국제통상규범으로서 경쟁법의 적용가능성 연구

권현호(Kwon, Hyunho) 한국국제경제법학회 2014 국제경제법연구 Vol.12 No.2

본 연구는 경쟁법이 국제통상법의 한 부분으로 국제통상 관계에 직접 적용될 수 있는가에 대하여 검토하였다. 이를 위해 본 논문은 다자간 차원에서는 GATT/WTO법에서의 경쟁규범의 모습을 검토하였으며, 지역/양자간 차원에서는 우리나라가 체결한 FTA에서의 경쟁규범의 내용을 살펴보았다. 또한 본 연구는 국가의 경쟁정책과 관련된 통상분쟁이 어떤 방식으로 해석되고 그 한계는 무엇인지에 대하여 GATT/WTO의 주요 판례를 통해 검토하였다. 이러한 연구의 결과 비록 GATT/WTO의 실체법은 통상관계에 영향을 미치는 경쟁규범을 일부 협정들에 포함하고 있긴 하지만, 민간 당사자의 행위로 이루어지는 경쟁제한적 영업관행(RBP)을 직접 규율하는 좁은 의미에서 국제경쟁법의 내용은 현 WTO 협정에는 명시되지 않았으며, 다만 공정한 경쟁을 제한하는 행위에 대하여 그것이 기존 WTO법에 위반될 때 WTO 분쟁해결제도를 통한 조치가 가능함을 알 수 있다. 이처럼 통상규범으로서 경쟁규범의 적용에서 가장 핵심적인 쟁점은 반경쟁적 행위의 대부분은 민간 당사자에 의해 이루어지고 있으나 민간의 행위 그 자체는 국제통상법의 규율대상이 아니라는 점이다. 그럼에도 불구하고 통상법은 ‘불공정한 경쟁’을 제한하는 많은 판례를 두고 있고, 이는 넓은 의미의 ‘경쟁’의 조건 또는 경쟁 기회의 동등성을 보호하고자 하는 것으로 이해되며, 그 결과 다양한 기존 WTO 규범의 위반형태로 제기되었다. 이상의 논의를 종합하여 보면 국제통상 관계에서 경쟁규범의 실질적이고 효과적인 집행을 위해서는 포괄적이고 독립된 다자간 경쟁법이 체결되는 것이 가장 확실한 방법으로 생각된다. 그러나 경쟁법의 다자규범화는 아직까지 결실을 이루지 못하고 있고, 이러한 현실을 타개하기 위한 대안으로 국내경쟁법의 역외적용이나, FTA 등과 같은 양자협정의 적용 확대 등이 제시되고 있다. 그러나 이러한 대안은 잠정적 대안이 될 수는 있지만 통상 분야에 적용되는 국제경쟁법의 궁극적 대안이 되기는 어렵다고 보인다. 따라서 국제통상법으로서의 다자간 국제경쟁법의 수립방향은 우선 WTO에서 협상과 채택이 가능한 핵심원칙만을 포함한 골격협정(framework agreement)에서 논의를 시작해야 할 것으로 보인다. 그러나 이러한 논의가 어려운 경우, 협정에 참여하는 국가들 사이에 먼저 적용될 수 있도록 복수국간협정(plurilateral agreement)의 형식으로 체결되는 것도 유력한 대안으로 검토할 필요가 있다. It is legally studied that an direct applicability of competition law as an part of the international trade law in this paper. For this purpose, a number of laws and regulations related to competition policy in some FTAs for regional trade as well as GATT/WTO system for multilateral trade are examined. This study is also examined some GATT/WTO cases interpreting competition policy. In consequence, we are not able to find international competition law directly regulating restrictive business practices by private actors, in the narrowest sense, affecting the relationship between international trade and competition policy in domestic law, even though there are some rules and/or regulations in a couple of GATT/WTO agreements related to competition policy affecting international trade. This is evident that private actors do not have a legal personality as parties in the WTO disputes even if they actually play an important role in anti-competitive behaviors. Therefore, for substantially and effectively enforcing competition law in the international trade, it is a basic prerequisite to establish a comprehensive and independent multilateral international competition law. Unfortunately the discussions for setting a multilateral competition law in the WTO were driven to a corner, and then, it is suggested that extraterritorial application of domestic competition law as well as competition regulations in FTAs as alternative measures for breaking this deadlock. However, this suggestion may not be a fundamental solution for building an international competition law. Therefore, this paper makes two practicable alternative approaches for establishing an international competition law as a part of an international trade law: One is to conclude a “framework agreement” including only fundamental principles that can be accepted by the WTO Members, and another is to making a “plurilateral agreement” which can apply only to the Members participated in this agreement.

