공정거래법상 시장지배력 판단기준에 관한 고찰 = The Study on the criteria for evaluation of market dominant power in Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

The concept of market dominant entrepreneur in the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act(MRFTA) can be traced to the concept of monopolistic and oligopolistic entrepreneurs in the Prices Stabilization and Fair Trade Act enacted in 1975. The object of designation system of monopolistic and oligopolistic entrepreneurs was to control market prices through price report to the government by them. The definition of the monopolistic and oligopolistic entrepreneurs in Prices Stabilization and Fair Trade Act was similar to that of the present market dominant entrepreneurs. However, the Enforcement Decree of Prices Stabilization and Fair Trade Act defined them as one or a small number of entrepreneurs in markets with high concentration, which is different from market dominant entrepreneurs in MRFTA. As a result, the monopolistic and oligopolistic entrepreneurs came to mean entrepreneurs which should be regulated through price reports. In the MRFTA enacted in 1980, the market dominant entrepreneur was defined in a similar manner to that in German Competition Law(GWB). However, the Enforcement Decree of the MRFTA defined the market dominant entrepreneur based to market shares like the previous Prices Stabilization and Fair Trade Act. Therefore, Korea Fair Trade Commission had designated the market dominant entrepreneurs according to the previous practices. There was no room for the concept of collective dominance discussed in EU competition law. In the 1999 revision of MRFTA, the preliminary designation of the market dominant entrepreneurs was abolished and ex post facto test was introduced instead. However, there were no big differences in practices of Korea Fair Trade Commission, because the Act used the previous market share criteria to evaluate market dominant position similarly. Practices like this have some problems in that there is no considerations about competition situations and they are against basic economic theory. There seems to be need for revision of MRFTA on this moment.

참고문헌 (Reference)

1 조성국, "시장지배적지위 남용행위 위법성 판단기준에 관한 연구, 포스코판결 5주년 : 판결의 의미와 향후발전방향" 2013

2 조성국, "시장지배적 지위남용에 대한 위법성 판단기준에 관한 연구 - 대법원판결을 중심으로 -" 한국경쟁법학회 19 : 367-399, 2009

3 홍명수, "비씨카드 사건에서 시장지배력과 가격남용 판단의 타당성 고찰" 법문사사 4 : 2008

4 권오승, "독점규제법" 법문사 2012

5 F.리트너, "독일경쟁법" 법문사 1997

6 서울대학교 경쟁법센터, "공정거래법의 쟁점과 과제" 법문사 2010

7 공정거래위원회, "공정거래10년"

8 이봉의, "경제적 동일체 이론과 공동의 시장지배력에 관한 소고" 법문사 5 : 2009

9 이호영, "경쟁법상 ‘공동의 시장지배력’ 개념에 관한 연구" 26 (26):

10 滝川敏明, "美․日․EUの獨禁法と競爭政策" 靑林書院 2006

11 伊從寬, "獨禁法Q&A" 靑林書院 2007

12 村上政博, "獨占禁止法" 弘文堂 2010

13 Sullivan, "The Law of Antitrust : An Integrated Hanbook" Thompson/West 2006

14 Brian F. Harris, "Shared Monopoly and the Cereal Industry : An Enpirical Investigation of the Effect of FTC'S Antitrust Proposal" Michigan State University Business Studies 1979

15 Christopher Vincenzi, "Law of the European Community" Financial Times 1999

16 Heidenhain, "German Antitrust Law" Fritz Knapp Verlag 1991

17 Jones, "EC Competition Law" 2008

18 ABA Section of Antitrust Law, "Antitrust Law Developments Vol. I" 2007

19 Phillip Areeda, "Antitrust Law" 1978

20 Masanao Nakagawa, "Antimonopoly of Legislation of Japan" Kosei Torihiki Kyokai 1984