http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.
변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.
윤세리(Sai Ree Yun) 한국법학원 2007 저스티스 Vol.- No.98
최근 경제의 세계화 현상과 활성화되고 있는 자유무역협정(“FTA”)으로 인하여 각국의 경쟁법은 이러한 새로운 환경에 적절히 대응하여야 하는 역할을 맡게 되었다. 시장접근성의 향상을 주된 목표로 하는 한미FTA를 비롯한 많은 자유무역협정에서는 공적 무역장벽뿐만 아니라 사적 무역장벽이라 할 수 있는 경쟁제한관행을 없애기 위해 경쟁법에 관하여도 별도의 장을 마련하여 규정하고 있다. 그 결과, 체결당사국의 경쟁법은 국외 사업자들까지도 충분히 승복할 수 있는 실체법과 절차법을 완비해야 하는 과제를 안게 되었다. 한미 FTA를 필두로 EU 및 중국과도 FTA를 추진하고 있는 한국도 그 흐름에서 예외일 수 없다. 한미FTA에서 미국이 한국에 요구한 사항들을 검토해 보면 이러한 추세를 어느 정도 짐작해 볼 수 있다. 그 구체적 요구사항들을 보면, 대기업집단 계열회사들에 대한 엄격한 경쟁법 적용 보장, 공정거래사건 처리과정에서의 절차적 투명성의 보장, 동의명령제의 도입, 소비자 보호에 관한 협력, 경쟁법 집행에 관한 한미양자협정 체결을 들 수 있다. 이러한 요구사항들을 볼 때 미국은 국내 대기업들에 대한 경쟁법 집행이 미흡하여 미국 기업들이 한국 소비자에게 접근하기 어렵고, 한국 공정거래위원회의 조사 및 심판 과정에서 피심인 및 이해관계자에 대한 절차적 보장이 미흡하다고 인식하고 있는 것으로 짐작된다. 이러한 점은 우리 공정거래법의 개정 및 집행에서 적극적으로 수용하는 게 좋을 것이다. FTA의 활성화라는 흐름을 통해볼 때 경쟁법 분야에서 엿보이는 세계적인 추세는 실체법적으로는 수렴, 절차법적으로는 투명성의 강화, 국제적인 측면에서는 국제적 협력의 강화라고 할 수 있다. 위 세가지 추세에 비추어 볼 때 다음과 같은 점들을 제도적인 개선방안으로 제안하고자 한다. 첫째, 실체법의 수렴 현상과 관련하여서는 카르텔 자진신고 제도의 토착화, 기업결합 심사기준의 현대화, 시장지배적지위 남용행위 규정의 체계적인 정비, 대기업집단규제의 대폭 완화, 손해배상청구제도의 활성화 및 금지 청구권 제도의 도입을 포함한 사적 집행의 강화를 들 수 있다. 둘째, 절차적 투명성 강화 측면에서는 우리 공정거래위원회의 조사 및 심의 절차에서의 피심인의 절차적 권리의 법적 보장 강화, 공정거래위원회의 조사시 변호사 참여권의 실질적 보장을 들 수 있을 것이다. 끝으로, 국제협력 분야에서는 OECD나 ICN등 다자 협력 체제에 대한 국내대기업들과 사업자단체의 적극적인 참여를 제안한다. 아울러 기업들에 대하여는 세계적으로 일어나는 경쟁법 사건들에 신속 대응할 수 있는 국제적 자율준수 프로그램 제도의 도입, 경쟁업체의 경쟁제한적인 사업행태에 대응하는 적극적 전략으로서 공정거래법의 활용과 사업자 단체 및 규제산업 사업자의 적극적인 공정거래법 준수방안 수립 등을 제안하고, 법조계에 대하여는 경쟁정책 결정과정에 대한 적극적인 참여와 관-산-학 협력의 중심축 역할을 하기 위한 노력 등을 제안한다. National competition laws have recently been affected by the globalization of economy and the proliferation of free trade agreements (“FTA”). Many free trade agreements, including the U.S.- Korea FTA that mainly targets greater and easier market access, have a separate chapter on the competition law that aim at addressing not only public trade barriers but also “private” trade barriers such as anti-competitive practices. Consequently, the competition law of a party to an FTA must now provide substantive and procedural protection to which even foreign enterprises would reasonably submit. This latest development is also found in Korea, which is now pursuing FTA with EU and China and dozens of other trading partners. The basic demands made by the U.S. during its FTA negotiation with Korea reveal certain features of the development. Given such demands, we can surmise the U.S. perspective, that American companies face difficulties in entering the Korean market due to the lack of, or lax, Korean competition enforcement efforts , and that there is an insufficient procedural guarantee for respondents and interested parties in a KFTC’s investigation or hearing process. We should actively incorporate such demands into the efforts to amend and enforce the Korean competition law. Global trends in competition law seen from the recent proliferation of FTAs can be summarized into (ⅰ) substantively, convergence, (ⅱ) procedurally, heightened level of transparency, and (ⅲ) increased international cooperation. Based on these trends, the following measures are suggested as a way to improve the current legal system: (ⅰ) On convergence, the leniency program should be not only accepted as part of the Korean competition law, but also further localized and harmonized with the Korean legal and social culture; (ⅱ) on heightened level of transparency, interested parties’ procedural due process rights in the Korea Fair Trade Commission’s investigation and adjudication processes should be legally protected, including the right to legal counsel during the KFTC's investigation; and (ⅲ) regarding international cooperation, both large domestic corporations and business associations should actively participate in the international organizations such as the OECD and ICN. In addition, it is suggested that businesses adopt the global compliance program to efficiently deal with international competition cases, and utilize the competition law as part of the a business strategy to challenge the anticompetitive business activities of competitors. To business associations and regulated businesses, it is recommended that they establish a proactive and preventive compliance program not to violate the competition law. As to the legal community, it is suggested that they actively participate in the policy-making process of the competition law and work closely with the government and private sectors as well as academicians.
