본문 바로가기
KERD
논문KCI 등재

「4개 라면 제조·판매 사업자의 부당한 공동행위에 대한 건」 판례 평석(대법원 2015.12.24. 선고 2013두25924 판결을 중심으로)

Commentary on the Unfair Collaborative Acts Case by four Ramen Entrepreneurs

0

조회

0

다운로드

8

인용

0

참고문헌

키워드

초록

In 2008, the Korea Fair Trade Korea(KFTC) investigated into the alleged about 10-year long price-fixing cartels by four Ramen manufactures. In 2012, the KFTC issued a cease and desist order and imposed huge amount of surcharges on the companies. The companies brought the case before Seoul High Court, which rejected it. They appealed to the Supreme Court, which reversed and remanded the case. There have been at least 6 times parallel increases in Ramen price over 10 years. Especially, the KFTC presented two formal in-person meetings between the defendants as well as hundreds of email communications between and among the defendants to prove the price-fixing agreement. The main issue in the case was whether agreement can be established or inferred from hearsay statements from leniency applicant or circumstantial evidences by presented by the KFTC. Sec. 19(1) of Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act(MRFTA) prescribes that "[n]o enterpriser shall agree with other enterprisers by contract, agreement, resolution, or any other means, to jointly engage in an act falling under any of the following subparagraphs, which unfairly restricts competition or allow any other enterpriser to perform such unfair collaborative act" The Supreme Court ruled that the burden of proof is imposed on the KFTC and the evidences is not sufficient to prove the agreement. The Supreme Court ruled that hearsay statements from leniency applicant were not trustworthy and circumstantial such as several parallel acts or exchanges of clandestine information related to price increase is not sufficient to infer an agreement. In Korea, parallel acts or information exchanges are considered as circumstantial evidences which agreement can be inferred from. From the global perspective, I think that the Supreme Court was unduly strict in establishing or inferring an agreement in the case. In this case, there were many direct and circumstantial evidences like leniency application, parallel price increases or exchanges of price information through e-mail.

Abstract

In 2008, the Korea Fair Trade Korea(KFTC) investigated into the alleged about 10-year long price-fixing cartels by four Ramen manufactures. In 2012, the KFTC issued a cease and desist order and imposed huge amount of surcharges on the companies. The companies brought the case before Seoul High Court, which rejected it. They appealed to the Supreme Court, which reversed and remanded the case. There have been at least 6 times parallel increases in Ramen price over 10 years. Especially, the KFTC presented two formal in-person meetings between the defendants as well as hundreds of email communications between and among the defendants to prove the price-fixing agreement. The main issue in the case was whether agreement can be established or inferred from hearsay statements from leniency applicant or circumstantial evidences by presented by the KFTC. Sec. 19(1) of Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act(MRFTA) prescribes that "[n]o enterpriser shall agree with other enterprisers by contract, agreement, resolution, or any other means, to jointly engage in an act falling under any of the following subparagraphs, which unfairly restricts competition or allow any other enterpriser to perform such unfair collaborative act" The Supreme Court ruled that the burden of proof is imposed on the KFTC and the evidences is not sufficient to prove the agreement. The Supreme Court ruled that hearsay statements from leniency applicant were not trustworthy and circumstantial such as several parallel acts or exchanges of clandestine information related to price increase is not sufficient to infer an agreement. In Korea, parallel acts or information exchanges are considered as circumstantial evidences which agreement can be inferred from. From the global perspective, I think that the Supreme Court was unduly strict in establishing or inferring an agreement in the case. In this case, there were many direct and circumstantial evidences like leniency application, parallel price increases or exchanges of price information through e-mail.

참고문헌 (17)

  1. 이호영, "독점규제법" (2013), 홍문사
  2. 조성국, "美國 카르텔 規制法理의 發展과 우리나라에 주는 示唆點", 중앙법학, 9(1), pp.349~373 (2007), 중앙법학회[DOI]
  3. 조성국, "독점규제법상 합의추정 관련 심(판)결례 연구", 法學論文集, 31(1), pp.393~414 (2007), 법학연구원
  4. 홍대식, "합의 증명의 요소로서의 사업자간 의사연결의 상호성", 경쟁법연구, 30, pp.114~169 (2014), 한국경쟁법학회
  5. "ABA Section of Antitrust Law, Antitrust Law Developments Vol. I", ~ (2002)
  6. Andrew I. Gavil, "Antitrust Law In Perspective: Cases, Concepts and Problems In Competition Policy" (2008), Thompson West
  7. David Bailey, "Presumptions in EU competition law", E.C.L.R., 31(9), pp.22~23 (2010)
  8. The F.T.C., OLIGOPOLY, AND SHARED MONOPOLY, "F. M. Scherer", Faculty Research, ~, pp.RWP13-031 (2013)
  9. Richard Whish, "Competition Law" (2005), Oxford University Press
  10. Stephen F. Ross, "Principles of Antitrust Law" (1993), Westbury
  11. 滝川敏明, "日米EUの独禁法と競争政策: グローバル経済下の企業競争ルール" (2006), 青林書院
  12. 村上政博, "獨占禁止法의 日米比較(上)" (1991), 弘文堂
  13. 白石忠志, "判例米国・EU競争法" (2011), 商事法務
  14. FTC, "Antitrust Guidelines for Collaborating Among Competitors", ~ (2000)
  15. FTC, "Antitrust Guidelines for the Licensing of Intellectual Property", ~ (1995)
  16. FTC, "Statements of Antitrust Enforcement Policy in Health Care", ~ (1996)
  17. 公正取引委員會, "事業者団体の活動に関する独占禁止法上の指針", ~ (2010)

관련 논문AI추천

이 간행물의 다른 논문 (12건)