공정거래법상 부당한 지원행위의 위법성 판단 기준
Standard for Illegality of Unfair Assisting Practices under the Korea Monopoly Regulation Act
0
조회
0
다운로드
3
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
Competition policy has political and economic goals. Suppression of economic power concentration resolves a social conflict and helps development of democracy through the regulation of the unfair assisting practices as appears by late hypermarket regulation and supporting with volumes of trade of business conglomerates. The purpose of the monopoly regulation and fair trade act is to promote competition and increase consumer welfare. For market in the form of developing country as Korean market with the high percentage of a large enterprise group and barrier to entry, it could establish fair transaction order to regulate practices, to impede or likely to impede competition process and level playing fieldFor a standard of judgment unfairness of unfair assisting practices, it is desirable to identify in impediment of fair trade, not in factors unrelative to competition such as impediment of corporate transparency, protection of minority shareholders and creditors of supporting firms. Interpreting judgment of unfairness as harm to competition, causes results contrary to legislation purpose by categorize unfair assisting practices into unfair trade practices. Competition law and Antitrust law has multi-dimensional purposes. Unfairness in prohibitive provisions of unfair assisting practices, has to be interpreted as European competition impediment in Korean market that free competition except fair competition, could not be presumed. Fair transaction order has to include level playing field regardless of efficiency and competition process to preserve competition opportunities. Fair transaction order must not consist of only composition element of harm to competitor. Unfairness judgment has to be prudent because revised competition law especially could constrict business activity by over-deterrence to relax a prominence requirement into a favorableness requirement.
Abstract
Competition policy has political and economic goals. Suppression of economic power concentration resolves a social conflict and helps development of democracy through the regulation of the unfair assisting practices as appears by late hypermarket regulation and supporting with volumes of trade of business conglomerates. The purpose of the monopoly regulation and fair trade act is to promote competition and increase consumer welfare. For market in the form of developing country as Korean market with the high percentage of a large enterprise group and barrier to entry, it could establish fair transaction order to regulate practices, to impede or likely to impede competition process and level playing fieldFor a standard of judgment unfairness of unfair assisting practices, it is desirable to identify in impediment of fair trade, not in factors unrelative to competition such as impediment of corporate transparency, protection of minority shareholders and creditors of supporting firms. Interpreting judgment of unfairness as harm to competition, causes results contrary to legislation purpose by categorize unfair assisting practices into unfair trade practices. Competition law and Antitrust law has multi-dimensional purposes. Unfairness in prohibitive provisions of unfair assisting practices, has to be interpreted as European competition impediment in Korean market that free competition except fair competition, could not be presumed. Fair transaction order has to include level playing field regardless of efficiency and competition process to preserve competition opportunities. Fair transaction order must not consist of only composition element of harm to competitor. Unfairness judgment has to be prudent because revised competition law especially could constrict business activity by over-deterrence to relax a prominence requirement into a favorableness requirement.
참고문헌 (32)
- 권오승, "경제법" (2008), 법문사
- 김건식, "회사법연구 I" (2010), 도서출판 소화
- 이문지, "한국 공정거래법 비판" (1997), 자유기업센터
- 이호영, "독점규제법" (2010), 법문사
- 임영철, "공정거래법" (2007), 법문사
- 공정거래법 전면 개편방안(상), "조성봉", 한국경제연구원, ~ (2004)
- 김기영, "독점규제법상 부당지원행위규제에 대한 연구", 석사, 경제법, pp.2001
- 양우평, "공정거래법상 부당지원행위의 규제에 관한 연구", 석사, 공정거래법학, pp.2009
- 홍명수, "재벌의 경제력집중 해소방안에 관한 연구", 박사, 법학, pp.2003
- 강상덕, "미국의 셔먼법 제2조와 EU 조약 제102조의 구성요건에 관한 비교 연구", 저스티스, (133), pp.194~234 (2012), 한국법학원
- 채이배, 일감몰아주기에 대한 공정거래법 규율의 실효성 제고방안, "김우찬", ~ (2013)
- 박해식, "부당한 지원행위에 있어서의 지원의도의 인정방법", 대법원 판례해설, 통권 : 55 (2005), 법원도서관
- 서정, "부당한 지원행위 규제에 관한 연구", 박사, 법학, pp.2008
- 서정, "부당지원행의 규제, 만능 치유책인가?-목적과 수단의 정합성에 관한 검토-", YGBL, 3(2) (2011)
- 송옥렬, "신주인수권부사채의 발행과 공정거래법상 부당한 지원행위 대상판결: 대법원 2004. 9. 24. 선고 2001두6364 판결", BFL, (10) (2005)
- 신영수, "공정거래법상 현저한 규모에 의한 지원행위(물량몰아주기)의 위법성 판단기준", 고려법학, (64), pp.401~439 (2012), 법학연구원
- 심재한, "공정거래법상의 부당내부거래", 영남법학, (31), pp.221~244 (2010), 법학연구소
- 이호영, "상품․용역 거래를 통한 계열회사 지원의 규제", 경제법판례연구, 1
- 유진희, "계약상의 콘체른-독일 주식법을 중심으로", 안암법학, (3) (1995)
- 윤창호, "대기업집단 내부거래 규제에 대한 연구", 산업조직연구, 15(1)
- 주진열, "공정거래법상 부당지원행위 규제에 대한 비판적 고찰", 서울대학교 법학, 53(1), pp.637~667 (2012), 법학연구소
- 최정표, "재벌체제의 시장경쟁제한효과", 한국경제연구, 16, pp.197~225 (2006), 한국경제연구학회
- 하종대, "가. 지하철 벽면광고를 하면서 계열회사에 관한 내용을 포함시켜 광고하면서도 그 계열회사에게 광고비 분담을 요구하지 않은 행위가 지원행위에 해당하는지 여부 및 지원행위의 부당성 판단기준 나. 사업경영상 또는 거래상의 필요성 내지 합리성과 지원행위의 부당성의 관계", 대법원 판례해설, (58) (2005), 법원도서관
- 홍대식, "부당지원행위의 부당성 판단에서의 사업경영상 필요성의 지위와 역할", 경쟁법연구, 24, pp.30~64 (2011), 한국경쟁법학회
- Amy Marshak, "The Federal Trade Commission on the Frontier: Suggestions for the Use of Section", N.Y.U. L. Rev, 5, pp.86~ (2011)
- Herbert Hovenkamp, "The Federal Trade Commission and the Sherman Act", Fla. L. Rev, 62 (2010)
- Fox, "Economic Development, Poverty and Antitrust : The Other Path", SW. J.L. &. TRADE AM, 13 (2007)
- Fox, "Antitrust and Regulatory Federalism: Races Up, Down, And Sideways", N.Y.U. L. Rev, 75 (2000)
- Jay Modrall, "EU Antitrust Fines and Their M&A Implications", Competition L. Int'L (2013)
- Robert S. Schlossberg, "Plurality, Copperweld, and the Single Enterprise Doctrine, In Issues in Competition Law and Policy(volume Ⅱ)"
- Richard A. Posner, "The Federal Trade Commission: A Retrospective", Antitrust L. J, 72 (2005)
- Thomas Dahdouh, "Section 5, The FTC and its Critics: Just Who Are The Radicals Here?", CJAUCL, (2), pp.1~20 (2011)