부당한 공동행위 합의 입증의 문제
A Study on the Proof of Cartel
3
조회
0
다운로드
3
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
Korean Antitrust law, “MONOPOLY REGULATION AND FAIR TRADE ACT”regulates cartels. This dissertation mainly analyzes legislations, scholarly works and precedents re proving cartels through indirect evidences. Proving cartels through indirect evidence is related to defining plus factors in conscious parallelism. There are also many recent cartel cases of EU discussing indirect evidences. Indirect evidences may be categorized as ①parallel behaviors, ② communications, ③ firm conducts, and ④ market structures. Generally speaking, parallel behavior and communication evidences are more important than firm conduct or market structure evidences. Among firm conduct or market structure evidences, evidences of (i) motivation for agreement, (ii) parallelism too close for coincidence, (iii) actions against self interest but giving collective benefits, and (iv) absence of independent reasons are important. The evidentiary values of economic evidences can not be easily generalized. Economic evidences of firm conduct is more important than those of market structure. Evidences of facilitating practices or furtive behaviors are less important than others.
Abstract
Korean Antitrust law, “MONOPOLY REGULATION AND FAIR TRADE ACT”regulates cartels. This dissertation mainly analyzes legislations, scholarly works and precedents re proving cartels through indirect evidences. Proving cartels through indirect evidence is related to defining plus factors in conscious parallelism. There are also many recent cartel cases of EU discussing indirect evidences. Indirect evidences may be categorized as ①parallel behaviors, ② communications, ③ firm conducts, and ④ market structures. Generally speaking, parallel behavior and communication evidences are more important than firm conduct or market structure evidences. Among firm conduct or market structure evidences, evidences of (i) motivation for agreement, (ii) parallelism too close for coincidence, (iii) actions against self interest but giving collective benefits, and (iv) absence of independent reasons are important. The evidentiary values of economic evidences can not be easily generalized. Economic evidences of firm conduct is more important than those of market structure. Evidences of facilitating practices or furtive behaviors are less important than others.
참고문헌 (26)
- 권오승, "경제법 제 6판" (2008)
- 양명조, "경제법강의 (제7판)" (2009)
- 이남기, "경제법"
- 임영철, "공정거래법 해설과 논점" (2007), 법문사
- 정호열, "경제법 (제2판)" (2008)
- Alison Jones, "EC Competition Law, 3d ed" (2008), Oxford University Press
- American Bar Association, "Section of Antitrust, Antitrust Law Developments (vol. I, 6th ed.)" (2007)
- Areeda, Phillip E, "Antitrust Law: An Analysis of Antitrust Principles and Their Application" (2003), Aspen Law & Business
- Herbert Hovenkamp, "Antitrust Law: An Analysis of Antitrust Principles and Their Application" (1998), Aspen Law & Business
- Hovenkamp, "Federal Antitrust Policy: The Law of Competition and Its Practice(3d ed.)" (2005), West Group
- Mark Furse, "Competition Law of the EC and UK, 6th ed" (2008), Oxford University Press
- Mark Furse, "Competition Law of the EC and UK, 5th ed" (2006), Oxford University Press
- Richard A. Posner, "Antitrust Law (2nd ed.)" (2001), University of Chicago Press
- 金井貴嗣, "獨占禁止法" (2004), 弘文堂
- 正田彬, "獨占禁止法 I" (1981), 日本評論社
- 今村成和, "獨占禁止法(新版)", 有斐閣
- 實方謙二, "獨占禁止法(第3版)", 有斐閣
- 今村成和, "注解經濟法(上)" (1985), 靑林書院
- Competition Committee, "Background Note by the Secretariat", Global Forum on Competition (2006)
- François Arbault, "The EC Law of Competition (Jonathan Faull & Ali Nikpay eds. 2d ed." (2007), Oxford University Press
- Gregory J. Werden, "Economic Evidence on the Existence of Collusion: Reconciling Antitrust Law with Oligopoly Theory", Antitrust L. J, 71, pp.779~780 (2004)
- 鄕原信郞, "獨占禁止法違反の立證に關する檢討(中)", 公正取引, (497) (1999)
- 田村次朗, "共同行爲の規制(1) -不當な去來制限の禁止, 價格の同調的引き上げの報告”, 經濟法講座2 - 獨禁法の理論と展開(1)" (2002), 三省堂
- 鄕原信郞, "獨占禁止法違反の立證に關する檢討(上)", 公正取引, (496) (1999)
- 村上政博, "政況證據による價格カルテルの認定(下)", 判例タイムズ, (1004) (1999)
- 村上政博, "政況證據による價格カルテルの認定(上)", 判例タイムズ, (1003) (1999)