본문 바로가기
KERD
논문KCI 등재

행정지도가 개입된 부당한 공동행위 관련 판례평석(判例評釋) (서울고법 2011. 6. 2. 선고 2010누21718판결)

A STUDY OF PRECEDENT

0

조회

0

다운로드

1

인용

0

참고문헌

키워드

초록

Government agencies give enterprises administrative guidance. Administrative guidance refers to the guidance, recommendations and advice. If the actions of those enterprises that follow such administrative guidance fall under Article 19 Section 1, the problem arises as to whether there has been a violation of the prohibition of such cartel. This is because although in theory, administrative guidance has no legal binding effect, in reality there are practical restraints in their freedom to act. The exemption of administrative guidance from the Fair Trading Act cannot be tolerated under the Organization Act. If such exemptions for cartel are allowed under the Organization Act, virtually all industrial component authorities will be able to state that acts of enterprises inside the applicable industry will be excluded from the Fair Trading Act on the basis of the Organization Act, thus causing a nullifying effect on the Fair Trading Act. In considering supreme court precedents and American supreme court precedents, in order to be allowed cartel from being established, 1) the administrative authorities must take specific and direct actions near disposal relating to cartel in order to realize their goals 2) proper administrative action legally related to enterprises through the supervision of administrative authorities must be done within the jurisdiction of the proper office 3) with the minimal necessary action, the legislation must be one that specifically acknowledges the exemption of enterprises that need a high degree of regulation from open competition 4) any other objectives of the administrative authority must be clearly made 5) there must be active supervision by proper administrative authorities 6) there is the requirement that enterprises, in performing according to proper administrative guidance, will not have any additional consultation. The exemption under Article 58 of the Law should be construed narrowly and strictly. However, in cases relating to administrative guidance concerning restriction of competition, government agencies should confer to the FTC in advance.

Abstract

Government agencies give enterprises administrative guidance. Administrative guidance refers to the guidance, recommendations and advice. If the actions of those enterprises that follow such administrative guidance fall under Article 19 Section 1, the problem arises as to whether there has been a violation of the prohibition of such cartel. This is because although in theory, administrative guidance has no legal binding effect, in reality there are practical restraints in their freedom to act. The exemption of administrative guidance from the Fair Trading Act cannot be tolerated under the Organization Act. If such exemptions for cartel are allowed under the Organization Act, virtually all industrial component authorities will be able to state that acts of enterprises inside the applicable industry will be excluded from the Fair Trading Act on the basis of the Organization Act, thus causing a nullifying effect on the Fair Trading Act. In considering supreme court precedents and American supreme court precedents, in order to be allowed cartel from being established, 1) the administrative authorities must take specific and direct actions near disposal relating to cartel in order to realize their goals 2) proper administrative action legally related to enterprises through the supervision of administrative authorities must be done within the jurisdiction of the proper office 3) with the minimal necessary action, the legislation must be one that specifically acknowledges the exemption of enterprises that need a high degree of regulation from open competition 4) any other objectives of the administrative authority must be clearly made 5) there must be active supervision by proper administrative authorities 6) there is the requirement that enterprises, in performing according to proper administrative guidance, will not have any additional consultation. The exemption under Article 58 of the Law should be construed narrowly and strictly. However, in cases relating to administrative guidance concerning restriction of competition, government agencies should confer to the FTC in advance.

참고문헌 (16)

  1. 권오승, "경제법" (2011), 법문사
  2. 양명조, "경제법강의 제9판" (2011), 신조사
  3. 신현윤, "경제법" (2011), 법문사
  4. 이호영, "독점규제법" (2005), 홍문사
  5. 정호열, "경제법" (2008), 박영사
  6. 이남기, "경제법" (1999), 박영사
  7. 이호영, "규제산업과 공정거래의 적용제외", 서울대 공정거래법과 규제산업 교재, ~
  8. 김승범, "행정지도가 개입된 담합행위와 공정거래법의 적용제외(Exemption)제도에 관한 연구 - 소주가격 담합사례를 중심으로 -", 상사판례연구, 24(1), pp.311~353 (2011), 한국상사판례학회
  9. 홍명수, "카르텔 규제의 문제점과 개선방안에 관한 고찰", 경쟁법연구, 11 (2005), 한국경쟁법학회
  10. 이민호, "부당한 공동행위와 행정지도", 경쟁법 연구, 16 (2007), 한국경쟁법학회
  11. 이봉의, "공정거래법의 목적과 경쟁제한행위의 위법성, In 경제법판례연구 제1권" (2004), 법문사
  12. 김현, "부당한 공동행위의 적용예외에 대한 고찰", 사법연수원, ~ (2001)
  13. 강정민, "행정지도가 개입된 부당한 공동행위 사례분석", 기업지배구조연구, 35 (2010)
  14. 박종권, "공정거래법상 부당한 공동행위의 추정과 행정지도", 영남법학, (29), pp.159~196 (2009), 법학연구소
  15. 박종흔, "부당한 공동행위에 대한 판례 검토, 기업소송연구, 2005년(Ⅱ)" (2006), 다사랑
  16. Phillip E. Areeda, "AntitrustLaw vol.Ⅰ" (2000), Aspen Law & Business

관련 논문AI추천

이 간행물의 다른 논문 (10건)