RISS 학술연구정보서비스

검색
다국어 입력

http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.

변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.

예시)
  • 中文 을 입력하시려면 zhongwen을 입력하시고 space를누르시면됩니다.
  • 北京 을 입력하시려면 beijing을 입력하시고 space를 누르시면 됩니다.
닫기
    인기검색어 순위 펼치기

    RISS 인기검색어

      KCI등재

      관련시장 획정에 있어서의 주요 쟁점 검토 -행위 유형별 관련시장 획정의 필요성 및 기준을 중심으로- = Review of Major Issues on Defining a Relevant Market: Focused on Necessity of and Standard for the Market Definition by Conduct Types

      한글로보기

      https://www.riss.kr/link?id=A82647949

      • 0

        상세조회
      • 0

        다운로드
      서지정보 열기
      • 내보내기
      • 내책장담기
      • 공유하기
      • 오류접수

      부가정보

      다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract) kakao i 다국어 번역

      In an abuse of dominance case, market definition plays a critical role throughout the legal analysis of the Korea Fair Trade Commission (the KFTC): from the initial assessment whether the entity at issue is indeed dominant in the relevant market, to the assessment of the anticompetitive effect generated by the entity`s conduct, to the final assessment of the legality of the conduct. Likewise, in a cartel case, market definition should be required if the KFTC is to assess whether the parties to the agreement at issue constitute competitors and to what extent the agreement at issue restrains competition in the relevant market, irrespective of whether the parties` conduct should be classified as hard-core cartel activity. Further, when viewed in the context of existing KFTC guidelines and Korean Supreme Court precedent, the market definition methodology is substantively the same whether the conduct at issue involves abuse of dominance, a business combination that restrains competition, or a cartel. That is to say, whereas the exact process by which a relevant market is defined could vary depending on the specific case, the overall methodology should remain the same. When defining the relevant market in a case, emphasis should be placed on the nature of the conduct at issue rather than the superficial classification of the conduct. Thus, a case requiring a prospective analysis of potential anticompetitive effects should be distinguished from a case requiring a retrospective analysis of past or existing anticompetitive effects, and vice versa. Meanwhile, whereas the degree of precision required in defining a relevant market varies depending on the specific case, a rigorous analysis of anticompetitive effects accompanied by a concrete definition of the relevant market should be employed where the conduct at issue requires a detailed analysis, e.g., where the presence or degree of anticompetitive effects depends on the market definition, where it is unclear whether the parties to an agreement constitute competitors, etc.
      번역하기

      In an abuse of dominance case, market definition plays a critical role throughout the legal analysis of the Korea Fair Trade Commission (the KFTC): from the initial assessment whether the entity at issue is indeed dominant in the relevant market, to t...

      In an abuse of dominance case, market definition plays a critical role throughout the legal analysis of the Korea Fair Trade Commission (the KFTC): from the initial assessment whether the entity at issue is indeed dominant in the relevant market, to the assessment of the anticompetitive effect generated by the entity`s conduct, to the final assessment of the legality of the conduct. Likewise, in a cartel case, market definition should be required if the KFTC is to assess whether the parties to the agreement at issue constitute competitors and to what extent the agreement at issue restrains competition in the relevant market, irrespective of whether the parties` conduct should be classified as hard-core cartel activity. Further, when viewed in the context of existing KFTC guidelines and Korean Supreme Court precedent, the market definition methodology is substantively the same whether the conduct at issue involves abuse of dominance, a business combination that restrains competition, or a cartel. That is to say, whereas the exact process by which a relevant market is defined could vary depending on the specific case, the overall methodology should remain the same. When defining the relevant market in a case, emphasis should be placed on the nature of the conduct at issue rather than the superficial classification of the conduct. Thus, a case requiring a prospective analysis of potential anticompetitive effects should be distinguished from a case requiring a retrospective analysis of past or existing anticompetitive effects, and vice versa. Meanwhile, whereas the degree of precision required in defining a relevant market varies depending on the specific case, a rigorous analysis of anticompetitive effects accompanied by a concrete definition of the relevant market should be employed where the conduct at issue requires a detailed analysis, e.g., where the presence or degree of anticompetitive effects depends on the market definition, where it is unclear whether the parties to an agreement constitute competitors, etc.

      더보기

      동일학술지(권/호) 다른 논문

      동일학술지 더보기

      더보기

      분석정보

      View

      상세정보조회

      0

      Usage

      원문다운로드

      0

      대출신청

      0

      복사신청

      0

      EDDS신청

      0

      동일 주제 내 활용도 TOP

      더보기

      주제

      연도별 연구동향

      연도별 활용동향

      연관논문

      연구자 네트워크맵

      공동연구자 (7)

      유사연구자 (20) 활용도상위20명

      이 자료와 함께 이용한 RISS 자료

      나만을 위한 추천자료

      해외이동버튼