미국 방송통신 사업자 기업결합 규제와 시사점

황태희(Hwang, Tae Hi) 강원대학교 비교법학연구소 2017 江原法學 Vol.50 No.-

미디어 융합시대에 여러 방송통신 사업자들의 기업결합이 시도되고 있다. 미국의 경우에 독점금지법을 근거로 한 경쟁당국의 경쟁법적 심사와는 별도로 FCC는 통신법을 근거로 하여 공익성 심사를 중심으로 한 다양한 사회적, 정치적 고려를 바탕으로 기업결합의 허용여부를 판단하고 있다. 여기에서 말하는 공익성 심사는 비단 경제적 의미에서의 시장의 경쟁여부 뿐만 아니라 여론의 다양성, 소비자 내지 이용자의 편익, 지역간 불균형 해소 및 지역사회에의 기여 등이 포함된다. 이러한 기업결합 심사 방식은 법적으로 불확실성이 있고, 시장집중 현상을 제대로 평가하지 못한다는 지적에도 불구하고, 산업적 특성을 고려한 방송통신 규제의 목적 내지 새로운 기술에 따른 혁신, 다양성, 소수자 보호 등 여러 사회적, 정치적 관점에서 심사할 수 있는 장점이 있다. 특히 이 결과에 대하여 엄정한 사법적 심사를 통하여 법리를 형성하고 있다는 점은 우리나라의 방송통신 사업자의 기업결합 법제에 시사하는 바가 크다고 할 수 있겠다. In United States, several broadcasting or telecommunication companies have tried to merge each other because of the entry barriers of this industry and the trend of convergence of media. Besides the anti-compatitive test by the FTC and the DOJ, the FCC has the power to approve or prohibit the planned M&A of communication companies by means of public interest test. It means that the FCC on evaluating the attempted merger should concentrate on the competition of the broadcating and telecommunication market, convenience of consumer(user), program diversity, viewpoint diversity, outlet diversity, localism and various social and political voices. This way of the merger review process has many advantages, such as fulfilling the broad aim of telecommunication, promoting innovative technologies, protecting minorities and reflecting viewpoint diversity. Some commentators criticize that the FCC should more weigh on the anti-competitive problem like market concentration and that the results of some merger review of the FCC are too political. In spite of many debates, courts have proper rights to review the FCC’s decision of the related merger. Judicial reviews have developed strict principles of law, such as the definition and application of ‘public interest’ in the merger process, which gives implication to the Korean merger review system.

방송,통신 서비스의 결합판매에 대한 경쟁법적 검토 -끼워팔기 법리+C9를 중심으로-

황태희 ( Tae Hi Hwang ) 한국경쟁법학회 2013 競爭法硏究 Vol.27 No.-

Bundlings of broadcasting and telecommunications services are common among the operators. In the current Telecommunications Business Act, the Broadcasting Act and Internet Multimedia Broadcasting Act prohibit the unlawful bundling, which undermines the benefit of users, or discriminates users. On the other hand, KCC determines the standard of the ‘user interests’ where the issue relates the anti-competitiveness such as the leveraging of market power. Theoretically such regulatory practice is not appropriate. Moreover the illegal bundling that forces consumers to buy, or make the bundled product market uncompetitive effects may be regulated as ‘tying’ in terms of the competition law. Thus, if the bundling which hinders the interests of users should KCC regulate actively. But through the related bundling give rise to competition issues, such as the abuse of the market power, KFTC can prohibit as illegal tying. However, in this case, conflicts of the regulatory power and competition agencies can cause problems of competence. I think it is inevitable unless the enforcement of the regulatory authority bases on a general theory of competition.

온라인 게임 퍼블리싱 계약의 법적 성질과 당사자간 법률관계

황태희 ( Tae Hi Hwang ) 홍익대학교 법학연구소 2013 홍익법학 Vol.14 No.1

The publishing of the online game is different from the publishing of books, music, and other games in its character. Its success depends on not only the producing a good game but also the marketing and the public relations for the game of the publisher, who has combined know-how. The type of the contract between the producer and the publisher is not delegation nor contract for work but rather combination-like contract through a association of their contributing monetary investment or work. The producer and the publisher has the right of the co-published online game with their total hand, which can resolve the conflict of the economic interests of the parties easily. The state of the program / client DB of the published online game does not remain the time of the signing of the contract at the end of the contract period. The belonging of the newly formed DB and the property value of the game is not clear. Therefore, when we regard the online game publishing contract as a combination contracts, the parties are not allowed the split before the liquidation process, then can clearly and rightly distribute their revenue compared with the contribution of the members.

웹 크롤링의 경쟁법적 고찰

황태희 ( Tae Hi Hwang ) 한국경쟁법학회 2021 競爭法硏究 Vol.43 No.-

The purpose of the Competition Law is to enhance consumer welfare through free and fair competition in the market. In particular, the nature of search-based services in a data-driven economy requires data to be constantly shared, communicated, and analyzed in the marketplace. The Web crawling, which uses information collection robots to collect necessary information from other websites, is becoming common in the trading world as a new way of collecting the necessary information directly among the numerous information posted on the Internet. Web crawling is an essential act of gathering information in such search-based services, not in itself to limit the operations of others. It is a consumer-friendly mechanism that promotes price and quality competition for products or services and increases consumers’ choice because it can quickly and accurately provide the desired search results, product information, photos, and reviews. Thus, unfair restricting web crawling could impede consumer interests and also create obstruction of business activities for counterparts and competitors. It would be necessary to prevent large online operators from monopolizing information or distorting competition so that various information can be provided to consumers. As to whether it is illegal to crawl copyrighted content or databases, it will be necessary to determine whether crawling is consistent with the fair use of copyright. And if collecting information through crawling helps consumers expand their options and promote their welfare, it is necessary to avoid hastily judging them as violations of the law. The most important thing in the data-driven economy is that operators can compete fairly and that consumers should benefit from competition and innovation, which should not be overlooked in the legal judgment of crawling.