경쟁법 위반문제의 중재적격성에 대한 미국 대법원의 입장

김석호(KIM Seok-Ho) 한국법학회 2010 법학연구 Vol.37 No.-

국제거래의 중요성과 세계화의 경향과 함께 경쟁법의 중요성은 점증하고 있으나, 아쉽게도 국제경쟁법의 형성은 지체되고 있다. 이러한 상황에서 한편으로는 공정거래의 확보를 위한 경쟁법의 역외적용이 시도되고 있고, 다른 한편으로는, 국제거래의 예측가능성 및 안정성을 확보해 주기 위해 국제거래에 대한 중재의 인정과 경쟁법 위반문제에 대한 중재회부 가능성 여부 역시 중요한 법적 테마로 제기될 수 있다. 그런데 이 두 문제 모두에 대해 첨단을 가는 국가가 미국이라 할 수 있으며, 본 논문은 이들 중 두 번째 문제에 대한 미국 대법원 입장을 분석하고 이의 대내적 및 대외적 영향을 분석하고자 하는 것이다. 즉 첫째, 경쟁법 문제의 중재적격성 문제는 각국의 국내법뿐만 아니라 〈국제중재의 승인ㆍ집행에 관한 뉴욕 협약〉의 해석 적용과도 관련되는 것이며, 미국 내에서는 이에 대한 하급심 판결을 총정리하는 것임과 동시에 중재적격성과 관련하여 미국의 〈증권거래법〉과 〈경쟁법〉의 상호관계와 관련하여 정리해야 할 문제가 있다. 둘째, 대부분의 국제거래가 미국 및 경쟁법 문제와 연관 될 수 있는 상황에서, 미국 경쟁법 위반 문제가 중재회부 가능한 문제인지에 대한 미국 대법원의 최종입장은 세계적인 영향을 미칠 수 있는 문제인데, 이러한 입장이 Mitsubishi Motors 사건을 통해 미국 대법원의 입장이 정리되게 됨으로서, 본 글은 이 사건을 중심으로 이것이 미국 법체계에 대한 영향과 외국 및 한국에 미칠 수 있는 영향을 살펴본 것이다. The growth of international trade depends on the contracting parties' ability to ensure neutrality and predictability when resolving international disputes. The use of arbitration is increasingly popular as a method of resolving international trade disputes. It is due in part to the perceived speed, efficiency, and informality of the proceedings, as well as the growing reluctance among businesses to litigate in foreign courts. Notwithstanding a national policy encouraging arbitration of commercial disputes, most countries maintain that certain public law issues must be resolved by the courts in order to protect the public interest involved. In certains countries including U.S.A., however, it's not clear whether disputes involving the economic laws such as antitrust law are arbitrable. Considering not only the position which the U.S.A. hold in international trade but also the frequency that apply extraterritorially its antitrust law, whether american judiciary perceive disputes involving the antitrust law arbitrable or not will have great effect on the economy and law of U.S.A as well as those of other countries. This article try to analyse this problem through the position of United States Supreme Court in the Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc. case. The Court had no quarrel with the American Safety doctrine as it applied to domestic transactions but concluded that 'concerns of international comity,' respect for the abilities of transnational arbitral tribunals, and the need for predictability in the resolution of international commercial disputes require enforcement of international arbitration agreements. The Mitsubishi decision portends a policy favoring arbitration which will open the door to increased international trade with American parties due to the certainty of enforcement of their arbitration agreements.