윤세리 한국경영법률학회 2003 經營法律 Vol.13 No.2
On March 20, 2002, Korea’s Fair Trade Commission (the "KFTC") imposed civil penalties of 11.2 billion Korean Won (approximately US $8.5 million) and a correction order on six graphite electrode producers from the United States, Germany and Japan for their participation in an illegal international cartel. This is the KFTC's first extraterritorial application of the Korean Antimonopoly and Fair Trade Act (the "AFTA") to foreign companies since the AFTA was first enacted in 1980. Korea’s extraterritorial application of Korean antitrust law in the graphite electrode cartel followed that by the United States, Canada and the European Union. Although the number of cases in which antitrust laws has been applied extraterritorially is increasing worldwide, this case is the first case in Korea in which antitrust law has been applied extraterritorially to an international cartel. In this age of international free trade in which Korean domestic market is open to foreign imports with minimal trade barriers, it is expected that the Commission would actively apply the AFTA extraterritorially in order to ensure the fair and open competition in the Korean market. To briefly introduce the case, graphite electrode, which is used for generating high heat for a furnace, is an essential raw material in producing steel by a certain method and is not substitutable with anything else. Six graphite electrode producers - UCAR International Inc., SGL Carbon Aktiengesellschaft, Nippon Carbon Co., Ltd., SEC Corporation, Showa Denko KK and Tokai Carbon Co., Ltd. - have participated in a cartel which controlled approximately 80 percent of the world graphite electrode market. On May 21, 1992, the producers have met in London and agreed to the so-called "London Principles" under which the producers have agreed to create an international graphite electrode cartel. What is striking about this cartel is that the producers had continued to engage in cartel conducts until February 1998 even after the U.S. and European Union authorities initiated investigations in June 1997, whereas in other cartel investigations participants usually suspend cartel conducts once a competition authority begins an investigation into the cartel. This article discusses the extraterritorial application of the AFTA both in the substantive and procedural perspectives. To analyze the substantive aspect of the KFTC's jurisdiction, the article examines and compares the KFTC's decision with important U.S., European and Japanese precedents. The courts and competition authorities enforcing antitrust laws in these cases adopted various theories, principles and tests as the theoretical basis for the extraterritorial application of antitrust laws, including the nationality principle, the effects doctrine, the interest balancing test, the economic unit doctrine and the place of implementation doctrine. In this case, the KFTC adopted the effects doctrine and the place of implementation doctrine as the basis for the extraterritorial application of the Korean antitrust law. Regarding the procedural aspect of the extraterritorial application of antitrust laws, U.S. and European Union precedents have recognized the procedural jurisdiction of applying the antitrust laws of these countries extraterritorially. Competition authorities generally do not object to the extraterritorial application of antitrust laws in procedural matters. We believe that KFTC's application of the AFTA is also appropriate in procedural aspects. However, there are procedural issues that need to be clarified or improved through AFTA amendoments and international cooperation. In conclusion, we believe that KFTC's extraterritorial application of the AFTA to the foreign electrode graphite producers is appropriate and timely. Also, it is suggested that procedural aspects of the extraterritorial application of the AFTA should be improved.