공정거래법 위반행위와 손해의 인과관계 - 미국에서의 논의를 중심으로 -

Abstract

Liabilities for damages based on Article 56 of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act of Korea (the “MRFTA”) will arise only if a causal connection between the antitrust violation and damages is demonstrated, because they are deemed tort damages. In Korea, the causal connection between the violation and damages are analyzed by applying ‘the Causal Relationship of Reasonableness Theory’. However,due to the abstract nature of 'Reasonableness', the determination of what is reasonable in any given situation may turn out to be problematic and difficult to assess. Especially in a suit for damages based on a MRFTA violation, since there are a variety of factors that contribute and intervene as causes for damages, other than the antitrust violation itself, there are many cases where the causal connection between the antitrust violation and damages are not clear. In this connection, the U.S. standing doctrine for private plaintiffs may have substantial implications on how the MRFTA is interpreted on this issue. In the U.S. in order to obtain ‘standing’ to sue for damages under Section 4 of the Clayton Act, the plaintiff must show (1) that the acts violating the antitrust laws caused it injury-in-fact to its business or property, (2) that this injury is not too remote or duplicative of the recovery of a more directly injured person, (3) that such injury is 'antitrust injury', which is defined as the kind of injury that the antitrust laws were intended to prevent, and (4) that the damages claimed or awarded measure such injury in a reasonably quantifiable way. The U.S. standing doctrine places reasonable restrictions on the scope of the plaintiffs through the legal analysis. In this regards, such perspective could have some implications on the interpretation of MRFTA which limits the scope of causal relationship through the Causal Relationship of Reasonableness Theory. Among other standing requirements, the injury-in-fact by reason of the antitrust violation, proximity or remoteness,and antitrust injury could provides guidance on the interpretation of 'Reasonableness' in Korean law, in the perspective that theses requirements place legal restrictions on the scope of damages which have causal relationship to the antitrust violation.