http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.
변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.
이상승 ( Sang Seung Yi ),전성훈 ( Seong Hoon Jeon ),오선아 ( Seon Ah Oh ) 한국금융학회 2008 금융연구 Vol.22 No.3
우리나라의 은행산업은 외환위기 이후 부실은행의 통폐합 및 규모/범위의 경제 달성을 위한 대규모 합병이 지속적으로 발생해 왔다. 은행 산업의 구조조정은 현재진행형으로, 2008년 4월 정부는 산업은행 등의 민영화 방침을 밝힌 바 있으며, 2006년 이후 HSBC는 외환은행의 인수를 추진 중이다. 이러한 대규모 인수합병에 따른 은행산업의 집중도 증가는 단독효과 및 조정효과에 따른 경쟁제한 가능성을 제기한다. HSBC의 외환은행 인수 추진에 대하여 2008년 3월 공정거래위원회는 관련 상품 시장을 8개로 세분 획정하고, 관련 지역 시장은 전국으로 획정한 후, 각 모든 시장에서 HSBC의 시장점유율이 매우 낮아 경쟁제한성이 우려되지 않는다고 발표하였다. 그러나 공정 위는 상품시장을 획정한 원칙이나 시장 참여자의 선별 기준 등을 밝히지 않았다. 따라서 공정위가 공개한 자료는 향후 전개될 은행산업의 인수합병에서 관련 상품/지역 시장의 획정 및 시장참여자의 선별 기준에 대한 가이드라인으로 사용하기에는 미흡한 측면이 있다. 이에 본 논문에서는 은행 산업의 관련 상품, 지역 시장의 획정에 관한 경쟁법 원칙과 선진국 사례를 살펴 본 후, 우리 나라 은행 산업의 시장 획정을 시도한다. 산업은행, 기업은행, 농수협 등 우리 나라에 존재하는 "특수은행"의 시장 참여자 여부를 각 상품 시장 별로 면밀히 분석한 후, 이를 바탕으로 우리 나라 은행 산업의 현재 집중도를 각 상품 시장에 대해 전국 및 지역별로 분석한다. 본 논문의 주요 연구 결과는 두 가지이다. 첫째, 수신, 개인 대출, 기업 대출, 수출입 관련 외환 거래, 무역외 외환 거래 등 각 상품 시장별로 경쟁의 양상이 상당히 다르다. 둘째, 수도권을 제외한 지방의 경우, 농협 및 해당 지방은행의 점유율이 상당히 높으며, 그 결과 집중도 또한 높다. 따라서 향후 은행산업의 인수합병이 진행될 경우, 각 상품 시장 별로 심도 있는 경쟁제한성의 분석이 필요하며, 또한 상위 은행의 지방은행 인수가 추진된다면 해당 지방의 경쟁제한성에 대한 면밀한 검토가 요구된다. Since the economic crisis in 1998, the banking industry in Korea has undergone major mergers and acquisitions to achieve economies of scale and scope as well as to consolidate failed banks. The restructuring of the banking industry is an on-going process. In April 2008, the new government announced its plan to privatize the Korea Development Bank (KDB) and HSBC has been in the process of acquiring the Korea Exchange Bank (KEB) since 2006. The large-scale M&As in the banking industry raise anticompetitive concerns of unilateral price increases by merging banks as well as heightened risk of collusive behavior. In the case of HSBC`s planned acquisition of the KEB, the KFTC delineated eight relevant product markets and all Korea as the relevant geographic market. It cleared the merger on the basis that HSBC`s market shares in all relevant markets are very low. However, the KFTC did not disclose its criteria for defining the relevant markets or identifying market participants. As such, the KFTC did not provide much guidance on how it would define relevant product and geographical markets and determine market participants in the future. The purpose of this paper is to provide such guidance by attempting to define relevant markets and identify market participants in the Korean banking industry in light of the competition law principles and the experiences of advanced countries. After carefully examining the degree to which "special banks" such as the KDB, the Industrial Bank of Korea, National Agricultural Cooperative Federation (NACF) participate in each relevant product market, we report the degrees of concentration in each market. Two main findings emerge from our analysis. First, the competitive landscapes differ significantly across different product markets such as deposits/savings, personal loans, corporate loans, foreign exchange transactions related to imports and exports, and other foreign exchange transactions. Second, in localities other than the greater Seoul Metropolitan Area, market shares of NACF and provincial banks are high, and as a result, these localities are highly concentrated. Hence, in reviewing future M&As among banks, the KFTC should take care in examining the competitive effects in each relevant product market, and if top banks acquire NACF or provincial banks, the KFTC should carefully analyze the competitive concerns in the relevant provinces.
특집논단 : 렉서스 사건에서의 관련시장 획정을 위한 경제분석 방법론에 관한 연구
권도형 ( Dohyung Kwon ),김남우 ( Namwoo Kim ),오선아 ( Sunah Oh ),이상승 ( Sang Seung Yi ) 한국경쟁법학회 2015 競爭法硏究 Vol.32 No.-
Market power - the ability of a firm to raise price above the competitive level for a sustained period - is a part of the legal framework in antitrust contexts. Monopoly power (or market dominance) is an element of the offense of abuse of dominance under Article 3-2 of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act (the “MRFTA”). In addition, market power is assessed under Article 19 of the MRFTA to determine whether conduct undertaken pursuant to an agreement has an adverse impact on the market. Market share is still often used as a good proxy for market power. The common method of proving market power in antitrust cases involves first defining a relevant market in which to compute the defendant’s market share, next calculating that share, and then deciding whether it is large enough to support an inference of the required degree of market power. In other words, to measure market power, it is the first step to define markets. Numerous empirical techniques, including SSNIP are employed to define markets. These techniques are usually purposed to identify the products and geographic regions that should be included in the relevant market by analyzing seller/buyer substitution based on sales and price data. It is also well recognized that it is very difficult in drawing clear boundaries and thus market definition has been often a thorny issue in competition law analysis. The issue of market definition was brought up in two recent court cases in Korea - alleged collusion by BMW and Lexus dealers. In both cases, a concerted action by the dealers carrying the same brand was under the judicial review. The enforcement agency, the Korea Fair Trade Commission (the “KFTC”) in its decision narrowly delineated the relevant market as single brand automobiles (i.e., BMW automobiles market and Lexus automobiles market in Korea, respectively) and the appellants in both cases countered by arguing that the relevant market includes at least other luxury brand automobiles-both foreign and domestic. These two cases have drawn many antitrust scholars and practitioners’ attention so as to become a leading case in connection with market definition. Many antitrust economists and attorneys wrestled with market definition issue for considerable time. This article provides a critical opinion particularly regarding the KFTC’s narrow approach to market definition through an in-depth analysis of BMW and Lexus cases, identifying methodological and analytical errors. Chapter 2 describes a summary of the court decisions in Lexus case and its procedural history. Chapter 3 conducts an economic analysis in Lexus and BMW cases from a critical perspective. Chapter 4 discusses the merits and demerits of two methods to delineate relevant markets-consumer survey and econometric method. Chapter 5 concludes that the economic methods and analysis used to define market should be very carefully assessed by the court to avoid false negatives.