본문 바로가기
KERD
논문KCI 등재

Antitrust Implications of Defense Development Projects in South Korea: The Case of the KSS-III Project

Joseph I. Y. Cho
한국국방연구원 (Korea Institute for Defense Analyses)|2013.03|The Korean Journal of Defense Analysis|제25권 제1호|pp. 37-57|DOI 10.22883/kjda.2013.25.1.003

0

조회

0

다운로드

0

인용

0

참고문헌

키워드

submarineKorean Fair Trade CommissionRepublic of Korea (ROK)defense R&Dfair and open competition

초록

Following almost three years of an in-depth investigation, the Korean Fair Trade Commission (KFTC) has recently issued a decision on February 5, 2012 penalizing four domestic defense contractors for perpetrating bid-rigging in connection with the KSS-III submarine development project. This KFTC decision is quite significant in that it is the first-ever collusion case involving a defense research and development (R&D) project in the history of the Republic of Korea (ROK). The purpose of this paper is to attempt a critical appraisal of the KFTC’s Definitive Decision. Toward this end, the paper will first describe the KSS-III project, which is the first indigenous submarine development project in the ROK, and its bidding process. The paper will go on to survey the KFTC’s investigation process including the onset of the investigation and pertinent legislative framework, leading up to the agency’s preliminary report, plenary session, and, finally, the Definitive Decision. The paper will then attempt to critique the KFTC decision including a comparative analysis of the U.S. government procurement process and its legislative framework. The paper will finally end with certain policy recommendations for the ROK government relative to teaming arrangements in the defense R&D setting.

Abstract

Following almost three years of an in-depth investigation, the Korean Fair Trade Commission (KFTC) has recently issued a decision on February 5, 2012 penalizing four domestic defense contractors for perpetrating bid-rigging in connection with the KSS-III submarine development project. This KFTC decision is quite significant in that it is the first-ever collusion case involving a defense research and development (R&D) project in the history of the Republic of Korea (ROK). The purpose of this paper is to attempt a critical appraisal of the KFTC’s Definitive Decision. Toward this end, the paper will first describe the KSS-III project, which is the first indigenous submarine development project in the ROK, and its bidding process. The paper will go on to survey the KFTC’s investigation process including the onset of the investigation and pertinent legislative framework, leading up to the agency’s preliminary report, plenary session, and, finally, the Definitive Decision. The paper will then attempt to critique the KFTC decision including a comparative analysis of the U.S. government procurement process and its legislative framework. The paper will finally end with certain policy recommendations for the ROK government relative to teaming arrangements in the defense R&D setting.

참고문헌 (102)

