부당한 공동행위에서의 관련시장 획정− 음료 담합사건을 중심으로 −
A legal study on the market definition in the cartel analysis − related with the non-alcohol beverage cartel case −
0
조회
0
다운로드
7
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
The beverages are differentiated products, which depend mostly on the price, taste and trend. Therefore SSNIP analysis shows its limit with the market definition. The non-alcohol beverage market has these characteristics:(ⅰ) price substitutability is not so decisive (ⅱ) consumer preference varies with tastes and trend (ⅲ) potential supplier can easily enter the market (product supply is not only self-manufacturing but also selling imported goods) (ⅳ) function and utiltity is not quite different among beverages. The market delineation is especially meaningful when we evaluate the market dominant position with anti-competitive abuse and regulate the merger. The outcome of the market definition in market power case od merger case needs not exactly apply for the cartel case because the relavant market should be defined as related practices. Being estimated the anti- competitiveness of the concerted action or agreement among undertakings, KFTC or courts should consider the substance or the object of the agree- ment as such. They should not always define the market through the detailed economic research, then evaluate anti-competitiveness in every cases. On this beverage cartel, 5 beverage producer, who shares mostly the non-alcohol beverage market, had many meeting, had exchanged informations about prices or amounts and had raised each products. 2 participants had cooperated with KFTC in invastigating all things about the cartel and had become the leniency benefit. Therefore I think it is misunderstanding about the meaning of the relevant market in judging the anticompetitiveness of the hardcore cartel.
Abstract
The beverages are differentiated products, which depend mostly on the price, taste and trend. Therefore SSNIP analysis shows its limit with the market definition. The non-alcohol beverage market has these characteristics:(ⅰ) price substitutability is not so decisive (ⅱ) consumer preference varies with tastes and trend (ⅲ) potential supplier can easily enter the market (product supply is not only self-manufacturing but also selling imported goods) (ⅳ) function and utiltity is not quite different among beverages. The market delineation is especially meaningful when we evaluate the market dominant position with anti-competitive abuse and regulate the merger. The outcome of the market definition in market power case od merger case needs not exactly apply for the cartel case because the relavant market should be defined as related practices. Being estimated the anti- competitiveness of the concerted action or agreement among undertakings, KFTC or courts should consider the substance or the object of the agree- ment as such. They should not always define the market through the detailed economic research, then evaluate anti-competitiveness in every cases. On this beverage cartel, 5 beverage producer, who shares mostly the non-alcohol beverage market, had many meeting, had exchanged informations about prices or amounts and had raised each products. 2 participants had cooperated with KFTC in invastigating all things about the cartel and had become the leniency benefit. Therefore I think it is misunderstanding about the meaning of the relevant market in judging the anticompetitiveness of the hardcore cartel.
참고문헌 (38)
- 권오승, "경제법(제9판)" (2010), 법문사
- 신동권, "독점규제법" (2011), 박영사
- 신창선, "경제법(개정판)" (2008), Fides
- 양명조, "경제법강의(8판)" (2010), 신조사
- 이기수, "경제법(7판)" (2006), 세창출판사
- 임영철, "공정거래법" (2008), 법문사
- 정호열, "경제법(2판)" (2008), 박영사
- 남재현, "실무자를 위한 시장 획정의 기본원리", 법경제학연구, 5(2), pp.219~237 (2008), 한국법경제학회
- 신영수, "경성카르텔의 위법성 판단과 관련시장의 획정", 법조, 60(10), pp.189~224 (2011), 법조협회
- 이건호, "관련시장획정의 판단기준-독일경쟁제한방지법을 중심으로-", 기업법연구, 19(4), pp.447~468 (2005), 한국기업법학회
- 이봉의, "공정거래법상 ‘카르텔’의 부당성 판단", 사법, 1(2), pp.117~148 (2007), 사법발전재단
- 이호영, "경쟁법 집행상 관련시장 획정의 의미", 경쟁법 판례연구회 발표문 (2013)
- 이호영, "공정거래법상 ‘경성카르텔’의 경쟁제한성 판단방법 - 서울고법 2010. 5. 19. 선고 2009누1930 판결 및 서울고법 2010. 7. 22. 선고 2009누9873 판결 -", 법조, 60(6), pp.283~322 (2011), 법조협회
- 이완희, "부당한 공동행위에서의 관련시장 획정의 기준", 경쟁과 법, (창간) (2013)
- 전성훈, "경쟁정책 목적의 시장획정 방법론 및 사례:2005년 하이트-진로 기업결합을 중심으로", 한국경제연구, 19, pp.75~116 (2007), 한국경제연구학회
- 정재훈, "부당한 공동행위와 관련시장의 획정- 대법원 2013. 4. 11. 선고 2012두11829 판결 등 -", 법조, 62(11), pp.283~317 (2013), 법조협회
- 홍대식, "관련시장 획정에 있어서의 주요 잼점 검토 -행위 유형별 관련시장 획정의 필요성 및 기준을 중심으로-", 경쟁법연구, 23, pp.302~337 (2011), 한국경쟁법학회
- 홍명수, "시장획정 방식의 개선과 과제", 법과사회, (29), pp.241~273 (2005), 법과사회이론학회
- 황태희, "부당한 공동행위와 기본과징금의 산정", 서울대학교 법학, 50(3), pp.401~422 (2009), 법학연구소
- ABA, "Antitrust law development(5.ed.)" (2002)
- Bellamy, "European Community law of Competition(7. ed)" (2013)
- Bishop, "The economics of EC Competition law:Concepts, Application and Measurement" (2010), Sweet&Maxwell
- Elhauge, "United States Antitrust law and economics" (2008), Foundation press
- Elhauge, "Global competition law and economics" (2011), Hart Publishing
- Gavil, "Antitrust law in perspective:cases, concepts and problems in competition policy(2. ed.)" (2008), Thomson
- Lenssen, "Der kartellrechtlich relevant markt" (2009), Nomos
- Saecker, "The concept of the relevant product market" (2008), Peter lang
- Sullivan, "The law of Antitrust:An integrated handbook" (2006), Thomson
- Whish, "Competition law(6. ed)" (2009)
- 根岸 哲, "註釋 獨占禁止法" (2009), 有斐閣
- 金井貴嗣, "獨占禁止法(제3판)" (2010), 홍문당
- Areeda, "Market definition and horizontal restraints", Antitrust L.J., 52 (1983)
- Daljord, "The SSNIP test and market definition with the aggregate diversion ratio: A reply to Katz and Shapiro", J. Competition L.& Econ., 4 (2008)
- Harris, "Antitrust market definition : an integrated approach", California law review (1984)
- Kate, "The relevant market:A concept still in search of a definition", J. Competition L.& Econ. (2009)
- Kaplow, "Market definition : impossible and counterproductive", Antitrust L.J., 79 (2013)
- Kauper, "The problem of market definition under EC Competition law", Fordham Int'l L.J, 20
- Mosso, "Non-horizontal mergers: A European perspective", Fordham Int'l L.J., 31 (2008)