공정거래법상 재판매가격유지행위 규제의 입법적 개선 - 최저재판매가격유지행위의 위법성 판단기준을 중심으로 -
Legislative Improvements on Prohibition of Resale Price Maintenance under the Korea Monopoly Regulation Act
0
조회
0
다운로드
8
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
The Korea Supreme Court recently held that even minimum resale price maintenance should be allowed under the Korea Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act (hereinafter ‘KMRFTA' or 'Act) if its pro-competitive effect outweighs its anti-competitive effect. This holding was quite surprising because most of commentators including Korea Fair Trade Commission (hereinafter ‘KFTC'), the Korean competition authority had long opined that the minimum resale price maintenance was illegal per se in light of the explicit provisions on Section 29 (1)of the KMRFTA. The Korea Supreme Court was presumably influenced by the Leegin decision rendered by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2007. The U.S. Supreme Court also overruled the per se rule applied to minimum resale price maintenance which was one of the oldest antitrust precedents. The Court explicitly based its holding upon various pro-competitive potentials of resale price maintenance which mainstream economists have consistently suggested. It relinquished old common law ‘rule against unreasonable restraints upon alienation of property' reflected in the per se rule against the minimum resale maintenance. Instead the Court emphasized its actual effect upon competition as antitrust guiding principle applied to practices setting resale prices. Now, it is time to consider legislative amendments on the prohibition of resale price maintenance and make up proper rules to evaluate trade practices fixing resale price under the KMRFTA. The legislative amendments and law enforcement rules should fully take into consideration both the harms to competition and offsetting economic benefits of resale price maintenance. The focus should be upon its effect on inter-brand competition, intra-brand competition and efficient distribution of branded goods, not the old notion of free exercise of price setting power by resellers.
Abstract
The Korea Supreme Court recently held that even minimum resale price maintenance should be allowed under the Korea Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act (hereinafter ‘KMRFTA' or 'Act) if its pro-competitive effect outweighs its anti-competitive effect. This holding was quite surprising because most of commentators including Korea Fair Trade Commission (hereinafter ‘KFTC'), the Korean competition authority had long opined that the minimum resale price maintenance was illegal per se in light of the explicit provisions on Section 29 (1)of the KMRFTA. The Korea Supreme Court was presumably influenced by the Leegin decision rendered by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2007. The U.S. Supreme Court also overruled the per se rule applied to minimum resale price maintenance which was one of the oldest antitrust precedents. The Court explicitly based its holding upon various pro-competitive potentials of resale price maintenance which mainstream economists have consistently suggested. It relinquished old common law ‘rule against unreasonable restraints upon alienation of property' reflected in the per se rule against the minimum resale maintenance. Instead the Court emphasized its actual effect upon competition as antitrust guiding principle applied to practices setting resale prices. Now, it is time to consider legislative amendments on the prohibition of resale price maintenance and make up proper rules to evaluate trade practices fixing resale price under the KMRFTA. The legislative amendments and law enforcement rules should fully take into consideration both the harms to competition and offsetting economic benefits of resale price maintenance. The focus should be upon its effect on inter-brand competition, intra-brand competition and efficient distribution of branded goods, not the old notion of free exercise of price setting power by resellers.
참고문헌 (33)
- 고경민, "재판매가격유지행위의 위법성 판단기준 - 한국캘러웨이골프 사례를 중심으로", 경쟁저널, (157) (2011)
- 공정거래위원회, "시장경제 창달의 발자취 - 공정거래위원회 20년사" (2001)
- 권오승, "경제법 제8판" (2010), 법문사
- 김성묵, "재판매가격유지행위(RPM)에 관한 미 연방대법원판결 변천’", 경쟁저널, (136) (2008)
- 김원규, "미국 반트러스트법상의 재판매가격유지행위 규제에 관한 연구", 경영법률, 20(1), pp.593~626 (2009), 한국경영법률학회
- 김태진, "현행 공정거래법상의 재판매가격유지행위금지* － Dr. Miles 원칙과 Leegin Creative Leather Products, Inc. v. PSKS, Inc. 사건을 통하여 살펴본 현행 재판매가격유지행위금지제도에 대한 재고찰 －", 상사법연구, 27(1), pp.311~354 (2008), 한국상사법학회
- 김학현, "공정거래법상 단독행위 규제제도의 합리적 개편방안", 박사, pp.2011
- 손금주, "최저재판매가격유지행위에 대한 합리성의 원칙 적용 가능성", 경쟁저널, (151) (2010)
- 신광식, "재판매가격유지제도의 법경제학’, 법경제연구(Ⅰ)" (1991), 한국개발연구원
- 신광식, "재판매가격유지행위의 규제제도 개선방안", 경쟁법연구, 5 (1994)
- 신현윤, "경제법" (2006), 법문사
- 양명조, "경제법강의(제8판)" (2010), 신조사
- 이기수, "경제법(제7판)" (2006), 세창출판사
- 이동신, "재판매가격유지행위의 규제와 가격표시제의 문제점, In 경제법의 제 문제" (2000), 법원도서관
- 이봉의, "공정거래법상 재판매가격유지행위의 개념 및 위법성, in 최근 독점규제법 주요판례의 법⋅경제학적 분석", 2011년 한국법경제학회 하계학술대회 자료집 (2011)
- 이호영, "공정거래법상 수직적 공동행위의 규제에 관한 연구", 경영법률, 21(4), pp.563~596 (2011), 한국경영법률학회
- 이호영, "독점규제법(제3판)" (2011), 홍문사
- 이호영, "독점규제법상 상표내 경쟁제한행위의 규제에 관한 연구: 미국 판례 및 학설과의 비교법적 고찰을 중심으로", 박사, pp.2003
- 임영철, "공정거래법-해설과 논점" (2007), 법문사
- 정호열, "경제법(제2판)" (2008), 박영사
- 재판매가격유지행위의 위법성 판단기준에 관한 최근 판례분석, "조성국", 경제법판례연구회, ~ (2011)
- 조정욱, "재판매가격유지행위(최저가격유지행위)에 대한 규제", 경쟁저널, (152) (2010)
- 홍명수, "경제법론 Ⅱ" (2010), 경인문화사
- Leegin 판결이 남긴 것, "홍명수", 경제법판례연구회, ~ (2011)
- 根岸 哲, "注釈 独占禁止法" (2009), 有斐閣
- 厚谷 襄児, "条解 独占禁止法" (1997), 弘文堂
- Areeda, "Antitrust Law 2d ed" (2004)
- "FTC, In the Matter of Nine West Group Inc", Docket No. C-3937, May 6,2008, ~ (2008)
- Kirkwood, "Rethinking antitrust policy toward RPM", The Antitrust Bulletin, 55(2) (2010)
- Klein, "Competitive Resale Price Maintenance in the Absence of Free-Riding", Antitrust L.J, 76, pp.431~ (2009)
- Lambert, "A Decision-theoretic Rule of Reason for Minimum Resale Price Maintenance", The Antitrust Bulletin, 55(1) (2010)
- Posner, "The Next Step in the Antitrust Treatment of Restricted Distribution: Per Se Legality", U. Chi. L. Rev, 48, pp.6~ (1981)
- Sullivan, "The Law of Antitrust: An Integrated Handbook (2d ed.)" (2008), Thomson & West