  1. (2012)[URL]
  2. "deliberates, decides, and handles antitrust cases"[URL]
  6. "the author’s personal interview with former Admiral H.K. Kim", ~
  7. "Military Delays Heavy Submarine Project" (2009)[URL]
  8. "Military Delays Heavy Submarine Project" (2009)[URL]
  9. "Military Delays Heavy Submarine Project" (2009)[URL]
  10. "Military Delays Heavy Submarine Project" (2009)[URL]
  12. "ADD"[URL]
  15. "Definitive Decision, par. 48", ~
  16. "Definitive Decision, par. 51", ~
  17. "STC"[URL]
  18. "LIG"[URL]
  19. "Definitive Decision, par. 51", ~
  20. "part 2.6.4 of the CM RFP at 341", ~
  21. "Definitive Decision, par. 14", ~
  22. "Definitive Decision, par. 48", ~
  23. "Definitive Decision, par. 32", ~
  24. "Definitive Decision, par. 36", ~
  25. "Definitive Decision, at par. 36", ~
  27. "Article 18 of the Defense Acquisition Program Law (titled Research and Development), No. 8852", ~ (2008)
  28. , art. 9, 10 & 20, , ~, pp.Presidential Decree No. 23610 (2010)
  29. "Definitive Decision, par. 3", ~
  30. "Definitive Decision, par. 77", ~
  32. , Law No. 7796 (1961), , 2011
  33. , Law No. 7796 (1961), , 2011
  34. In the Matter of four business entities’ improper concerted activity in connection with the KSS-III combat management and SONAR related tenders, , Korea Fair Trade Commission, ~, pp.2011 Ka-Chong 1847 (2011)
  35. Preliminary Report, , 5~
  36. Preliminary Report, , 69~
  37. Preliminary Report, , 69~
  38. Preliminary Report, , 36~
  39. Preliminary Report, , 38~
  40. Preliminary Report, , 41~
  41. Preliminary Report, , 42~43
  42. "Definitive Decision, par. 23", ~
  43. Preliminary Report, , 68~
  44. Preliminary Report, , 68~
  45. Preliminary Report, , 18~
  46. Preliminary Report, , 18~
  47. Preliminary Report, , 68~
  48. Preliminary Report, , 76~
  49. Preliminary Report, , 78~
  51. Kang Soo-jin, "Due Process in Competition Law Enforcement", ~ (2010)
  53. , Law. No. 4868, art. 23, , 1995
  54. , Law No. 11377, , 2012
  55. "Definitive Decision, par. 2", ~
  56. "Definitive Decision, par. 2", ~
  57. "Definitive Decision, pars. 40–47", ~
  58. "Definitive Decision, par. 163", ~
  59. "Table 5 and Definitive Decision, par. 165", ~
  60. "Definitive Decision, par. 145", ~
  61. "Definitive Decision, par. 146", ~
  62. "Definitive Decision, par. 148", ~
  63. "Definitive Decision, par. 149", ~
  64. "Definitive Decision, pars. 168–69", ~
  65. "Definitive Decision, pars. 168–69", ~
  66. "Definitive Decision, par. 59", ~
  67. "Definitive Decision, par. 61", ~
  68. Preliminary Report, , 18~
  69. "Definitive Decision, pars. 63–66", ~
  70. "Definitive Decision, par. 171", ~
  71. "Definitive Decision, par. 171", ~
  72. "Definitive Decision, par. 173", ~
  73. "Definitive Decision, par. 173", ~
  75. "Guidelines for Concerted Practice Review", ~ (2002)
  78. , 2008 Doe6341, , 2011
  79. "Northrop Corporation vs. McDonnell Douglas Corporation 705 F.2d 1030, 1050", ~ (1983)
  80. "Definitive Decision, par. 187", ~
  81. Khi V. Thai, "Advancing Public Procurement: Practices, Innovation and Knowledge Sharing, In Advancing Public Procurement: Practices, Innovation and Knowledge Sharing", pp.5~ (2007), PrAcademics Press
  82. William E. Kovacic, "Antitrust Analysis of Joint Ventures and Teaming Arrangements involving Government Contractors", Antitrust Law Journal, 58(3), pp.5~ (1989)
  83. "FAR 9.601", ~
  84. "FAR 9.602(a)", ~
  85. "FAR 9.602(b)", ~
  86. Wendy A. Polk, "Antitrust Implications in Government Contractor Joint Venture and Teaming Combinations", Public Contract Law Journal, 28(3), pp.437~ (1999)
  87. "FAR 9.604", ~
  88. "GCL, art. 25", ~
  89. Wendy A. Polk, "Antitrust Implications in Government Contractor Joint Venture and Teaming Combinations", Public Contract Law Journal, 28(3), pp.438~ (1999)
  90. Wendy A. Polk, "Antitrust Implications in Government Contractor Joint Venture and Teaming Combinations", Public Contract Law Journal, 28(3), pp.438~ (1999)
  91. Wendy A. Polk, "Antitrust Implications in Government Contractor Joint Venture and Teaming Combinations", Public Contract Law Journal, 28(3), pp.438~ (1999)
  92. Wendy A. Polk, "Antitrust Implications in Government Contractor Joint Venture and Teaming Combinations", Public Contract Law Journal, 28(3), pp.438~ (1999)
  93. "Definitive Decision, par. 30", ~
  94. Wendy A. Polk, "Antitrust Implications in Government Contractor Joint Venture and Teaming Combinations", Public Contract Law Journal, 28(3), pp.419~ (1999)
  95. "FAR 9.602(b)", ~
  96. Major Francis Dymond, "DOD Contractor Collaborations: Proposed Procedures for Integrating Antitrust Law, Procurement Law, and Purchasing Decisions", Military Law Review, 172, pp.130~ (2002)
  97. "Preliminary Report", 18~
  100. Enforcement Decree of the Government Contract Law, art. 26, , ~, pp.Presidential Decree No. 24130 (2012)
  101. Defense Acquisition Administration Directive, art. 104.1, , ~, pp.DAPA Directive No. 188 (2012)

관련 논문AI추천

How South Korea Should Weigh the Risks and Benefits of Entering into a Reciprocal Defense Procurement Memorandum of Understanding (RDP MOU) with the United States김만기한국국방연구원 · The Korean Journal of Defense Analysis2022 · 제34권 제2호Korean Antitrust for Proof of Price-Fixing: Comparative Analysis with the U.S. Antirust최창수아시아태평양법연구소 · Journal of Korean Law2010 · 제9권 제2호The Korean Fair Trade Law Relating to the Subcontracting Field: A Critical Review on the Prevention of ‘Fixing Unreasonable Consideration’최요섭법학연구소 · 홍익법학2018 · 제19권 제2호Business Performance of the Korean Defense Industry: Current Status and Future Development Issues박준수, 양영철한국국방연구원 · The Korean Journal of Defense Analysis2014 · 제26권 제4호Effective Competition, Price Regulation and Collusion in the Telecommunications Sector박상인, 복홍석서울대학교행정대학원 · Journal of Policy Studies2009 · 제23권 제2호공공조달절차상 컨소시엄 입찰에 대한 경쟁법의 적용에 관한 연구이호영법학연구원 · 법학논총2011 · 제28권 제1호

이 간행물의 다른 논문 (7건)

Long-Stalled Six-Party Talks on North Korea’s Nuclear Program: Positions of Countries Involved정은숙pp. 1-15An Analysis of Strategic Effects of the ROK-U.S. Alliance and Relocation of the USFK: Implementation and Prospects박기철, 윤영미pp. 17-36The Taliban Factor in the Republic of Korea’s Afghanistan StrategyNiu Songpp. 59-72South Korea’s Pivot toward Iran: Resource Diplomacy and ROK-Iran SanctionsHarald Olsenpp. 73-85An Analysis of Political Instability in the DPRK: Identity, Interest, and Leader-Elite Relations김진아pp. 87-107
원문 보기