행정지도가 개입된 담합행위와 공정거래법의 적용제외(Exemption)제도에 관한 연구 - 소주가격 담합사례를 중심으로 -
A study of Administrative Guidance and Exemption Clause under the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act : a price fixing of Soju case
0
조회
0
다운로드
5
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
The FTC is currently condemning price-fixing of SOJU producers in Korea. This paper compares to the system of exemption regulation of EU, USA and Japan. The theoretical structure of the paper shows that the relations of the trade -off on between competition policy and industrial policy. The paper is organized as follows; A legal effect of Administrative Guidances within the exemption of antitrust law discussed in Section 2. Section 3 considers the system of Exemption Regulation on the types of EU, USA, Japan. The last section discusses harmonization of both competition policy and industry policy. Antitrust law instead of being limited to applying exemption. I think that exemption rules of Antitrust law buffers between competition policy and industry policy. However the regimes of exemption regulation in Korea do not allow ; It thus occurs to the price-fixing of SOJU. As a consequence, The Korea Supreme Court has stated that administrative guidance automatically do not exempt antitrust law, which would exclude "Justified Behavior"of §58(exemption)The important feature of the explicit exemption rules is that the type of USA and Japan. In contrast to the system of exemption rules of Japan is not an exemption from application under other individual laws in the system of exemption of Korea. Due to exemption regulation eliminates 1st amendment of Antitrust law. The aim of an exemption system, relieves trade-off of between competition policy and industry policy. The analysis above shows that the current of Exemption Regulations in EU, USA, and Japan is different to the system of Korea. The result of the study suggests that exemption applications under other individual laws through the revision of antitrust law.
Abstract
The FTC is currently condemning price-fixing of SOJU producers in Korea. This paper compares to the system of exemption regulation of EU, USA and Japan. The theoretical structure of the paper shows that the relations of the trade -off on between competition policy and industrial policy. The paper is organized as follows; A legal effect of Administrative Guidances within the exemption of antitrust law discussed in Section 2. Section 3 considers the system of Exemption Regulation on the types of EU, USA, Japan. The last section discusses harmonization of both competition policy and industry policy. Antitrust law instead of being limited to applying exemption. I think that exemption rules of Antitrust law buffers between competition policy and industry policy. However the regimes of exemption regulation in Korea do not allow ; It thus occurs to the price-fixing of SOJU. As a consequence, The Korea Supreme Court has stated that administrative guidance automatically do not exempt antitrust law, which would exclude "Justified Behavior"of §58(exemption)The important feature of the explicit exemption rules is that the type of USA and Japan. In contrast to the system of exemption rules of Japan is not an exemption from application under other individual laws in the system of exemption of Korea. Due to exemption regulation eliminates 1st amendment of Antitrust law. The aim of an exemption system, relieves trade-off of between competition policy and industry policy. The analysis above shows that the current of Exemption Regulations in EU, USA, and Japan is different to the system of Korea. The result of the study suggests that exemption applications under other individual laws through the revision of antitrust law.
참고문헌 (57)
- 공정거래위원회, "소주가격 담합인상에 대해 엄중조치 - 11개 업체에 총 272억원의 과징금 부과", 공정위 보도자료(2010. 2. 4), ~ (2010)
