Supreme Court Rulings on Determining the Cartel End Date
0
조회
0
다운로드
0
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
Since the very nature of cartels is to operate in ways that are undisclosed and difficult to track, it is often a matter of heated dispute in courts as to when a cartel has ended or been abandoned. Moreover, the cartel duration is a critical issue because it affects not only the level of sanctions imposed, but also the damages amount sought against the cartelists. The Korean Supreme Court has issued several important rulings regarding this matter, but there still remain areas where further guidance and clarification would be beneficial. Thus, this article explores the relevant Korean Supreme Court rulings and concludes that it is time for the highest court to further articulate the legal test for determining the ending date of a cartel in an effort to eliminate legal uncertainty and establish clearer guidance for market participants.
Abstract
Since the very nature of cartels is to operate in ways that are undisclosed and difficult to track, it is often a matter of heated dispute in courts as to when a cartel has ended or been abandoned. Moreover, the cartel duration is a critical issue because it affects not only the level of sanctions imposed, but also the damages amount sought against the cartelists. The Korean Supreme Court has issued several important rulings regarding this matter, but there still remain areas where further guidance and clarification would be beneficial. Thus, this article explores the relevant Korean Supreme Court rulings and concludes that it is time for the highest court to further articulate the legal test for determining the ending date of a cartel in an effort to eliminate legal uncertainty and establish clearer guidance for market participants.
참고문헌 (30)
- "Verizon Communications v. Law Offices of Curtis V. Trinko, 540 U.S. 398, 408 (2004)", ~
- "Commission fines member of organic peroxides cartel"[URL]
- "Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act, Act No.13450, Sept. 25, 2015, Article 49", ~
- "Supreme Court, 2015Du37396, May 28, 2015", ~
- "Article 71 of the MRFTA", ~
- "Guidelines for Criminal Complaint for the MRFTA", Korea Fair Trade Commission Regulation No. 196, July 22, 2014, ~ (2014)
- "Supreme Court, 2004Du11275, Mar. 24, 2006", ~
- "The U.S. Supreme Court in United States v. Kissel, 218 U.S. 601 (1910)", ~
- "The U.S. Supreme Court in Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 401 U.S. 321 (1971)", ~
- "United States v. A-A-A- Elec. Co., 788 F.2d 242 (4th Cir. 1996)", ~
- "United States v. Therm-All, Inc., 373 F.3d 625(5th Cir. 2004)", ~
- Herbert Hovenkamp, "Federal Antitrust Policy: The Law of Competition and Its Practice", pp.634~ (2005)
- "Supreme Court, 2007Du3756, Sept. 25, 2008", ~
- "Supreme Court, 2008Du16179, Jan. 3, 2009", ~
- "Supreme Court , 2008Du16339, June 25, 2009", ~
- "Supreme Court, 2013Du6169, Feb. 12, 2015", ~
- "Supreme Court, 2007Du12774, Oct. 23, 2008", ~
- "United States v. U.S. Gypsum Co., 438 U.S. 422, 464-65 (1978)", ~
- "Cimenteries CBR and Others v. Commission, 2000 ECR II-491", ~
- "Adriatica di Navigazione v. Commission 2003 ECR II-05349", ~
- "KFTC Decision, 2005-080, June 24, 2005", ~
- "Supreme Court, 2006Du18928, Nov. 29, 2007", ~
- "KFTC Decision, 2008-082, Mar. 5, 2008", ~
- "KFTC Decision, 2010-143, Nov. 29, 2010", ~
- "KFTC Decision, 2010-144, Nov. 29, 2010", ~
- "Akzo Nobel and Others v. Commission, 2009 ECR I-8237", ~
- "Morton’s Mkt. v. Gustafson’s Dairy, 198 F.3d 823(11th Cir. 1999)", ~
- , 2013Du987, Feb. 12, 2015,
- "KFTC Decision, 2007-443, Sept. 12, 2007", ~
- "KFTC Decision, 2009-249, Nov. 9, 2009", ~