하계학술대회: 불공정거래행위 규제 개선의 모색 : 부당한 고객유인행위의 법적 검토

황태희 ( Tae Hi Hwang ) 한국경쟁법학회 2008 競爭法硏究 Vol.18 No.-

카르텔 자진신고자 감면제도의 개선방안의 모색 현행 카르텔 자진신고자 감면제도의 문제점과 개선방안

황태희 ( Tae Hi Hwang ) 한국경쟁법학회 2007 競爭法硏究 Vol.16 No.-

모바일 OS사업자의 제3자 앱 마켓 등록 제한행위에 대한 공정거래법 적용방안 연구

황태희 ( Tae Hi Hwang ) 한국경쟁법학회 2014 競爭法硏究 Vol.30 No.-

As the penetration of smart devices such popular OS for mobile devices basedapplications such as Internet access and applications are free to install, haschanged the composition of the market as it is possible to run. These apps tobe purchased in order to receive a variety of services in smart devices, theapp can deal app developers enrolled in the App market. But to attempt totransition from the dominance of the OS market in Appmarket. Market shareof Google``s Android is more than 70% globally and 90% in Korea``s case, thearrival time was needed to compete for a legal review of various policypackages and accounted for more than Google``s market share. To provideappropriate regulations for the IT business of such foreign country throughthe extraterritorial application of MRFTA provisions that have becomeimportant legal issues in the mobile app ecosystem. By the dominance of themobile OS market, act to deny the registration of the other apps in the appmarket competitors think the market is trading action for refusal to rule outa rival. And as a result, due to the consumer by limiting the registration ofthird-party app market competitors could disadvantage consumers by makinguse of its app market instead of a third party app market. These actions needto be appropriately regulated as other acts that interfere with the businessactivities of the operators as market dominant position abuse.

독일 경쟁제한방지법(GWB) 상 중소기업 보호규정과 시사점

황태희(Hwang Tae-Hi) 부산대학교 법학연구소 2011 법학연구 Vol.52 No.1

독일 GWB는 시장의 자유로운 경쟁을 제한하는 카르텔과 시장지배력의 남용행위를 규제하여 국민경제 전체의 질서를 바로지우기 위한 목적을 달성하고자 한다. 그러한 차원과 더불어 시장에서의 경쟁에 영향이 그리 크지 않은 중소기업 간의 공동행위에 대한 예외적 허용 조항을 두고 있으며, 시장지배적 지위 내지 우월적 지위를 가진 사업자의 남용행위 규제에 있어서의 특칙을 마련하여 중소기업을 보호하고 있다. 이것은 시장에서의 자유로운 경쟁을 전제로 하여 중소기업을 보호하기 위한 구조적인 노력으로 평가 할 수 있다. 중소기업이 처해있는 불리한 경쟁여건을 보완하고 대기업과 중소기업이 서로 적대시하는 관계가 아니라 상호협력하고 공존한다는 이념을 바탕으로 공정하고 자유로운 경쟁을 유지하기 위한 적극적 노력의 일환으로서의 독점규제법의 보완이 필요하다. 그 점에 있어서 독일의 GWB는 시사하는 바가 크다고 할 것이다. German competition law(GWB) regulates the restrictive activities against free competition in the market, cartels and abuse of market power, to keep the order of the national economy as a whole rightfully. But doing little harm to the market, joint activities between small and medium enterprises (Mittelstandskartell) are allowed. Exceptional provisions about the protection to SMEs against the abusive practices of market dominance are also prepared in the GWB. This is regarded as a structural protection to SMEs, premised on free and fair competition in the market. Substantial protection for small businesses in implementing the korean MRFTA can be relatively quite inadequate. When SMEs making a collective research or a joint venture, KFTC must give them advancedly admission. But this program has been actually seldom used and needs some improvement. And the provisions of the targeted protection for the SMEs should explicitly legislate in the market abuse or unfair trade practices of MRFTA, which is implicated by GWB. A better concern to SMEs in MRFTA should be regarded as making a level playing field, which can keep the market economy with free and fair competition. Additionally trying to the legislative and the institutional improvement for that should be approached systematically with other programs about SMEs.

지적재산권의 정당한 행사의 판단기준과 역지불 합의의 경쟁법상 취급

황태희 ( Tae Hi Hwang ) 한국경쟁법학회 2013 競爭法硏究 Vol.28 No.-

Both the intellectual property law and the competition law aim at promoting consumer welfare. Therefore the justification of the IP practice should be evaluate by means of competitive standard. The undertaking who produces the original drug with the relative patent and does not want competitors who make the generic drugs to enter the market set the reverse payment agreement with competitors. Through such agreement the undertaking prevents the competition of the market and can make use of monopoly power until the end of the patent. It hinder the free and fair competion of the market. Lubeck Case of the EU and Actavis judgement in the USA point out the anti-competitiveness of the reverse payment agreement. It should be regulated by the illegal cartel with the standard of rule of reason.

하도급 거래에 있어서 수급사업자 보호의 실효성 제고방안에 관한 법적 연구 -시정조치 등 제재를 중심으로-

황태희 ( Tae Hi Hwang ) 한국경쟁법학회 2012 競爭法硏究 Vol.25 No.-