- 권오승, "경제법 제8판" (2010), 법문사
- 박균성, "행정법론(상) 제6판" (2007), 박영사
- 송평근, "부당한 공동행위와 행정지도", 특별법 연구, 8 (2006), 특별소송실무연구회
- 유 해 용, "부당공동행위 추정과 관련된 판례 연구(上)", 저스티스, (88)통권 : 88, pp.107~146 (2005), 한국법학원
- 유 해 용, "부당공동행위 추정과 관련된 판례 연구(下)", 저스티스, (89)통권 : 88, pp.58~86 (2006), 한국법학원
- 이남기, "경제법(제3개정판)" (2001), 박영사
- 이문지, "행정지도와 공정거래법의 적용제외 및 부당한 공동행위의 성립요건", 경영법률, 16(1), pp.647~673 (2005), 한국경영법률학회
- 이민호, "부당한 공동행위와 행정지도", 경쟁법 연구, 16 (2007), 한국경쟁법학회
- 이봉의, "공정거래법의 목적과 경쟁제한행위의 위법성, In 경제법 판례연구 제1권" (2004), 법문사
- 이 준, "EU법상 역내국가보조의 규제에 관한 연구", 박사, pp.2003
- 이호영, "規制産業과 公正去來法의 適用除外-Regulated Industries and Antitrust Exemptions", 법학논총, 23(1), pp.1~34 (2006), 법학연구소
- 이호영, "독점규제법의 이론과 실무" (2006), 홍문사
- 이황, "보험산업에 대한 공정거래법 적용의 범위와 한계- 대법원 2006. 11. 23. 선고 2004두8323 판결을 중심으로 -", 경쟁법연구, 18, pp.340~406 (2008), 한국경쟁법학회
- 임영철, "공정거래법(해설과 논점)" (2008), 법문사
- 정호열, "경제법 제2판" (2008), 박영사
- 최승재, "게임이론을 통한 행정지도의 권력성과 부당한 공동행위의 추정의 복멸 : 권력적 사실행위 도그마에 대한 비판적 검토", 경쟁법 연구, 12 (2005), 한국경쟁법학회
- 최재준, "행정지도와 공정거래법의 적용제외", 경쟁저널, (133) (2007)
- 홍명수, "카르텔 규제의 문제점과 개선방안에 관한 고찰", 경쟁법 연구, 11 (2005), 한국경쟁법학회
- 홍정선, "행정법원론(상), 제15판" (2007), 박영사
- 今村成和, "獨占禁止法入門(第四版)" (1994), 有斐閣
- 今村成和, "行政指導の適法な 限界 - 問題提起の石油カルテル 判決", 朝日新聞 昭和59. 3. 15, ~ (1981)
- 丹宗昭信, "石油ヤミカルテル刑事事件最高栽判決の意義と獨禁法上の問題點", 公正取引, (402) (1984)
- 丹宗昭信, "獨占および寡占市場 構造規制の法理" (1976)
- 藤木英雄, "行政指導と獨禁法違反罪", ジュリスト, (566) (1974)
- 福田平, "石油カルテル事件判決の問題點 - 行政刑法的觀點 からの檢討-", 商事法務, (894)
- 松下滿雄, "經濟法 第3版" (1995), 有斐閣
- 実方謙二, "獨占禁止法 第4版" (1998), 有斐閣
- 実方謙二, "獨占禁止法と現代經濟" (1976), 成文堂
- 神山敏雄, "獨禁法犯罪の 硏究" (2002), 成文堂
- 阿部純二, "石油やみカルテル刑事事件最高栽判決の意義 - 刑法上の觀點から-", 公正取引, (402) (1984)
- 林幹人, "石油カルテル の 刑事責任", ジュリスト, (813) (1984)
- 村上政博, "獨占禁止法における 判審決分析の 役割", 商事法務 (2009)
- 板倉宏, "石油 やみカルテル事件刑事判決の 意義 - 刑法上の 違法性を 中心に", 公正取引, (361) (1980)
- ABA, "Section of Antitrust Law, Section of Antitrust Law Developments(6th ed.)." (2007)
- Reflections on the Antitrust Modernization Commission, report and Recommendations, "Department of Justice", ~ (2007)
- Enforcement Perspectives on the Noerr-Pennington Doctrine ; An FTC Staff Report, "An Federal Trade Comm'n", ~ (2006)
- American Bar Association of Antitrust Law, Transition Report, "ABA", ~ (2008)
- Areeda, Phillip E, "Antitrust Law ; An Analysis of Antitrust Principles and Their Application (3d. ed.)" (2006)
- Delacourt, John T, "Restoring Rationality to Petitioning Immunity", Antitrust, 17, pp.36~ (2003)
- "DG COMP Document,White Paper on Reform of Regulation 17" (2000)
- Floyd, C. Doghlas, "Antitrust Liabilty for the Anticompetive Effects of Governmental Action Induced by Fraud", Antitrust L. J, 69, pp.403~ (2001)
- Ku, Raymond, "Antitrust Immunity, the First Amendment and settlements : defining the boundaries of the right to Petition", IND. L. REV, 33, pp.385~404 (2000)
- Majoras, Deborah, "Platt A dose of Our Own Medicine : Applying a Cost", Benefit Analysis to the FTC's Advocacy Program, 2005, pp.통권 : 2, ~
- Mark, Gregory A, "The Vestigial Constitution : The History and Significance of the Right to Petition", Fordham L. REV, 66, pp.2153~2173 (1998)
- Muris, Timothy J, "Clarifying the State Action and Noerr Exemptions", Harv. J. L. & Pub. Pol'y, 27, pp.443~453 (2004)
- OECD, "Hardcore Cartels", Meeting of the OECD Council at Ministrial Level (2000)
- OECD, "Recommendation & Best Practices, Recommendation of the Council concerning Effective Action against Hard Core Cartels", ~ (1998)
- "The Federal Trade Comm'n and the Future Development of U. S. Competition Policy, In Milton Handler Annual Antitrust Review" (2002)
- WTO, "Provisons on Hardcore Cartels", WT, W, pp.119, 2002[DOI]
- WTO, "Provisons on Hardcore Cartels", WT, W, pp.191, 2002[DOI]
- WTO, "Provisons on Hardcore Cartels", WT, W, pp.200, 2002[DOI]
- "미국법무부"[URL]
- "미국 연방거래위원회"[URL]
- "세계무역기구"[URL]
- "일본 공정취인위원회"[URL]
- "일본 국세청"[URL]