9.11 사건 이후 국제이해교육의 방향 정립에 관한 연구

김현덕 한국국제이해교육학회 2011 국제이해교육연구 Vol.6 No.2

전통적으로 세계적인 시각을 강조하는 국제이해교육은 21세기 들어와 큰 변 화를 맞이하게 되었다. 21세기 벽두에 발생한 9.11 테러는 미국의 교육에서 국 가주의가 강조되고 세계시민의식이 퇴보하는 계기가 되었다. 반면 세계 각국의 사회 환경은 다문화사회가 점차 심화되면서 다양한 문화권 사람들 간의 공존 을 위한 세계시민성 함양을 요구하고 있다. 이러한 서로 대립되는 교육적 요구 를 함께 수용하기 위한 방안 모색은 향후 국제이해교육의 방향 설정에 있어 중요한 역할을 하게 될 것이다. 이러한 관점에서 본 논문은 국가주의를 강조해 온 미국의 시민교육과 세계주의를 강조해온 국제이해교육이 변화하는 사회적 환경에 적응하여 서로의 교육목표를 보완해가는 과정을 통해 두 교육 분야가 궁극적으로 지향하는 공통의 교육목표를 밝혀내려 하였으며, 이를 통해 우리나 라의 국제이해교육뿐 아니라 21세기의 국제이해교육이 지향해야 할 방향을 제 시하려 하였다. 제시된 교육목표는 다중시민성의 함양으로 이 개념은 시민성의 개념을 한 국가에 국한하지 않고 지역, 국가연합 또는 세계시민으로 확대하여 시민성을 다차원적, 다중적으로 인식하고자 한다.

EU경쟁법의 역외적용을 위한 “적격영향 심사”에 관한 고찰

정찬모 법무부 2020 선진상사법률연구 Vol.- No.92

The traditional timid image of the European Union in the extraterritorial application of its competition law began to change. While US applied Sherman Antitrust Act aggressively to overseas cartels on the basis of effects doctrine since 1950s, only the Commission among the European institutions has welcomed the doctrine. The European Court of Justice sticked to the principle of territoriality relying on the single economic entity or implementation doctrines. This position of the European courts has shifted recently. In 1999, the General Court accepted the three constituting criteria of “immediate, substantial and foreseeable effect” without calling it “qualified effects” in the merger case of two South African companies, Gencor and Lonrho. In 2011, the General Court’s InnoLux decision outstretched the implementation doctrine to sales into the EU through transformation of the product by a third party in a third country, which was criticized by the Advocate General but supported by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). Finally in 2017, the General Court openly used, and the CJEU approved, the term and concept of “qualified effects test” in the Intel v. Commission case, involving abuse of dominant position by the American company in Asia. This paper shows that the European qualified effects test has the same expansive scope with the US effects doctrine, which has now been adopted by many countries including Korea. The European doctrine even seems more aggressive than its American cousin in merger review and regulation of dominant undertakings. The paper acknowledges inevitability of general acceptance of effects doctrine in the face of economic globalization. It, however, cautions against unlimited expansion of extraterritoriality and suggests that a balance should be struck by elaborating how to consider conflicting interests within the principle of international comity. 종래 미국에 비하여 소극적이던 EU의 경쟁법 역외적용이 확대되고 있으며 이론적 근거로 영향이론이 수용되고 있다. EU집행위원회가 영향이론을 일찍이 수용했음에 비하여 EU의 법원은 경제적 동일체 이론과 실행이론이라는 속지주의의 변종을 통해 사회변화에 대응하면서도 영향이론을 수용하는 것에는 소극적이었다. 그러나 이러한 법원의 종래 입장에도 변화가 일어났다. 일심법원인 일반법원(General Court)의 경우에는 남아프리카공화국 광산회사인 Gencor와 Lonrho간의 합병 사건 이후에 실질적으로 영향이론을 수용하더니 2014년Intel v. Commission 판결에서 “적격영향 심사”라는 명칭으로 공식적으로 이를 적용하였으며, 2017년 EU법 최고법원인 유럽연합사법재판소(CJEU)가 이를 확인하는 판결을 내리게 된다. EU의 적격영향 심사는 미국의 영향이론의 최대치와 범주를 같이 하는 것으로 파악된다. 나아가, 합병 및 지배적 지위남용과 관련해서는 오히려 미국보다도 더 공세적으로 적용되고 있다. 영향이론의 보편화는 경제활동의 국제화로 불가피한 측면도 있으나 일방적 역외적용이 무제한으로 이루어질 수는 없으며 국제예양 원칙에 의하여 제한되어야 한다. 관할간 법익형량의 구체적 방법론을 발전시켜 영향이론의 확대와 균형을 이룰 필요가 있다.

