, Daniel L., "Reference Guide on Multiple Regression, In Federal Judicial Center, Reference on Scientific Evidence, 2nd ed" (2000), West Group
90. Rubinfeld, Daniel L., "On the Foundations of Antitrust Law and Economics" (2008)
91. Salop, Steven C., "Strategic Entry Deterrence", American Economic Review, 69(2) (1979)
92. Salop, Steven C., "Economic Analysis of Exclusionary Vertical Conduct: Where Chicago Has Overshot the Mark" (2008)
93. Salop, Steven C., "Refusals to Deal and Price Squeezes by an Unregulated, Vertically Integrated Monopolist", Antitrust L.J, 76, pp.709~ (2010)
94. Salop, Steven C., "Raising Rivals’ Costs", American Economic Review, 73(2) (1983)
95. Samuelson, Paul, "Economics , 12th ed" (1985), McGraw-Hill Book Company
96. M. Scherer, "Frederic, Industrial Market Structure and Economic Performance" (1980), Rand McNally College Pub. Co
97. Scherer, F. M., "Conservative Economics and Antitrust: A Variety of Influences" (2008)
98. Schmalensee, Richard, "Horizontal Merger Policy: Problems and Changes", Economic Perspectives, 1(2) (1987)
99. Schmalensee, Richard, "Thoughts on the Chicago Legacy in U.S. Antitrust" (2008)
100. Schmalensee, Richard, "Industrial Organization of Markets with Two-Sided Platforms", Competition Policy International, 3(1) (2007)
101. Sidak, Gregory, "Dynamic Competition in Antitrust Law", J. Competition Law & Economics, 5(4) (2009)
102. Solow, John L., "Doing Good Economics in the Courtroom: Thoughts on Daubert and Expert Testimony in Antitrust", J. Corp. L, 31, pp.489~ (2006)
103. Stucke, Maurice E., "Behavioral Economists at the Gate: Antitrust in the 21st Century", Loyola University Chicago Law Journal, 38 (2007)
104. Behavioral Antitrust and Monopolization, "Stucke, Maurice E.", ~, pp.University of Tennessee Legal Studies Research Paper No. 171 (2011)
105. Sullivan, Lawrence A., "Post-Chicago Economics: Economists, Lawyers, Judges, and Enforcement Official in a Less Determinate Theoretical World", Antitrust L.J, 63, pp.669~ (1995)
106. Tullock, Gordon, "A Comment on Daniel Klein's 'A Plea to Economists Who Favor Liberty", Eastern Economic Journal, (Spring) (2001)
107. Ulen, Thomas S., "Economics as a Science: Robert Nelson’s Economics as Religions", Case W. Res. L. Rev, 56, pp.649~ (2006)
108. Whish, Richard, "Competition Law , 6th.ed" (2008), Oxford University Press
109. Over the Mark? A Simple Explanation of the Chicago School’s Influence on Antitrust, "Wright, Joshua D.", ~, pp.George Mason University Law and Economics Research Paper Series 09-23 (2009)
110. Zohn, Molly L., "How Antitrust Damages Measure up with Respect to the Daubert Factors", Geo. Mason L. Rev, 13, pp.697~ (2005)

관련 논문AI추천