경쟁법상 "공동의 시장지배력" 개념에 관한 연구 = A Study on the Concept of "Collective Dominance" under Competition Laws

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

The collective dominance doctrine is considered a useful competition law measure for oligopolists` interdependent coordinations (so-called tacit collusion) which many competition law regimes are ill-equipped to deal with. It can be specifically effective in dealing with long-lasting oligopolies in major Korean industries. However, it has been known as one of the most controversial issues in the contemporary competition law and policy discussions. In particular, the European Commission and the European Courts have long discussed over the doctrine and finally come up with relatively settled law recently. One the other hand, the shared monopoly doctrine, the American counterpart to the collective dominance doctrine has largely been rejected by majority of American courts. It has been debated whether the collective doctrine was recognized also under the Korea Monopoly Regulation Act and there has been some related interpretative unclearness with regard to the presumption of market-dominating undertakings under Section 4 of the Act and provisions of the Merger Assessment Guidelines. In light of the relevant legislative history, legislative texts and competition policies, this article argues that the doctrine is recognized under the Korea Monopoly Regulation Act as well and supports interpretations based upon the doctrine. Further, it also suggests legislative amendments to clarifying the related issues.

참고문헌 (Reference)

1 홍명수, "집합적 시장지배력 개념의 발전과 Irish Sugar 사건의 의의" (128) : 2006

2 정성무, "시장지배적 사업자 추정에 대한 소고"

3 홍명수, "비씨카드 사건에서 시장지배력과 가격남용 판단의 타당성 고찰. in: 경제법판례연구 제4권" 법문사 2008

4 이호영, "독점금지법상 합의의 도그마에 대한 저항. in: 경쟁법연구 제12권" 법문사 2005

5 이호영, "독점규제법의 이론과 실무" 홍문사 2006

6 이봉의, "경제적 동일체이론과 공동의 시장지배에 관한 소고. in: 경제법판례연구 제5권" 법문사 2009

7 정호열, "경제법(제2판)" 박영사 2008

8 Sullivan & Harrison, "Understanding Antitrust and Its Economic Implications (4th ed.)" LexisNexis 2003

9 "U.S. Department of Justice & Federal Trade Commission"

10 Hay, "Oligopoly, Shared Monopoly, and Antitrust Law" 439 : 1982

11 Klotz, "Monopoly Power: Use, Proof and Relationship to Anticompetitive Effects in Section 2 Cases" FTC 2008

12 U.S. Department of Justice & Federal Trade Commission, "Horizontal Merger Guidelines"

13 European Commission, "Guidelines on the assessment of horizontal mergers under the Council Regulation on the control of concentrations between undertakings [2004] OJ C31/03"

14 Areeda & Hovenkamp, "Fundamentals of Antitrust Law (3d ed.)" Aspen Publishers 2006

15 Hovenkamp, "Federal Antitrust Policy-The Law of Competition and Its Practice (3d ed.)" Thomson & West 2005

16 이호영, "EU의 경쟁법 판례분석" 공정거래위원회 2008

17 Jones & Sufrin, "EC Competition Law (3d ed.)" Oxford 2008

18 U.S. Department of Justice, "Competition and Monopoly: Single-Firm Conduct Under Section 2 Of the Sherman Act"

19 Whish, "Competition Law (6th ed.)" Oxford 2009

20 European Commission, "Communication from the Commission, Guidance on the Commission’s Enforcement Priorities in Applying Article 82 EC Treaty to Abusive Exclusionary Conduct by Dominant Undertakings"

21 European Commission, "Commission’s 16th Report on Competition Policy"

22 Baxter & Dethmers, "Collective Dominance under EC Merger Control-After Airtours and the Introduction of Unilateral Effects Is There Still A Future for Collective Dominance?" 27 (27): 2006

23 ABA Section of Antitrust, "Antitrust Law Developments (6th ed.)" 2007