특집논단 : 간격 좁히기: 국제 경쟁법으로의 수렴 또는 그로부터의 분산 -한국 경쟁법상 단독 행위 규제를 중심으로-

홍대식 ( Dae Sik Hong ) 한국경쟁법학회 2015 競爭法硏究 Vol.31 No.-

This paper aims to find out whether unilateral conduct regulations in Korean competition law, that is Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act(``the Act``) are converging to or diverging from emerging global competition law. For this pupose, this paper is divided into three parts: (1) finding out the meaning of "anti-competitiveness" and "fair trade impediment" as legal basis of regualating unilateral conducts in Korean competition law, (2) case brief and analysis on Posco case, and (3) Review of formation factors affecting Posco and its assessment. The Act article 2 paragraph 8-2 has the definition of substantial restriction of competition. This term is consisted of two element: an element affecting the competitive process and an element affecting the outcome of competition. The Act article 23 has the requirement of fair trade impediment whose standard is broader than that of competition restriction. In Posco case which involved Posco``s refusal to supply Hyundai Hysco of its hot coils when Hysco tried to enter the market of domestic cold-rolled steel plate, the Korea Fair Trade Commission(``the KFTC``) ordered corrective measures against Posco for its abuse of dominance. The KFTC``s resolution was grounded on the findings of competitive disadvantage suffered by Hysco which was presumed de facto based on concrete disadvantage and Posco``s intent to restrict competition. There is no specific recongnition about effects of competition restriction. At the appealing stage, the Seoul High Court confirmed the conclusion of the KFTC``s resolution, but the logic of its judgment is different in that it requires to prove competitive disadvantage and effects of competition restriction even though the degree of proof is either low or presumed de facto. On the contrary, the Supreme Court rendered the judgment, remanding the case to the Seoul High Court after reversal. According to the majority opinion of the Supreme Court, intention or purpose of competition restriction should be proven as well as an act likely to effect competition restriction. The rationale of the KFTC``s resolution is similar to the German concept of the impediment abuse. Compared with this, the Seoul High Court``s conclusion seeks to find out the meaning of the exclusionary abuse, but fails since it adopts the presumption rules for the effects of competition restriction. Regarding the majority opinion in the Supreme Court decision, several commentators have assessed it as the effects-based approach. When adopting the effects-based approach, the unilateral conduct of enterprises should be examined based on whether it affects competition adversely. Foreclosure effect and consumer harm are expected to be placed as the focus of analysis. Even though it is still vague what is the stance of the Supreme Court on which the focus would be placed between process and outcome, the legal standards established by the Supreme Court is certain to converge toward emerging global competition law in the area of abuse of dominance law.

FTA와 경쟁정책:한미 FTA상의 경쟁 장의 내용 및 국내법제에 미칠 영향을 중심으로

김두진(Kim, DooJin) 한양법학회 2009 漢陽法學 Vol.25 No.-

The KOREA-US Free Trade Agreement (hereinafter “KORUS FTA”) was signed in April 2007 between trade negotiating representatives, and is awaiting respective legislator’s recognition. Even though the issue of recognizing KORUS FTA by the National Assembly is still in deep political debate in Korea, the KORUS FTA will be a cornerstone, if it will be effectuated, that will lead both countries into the economic progress and joint prosperity. This article is intended to provide the relationship between the FTAs and Competition Policy and the expectation about the prospective influence of KORUS FTA on the Korean competition legal system. The KORUS FTA Chapter Sixteen regulates the competition-related matters. The competition Chapter is composed of 9 articles. Among them, article 16.1 declares adopting, maintaining and applying competition measures to the anticompetitive business conduct. And Articles 16.2 and 16.3 admit room for the designated monopolies and the state enterprises. Article 16.5 guarantees transparency in the both Parties’ competition enforcement policies. And article 16.7 prescribes a consultation procedure to address specific matters that arise under competition Chapter. The expansion of the relevant geographic market through KORUS FTA might have an effect on measuring anticompetitiveness. That is why, generally speaking, once the relevant geographic market would be defined larger, the possibility of acknowledging market power might lessen. And the consent orders may be introduced into Korean competition legal system stimulated by KORUS FTA. The introduction of the consent orders will prompt the public enforcement of the Anti-Monopoly and Fair Trade Act and encourage the compensation for injured consumers. The enforcement of KORUS FTA will raise the occurrence of the international competition law cases. Classifying the cases according to the anticompetitive issues included, two approaches could be adopted to solve the problem. In hard core cartel cases, the courts or competition law authorities of an affected Country may exercise jurisdiction over cartel behavior in Contracting Party, applying domestic competition Law. Differently, in cases not involving hard-core cartels, comity factors should be applied to require the courts or competition law authorities of an affected Country to abstain from exercising extraterritorial competition law jurisdiction over anticompetitive conduct in Contracting Party.

