경쟁정책과 중소기업정책의 조화를 위한 독점규제법의 과제 = A Study on the Problems of Korean Competition Law for the Harmonization of Competition Policy and SMEs Policy

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

Although competition policy and SMEs policy have overlapping goals and methods, and are capable of being in conflict or harmony, thorough examination of the relation between two policies does not seem to be enough. Considering the realities that the competitiveness of SMEs has not been improved substantially in spite of the quantitative and qualitative development of laws and policies for SMEs, as well as that the difficulties for SMEs in competing with large companies has not been getting better in spite of the enforcement of competition laws and policies, we might assume that those two laws and policies have not been enforced harmoniously with encroaching each other`s effects. If referring to Germany, policy means for protecting and nurturing SMEs ultimately aim to create the best environment for ‘competition’, and try to strengthen the competitive powers of competitors through increasing the level of competition in markets. Also, it is necessary to satisfy the requirement of ‘market conformity’ meaning that all the policy means should not distort competition. Reflecting on the relation between SMEs policy and competition policy, we come to realize that the Korean competition law has several clauses for protecting SMEs, though it does not explicitly aim at it in Article 1. Among them, the important ones are, first, the exemption for cooperatives comprising of small companies in Article 60 and, second, cartel approval for competitiveness of SMEs in 2nd clause of Article 19, both of which are meant to support the competitiveness and countervailing power. However, those two have not been actively utilized so far, and questioned in terms of not only usefulness but also interpretation. Fundamentally, it is doubtful whether the former is proper mean which minimizes the distortion of competition, and it needs to be considered that the latter should be constrained not to restrain competition. Next, the regulations against abuse of market dominant position in Article 3-2 and unfair practice in Article 23, which can be said that they are expected to contribute to protect SMEs through regulating large companies, should be highlighted in that they are the best ways to correct SMEs` disadvantages for now. Furthermore, the assumption of substantial restraint of competition in 4th clause of Article 7 with similar purpose would be useful in protecting SMEs` business area against large companies` aggressive expansion.

참고문헌 (Reference)

1 조혜신, "한국 중소기업법제의 성과와 한계 - 지원․육성정책과 경쟁정책의 관계를 중심으로" 2013

2 박정구, "중소기업정책의 문제점과 개선방안에 대한 검토: 경쟁 친화적 중소기업정책의 수립방안을 중심으로" LEG 2010

3 이경의, "중소기업정책론" 지식산업사 2006

4 권오승, "중소기업의 협동화와 독점규제법" 경희대학교 25 (25): 1990

5 한기윤, "중소기업시책 및 법제의 변천과 시사점" 중소기업연구원 2005

6 김세종, "중소기업 적합업종제도 운영 및 향후과제" KOSBI 2011

7 조성국, "독점규제법상 일정한 조합의 행위의 적용 제외에 관한 고찰" 법학연구소 5 (5): 109-122, 2012

8 조혜신, "독점규제법상 방해남용의 부당성 판단기준 - 경쟁저해성 판단기준을 중심으로 -" 한국경쟁법학회 24 : 65-101, 2011

9 신동권, "독점규제법" 박영사 2011

10 김인숙, "독일과 한국의 중소기업정책: 질서자유주의적 시각에서의 고찰" 한독경상학회 (21) : 2000

11 황태희, "독일 경쟁제한방지법(GWB) 상 중소기업 보호규정과 시사점" 법학연구소 52 (52): 171-194, 2011

12 한국소비자원, "공정거래위원회 30년사"

13 홍명수, "공정거래법상 중소기업정책의 반영에 관한 연구" 법학연구소 53 (53): 335-362, 2012

14 신현윤, "경제법(제6판)" 법문사 2014

15 권오승, "경제법(제11판)" 법문사 2014

16 양명조, "경제법 : 이론·판례·사례" 신조사 2013

17 Emmerich, "Kartellrecht - Ein Studienbuch" Verlag C. H. Beck 2006

18 Kling/Thomas, "Kartellrecht" Vahlen 2007

19 Hovenkamp, "Federal Antitrust Policy - The Law of Competition and Its Practice" West Group 2005

20 Rittner/Dreher, "Europäisches und deutsches Wirtschaftrecht - Eine systematische Darstellung" C.F. Müller Verlag 2008

21 Areeda & Hovenkamp, "Antitrust Law - An Analysis of Antitrust Principles and Their Application Vol. ⅠA" Aspen Law & Business 1977