대리점 거래에 대한 연구
The Study on the Dealership Agreement
0
조회
0
다운로드
10
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
Up to now, Korean Commercial Code doesn't have special provision on a dealership agreement. Generally, Unfair trade practices in dealership agreement are restrained by Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act of Korea (herein after “Korean Anti-Monopoly Act”)Article 23. Lately, with so-called 'Namyang Dairy Products Co., Ltd. affair' as a momentum, the issue related with unfair practices such as 'Pushing-Out' in distributorship agreement looks set to spread to the society at large. Political community also seeks to counteract those problems with legislative measures. It is to enact a special act for regulating distributorship agreement or to revise the Korean Anti-Monopoly Act. Unfair trade practices through the Fair Trade Commission Survey revealed the following: Forced Purchase, Forced Sales Target, Imputed Cost of Sales Promotion·Salesperson's Wages, Demand Money and Valuables, Offering Disadvantages, Unfair Reject of Returns, Unfair Intervention in Management and Unfair Termination of Contract, etc. Typically, these unfair trade practices in the market are due to an imbalance of power. First and foremost, it is necessary to find nature and to set up concept of dealership agreement. The purpose of discussion is to set up fundamental concept of dealership agreement and to provide an institutional strategy for resolving unfair trade practices. Dealership agreement is continual trade relationship between a provider and a dealer who wants to sell goods in his own name through purchase and consignment trade for some period of time. That is, purchase trade is to buy from provider and resell goods in the dealer's name and for the dealer's profit. Consignment trade is to buy goods in the dealer's name and to sell them to large scale retailer for the provider's profit. There are Institutional strategy for resolving unfair trade practices: Restitution Order, Punitive Damage, making the best use of Claim System for Accusation Duty or Small & Medium Business Administration etc.
Abstract
Up to now, Korean Commercial Code doesn't have special provision on a dealership agreement. Generally, Unfair trade practices in dealership agreement are restrained by Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act of Korea (herein after “Korean Anti-Monopoly Act”)Article 23. Lately, with so-called 'Namyang Dairy Products Co., Ltd. affair' as a momentum, the issue related with unfair practices such as 'Pushing-Out' in distributorship agreement looks set to spread to the society at large. Political community also seeks to counteract those problems with legislative measures. It is to enact a special act for regulating distributorship agreement or to revise the Korean Anti-Monopoly Act. Unfair trade practices through the Fair Trade Commission Survey revealed the following: Forced Purchase, Forced Sales Target, Imputed Cost of Sales Promotion·Salesperson's Wages, Demand Money and Valuables, Offering Disadvantages, Unfair Reject of Returns, Unfair Intervention in Management and Unfair Termination of Contract, etc. Typically, these unfair trade practices in the market are due to an imbalance of power. First and foremost, it is necessary to find nature and to set up concept of dealership agreement. The purpose of discussion is to set up fundamental concept of dealership agreement and to provide an institutional strategy for resolving unfair trade practices. Dealership agreement is continual trade relationship between a provider and a dealer who wants to sell goods in his own name through purchase and consignment trade for some period of time. That is, purchase trade is to buy from provider and resell goods in the dealer's name and for the dealer's profit. Consignment trade is to buy goods in the dealer's name and to sell them to large scale retailer for the provider's profit. There are Institutional strategy for resolving unfair trade practices: Restitution Order, Punitive Damage, making the best use of Claim System for Accusation Duty or Small & Medium Business Administration etc.
참고문헌 (29)
- 공정거래위원회, "공정위, 대리점거래 관행 개선을위해 실태파악 및 제도 개선방안 마련에 나서", 2013. 6. 11.자, 보도자료, ~ (2013)
- 공정거래위원회, "남양유업(주)의 부당한 밀어내기 등 불공정행위 엄중제재", 2013. 7. 8.자, 보도자료, ~ (2013)
- 국회의원 김제남, "공정위 보고서 확인결과, 특약점 분할·제품 밀어내기·일방적계약해지 등 대리점 불공정거래행위 여전히 만연", 2013. 9. 26.자, 보도자료, ~ (2013)
- 권오승, "경제법" (2013), 법문사
- 권오승, "독점규제 및 공정거래관련법의 집행시스템", 서울대학교 법학, 51(4), pp.211~228 (2010), 법학연구소
- 김화진, "상법강의" (2013), 박영사
- 서헌제, "사례중심체계 상법강의(상)" (2007), 법문사
- 신동권, "독점규제법" (2011), 박영사
- 권오승, "가맹사업거래의 공정화에 관한 법률의 쟁점에 관한 고찰", 기업법연구, 25(1), pp.273~296 (2011), 한국기업법학회
- 오원석, "國際販賣店契約의 主要條項(ICC Model Distributorship Contract (Pub.518)을 中心으로)", 무역유통연구, 26 (2005), 한국무역상무학회
- 오원석, "국제비지니스계약" (2003), 삼양사
- 이건묵, "대리점본사의 불공정거래행위 입법쟁점과 과제", 이슈와 논점, (667) (2013), 국회입법조사처
- 이봉의, "大⋅中小企業 共生發展을 위한 法의 役割", 저스티스, 134(2), pp.221~238 (2013), 한국법학원
- 이한무, "가맹사업법 해설: 실무 및 소송의 쟁점", 법률정보센터, ~ (2009)
- 장준근, "(알기 쉽게 해설한) 가맹사업법 : 프랜차이즈 사업자가 알아야 할 쉽고, 체계적인 가맹사업법 해설", 리걸플러스, ~ (2011)
- 정찬형, "상법개론" (2013), 법영사
- 정홍식, "국제대리상계약 상의 주요 법률쟁점 -ICC 모델 대리상계약서를 중심으로-", 상사법연구, 30(1), pp.207~240 (2011), 한국상사법학회
- 조성국, "시장지배적지위 남용행위의 비교법적 고찰 및 시사점", 서울대법학연구소 경쟁법센터 제4차 정책세미나 발표논문 (2009)
- 조혜신, "대리점거래에서의 밀어내기 등 불공정거래행위에 대한 경쟁법적 규제 방안 검토", 법학연구, 16(2), pp.53~85 (2013), 법학연구소
- 조혜신, "｢대규모유통업에서의 거래 공정화에 관한 법률｣의 제정 의의에 대한 검토", 법학논총, 36(2), pp.3~33 (2012), 법학연구소
- 중촌수웅, "실무 영문국제계약" (2004), 우용출판사
- 최영홍, "딜러계약의 법리", 경영법률, 22(2), pp.147~180 (2012), 한국경영법률학회
- 최영홍, "가맹계약론" (2003), 프랜차이즈시스템연구소
- 홍대식, "사법적 관점에서 본 불공정 거래 행위", 경쟁법연구, 18, pp.203~243 (2008), 한국경쟁법학회
- ABA Section of Antitrust Law, "Antitrust Law Developments, Volume Ⅰ" (2012), ABA Book Publishing
- ABA Section of Antitrust Law, "Antitrust Handbook for Franchise and Distribution Practitioners" (2008), America Bar Association
- ABA Section of Antitrust Law, "The Franchise and Dealership Termination Handbook" (2004), ABA Publishing
- Baker, "Vertical Restraints with Horizontal Consequences: Competitive Effects of Most-Favored-Customer Clauses", Antitrust L. J, 64, pp.517~ (1996)
- Gavil, Andrew I., "Antitrust Law in perspective: cases, concepts, and problems in competition policy In American casebook series", pp.2002, Thomson