FTA와 경쟁정책 -한미 FTA상의 경쟁 장의 내용 및 국내법제에 미칠 영향을 중심으로-

김두진 한양법학회 2009 漢陽法學 Vol.25 No.-

The KOREA-US Free Trade Agreement (hereinafter “KORUS FTA”) was signed in April 2007 between trade negotiating representatives, and is awaiting respective legislator’s recognition. Even though the issue of recognizing KORUS FTA by the National Assembly is still in deep political debate in Korea, the KORUS FTA will be a cornerstone, if it will be effectuated, that will lead both countries into the economic progress and joint prosperity. This article is intended to provide the relationship between the FTAs and Competition Policy and the expectation about the prospective influence of KORUS FTA on the Korean competition legal system. The KORUS FTA Chapter Sixteen regulates the competition-related matters. The competition Chapter is composed of 9 articles. Among them, article 16.1 declares adopting, maintaining and applying competition measures to the anticompetitive business conduct. And Articles 16.2 and 16.3 admit room for the designated monopolies and the state enterprises. Article 16.5 guarantees transparency in the both Parties’ competition enforcement policies. And article 16.7 prescribes a consultation procedure to address specific matters that arise under competition Chapter. The expansion of the relevant geographic market through KORUS FTA might have an effect on measuring anticompetitiveness. That is why, generally speaking, once the relevant geographic market would be defined larger, the possibility of acknowledging market power might lessen. And the consent orders may be introduced into Korean competition legal system stimulated by KORUS FTA. The introduction of the consent orders will prompt the public enforcement of the Anti-Monopoly and Fair Trade Act and encourage the compensation for injured consumers. The enforcement of KORUS FTA will raise the occurrence of the international competition law cases. Classifying the cases according to the anticompetitive issues included, two approaches could be adopted to solve the problem. In hard core cartel cases, the courts or competition law authorities of an affected Country may exercise jurisdiction over cartel behavior in Contracting Party, applying domestic competition Law. Differently, in cases not involving hard-core cartels, comity factors should be applied to require the courts or competition law authorities of an affected Country to abstain from exercising extraterritorial competition law jurisdiction over anticompetitive conduct in Contracting Party.

Key Drivers of Value Creation Following Cross-Border Brand Changes

오한모 한국국제경영관리학회 2013 국제경영리뷰 Vol.17 No.3

Brand-equity strategy is a key marketing decision for international firms that attempt to expand into foreign consumer markets. Those firms can achieve competitive advantage in their target markets, which in turn leads to superior financial performance, by developing and/or acquiring an effectiveness-enhancing portfolio of brands. Although firms often build their brand portfolios internally, international firms can efficiently and effectively invade foreign markets as well as enhance their product portfolios while lowering risk by acquiring cross-border brands. Despite the strategic importance of cross-border acquisitions, there has been little understanding of the determinants of successful cross-border brand acquisitions. Underpinning the belief that the stock return to a marketing strategy signifies the long-term financial performance, the present study attempts to find the drivers of value creation following cross-border brand changes. Using the resource-advantage theory of competition as an underlying framework, the current study develops an empirically testable model that can explain how firms should wisely undertake cross-border brand acquisitions. The model was tested with a comprehensive dataset drawn from the Securities Data Company Platinum Database and other secondary data sources. The findings of the study show that value creation following cross-border brand changes is based on the acquired brand’s equity, brand fit, acquirer’s diversification, and acquirer’s brand management capability.