방송통신 융합 환경 하의 관련시장 획정 이슈

이내찬(Nae-Chan Lee) 사이버커뮤니케이션학회 2007 사이버 커뮤니케이션 학보 Vol.24 No.1

방송통신 융합이라는 환경 변화에 대응하키 위해 각국의 규제기관은 기존의 규제체계를 수평적 규제체계로 전환하고 있다. 본고의 목적은 경쟁상황평가제도, 특히 방송시장의 특수성을 감안한 관련시장 획정 방법론을 IPTV를 사례로 분석하고 정책적 함의를 도출함으로써 원활한 수평적 규제체계의 운영을 위한 초석을 제공하는데 있다. IPTV의 관련시장 획정 시 주요한 이슈는 전국사업자와 지역사업자가 경쟁하는 지리적 관련시장과 아날로그와 디지털 서비스 간 진화 서비스가 경쟁하는 경우의 관련시장 획정이다. 전자와 관련해서는 전국사업자의 전국 단일요금의 설정 여부와 간접수요대체성의 존재가 관련시장의 획정에 영향을 미치며 후자의 경우는 디지털 시장의 성장 단계가 영향을 미친다. 결합판매가 이루어질 경우 시장획정 역시 중요한 이슈이다. 본고에서 살펴본 정책적 함의는 다음과 같다. 첫째, IPTV사업자의 사업구역 분할과 관련해서는 요금 설정권의 높은 자유도에 의한 시장지배력의 강화와 규모, 범위의 비경제 등의 약화 간 상쇄관계를 고려하여야 한다. 둘째, 네트워크 포설은 시장 성장과 사업자의 수익원 안정화에 따라 그 범위를 점진적으로 확대하는 방식이 바람직하며 시장이 기능하지 못하는 부분은 보편적 역무의 제도화에 의해 보완되어야 한다. 마지막으로 합리적인 겸영규제의 운영을 위해서는 경쟁상황평가의 제도화를 고려하는 것이 바람직하며 특히 시장의 동태적 변화를 염두에 두어야 한다. It is a general trend that regulatory authorities in many countries transform existing vertical regulatory regimes into horizontal ones in response to an environmental change such as convergence between broadcasting and telecommunications. The purpose of this paper is to offer a reference for better management of the horizontal regulatory regime by applying IPTV the methodology of market review, especially the logic of defining relevant market, considering broadcasting-market-specific factors and deriving policy implications. Two main issues in market definition of IPTV are first, a geographical market issue where national and regional operators are competing with and second, the coexistence of migrating services such as analogue and digital technologies. Whether prices are nationally set uniformly and a chain of substitutability exists affect the former, while phases of growth in digital technologies influences the latter. Market definition in case of bundling is another issue. Policy implications are as follows. Trade-offs between high degree of freedom in pricing and diseconomies of scale and scope of undertaking when adequate geographic partition of service areas of IPTV operators is considered. Also, it is desirable that networks be expanded gradually in accordance with phases of market growth and stability in revenue streams of carriers, while areas of which market function does not work are complemented by the institutionalization of universal service. Finally, market share regulation should be supported by market review and consider dynamic changes of market.

기업결합과 관련시장의 획정

곽상현(Gwack Sang-Hyun) 한국법학원 2006 저스티스 Vol.- No.93

기업결합에 관한 공정거래법의 규정은 대륙법 체계를 받아들이고 있는 우리나라의 다른 법 영역과는 달리 미국의 셔먼법과 클레이톤법에 그 기반을 둔 것이고, 심사기준 역시 미국의 가이드라인에서 채택하고 있는 가상적인 독점가 이론을 그대로 수용하는 등 미국의 이론들을 대폭 받아들이고 있는 실정이다. 미국에서는 1895년 E. C. Knight 사건을 시작으로 기업결합에 대한 사법적 통제의 역사가 100년을 넘기고 있는 반면, 우리나라에서는 2004년 선고된 서울고등법원의 소주 사건이 기업결합에 대한 최초의 사법적 심사의 대상이 되었고, 그 후 서울고등법원에서 피아노 사건에 대한 판결이 선고되어 대법원에 계속 중인 것이 그 전부이다. 그리고 학자들 사이에서도 아직 기업결합에 대한 이론적인 측면 역시 미국에서만큼 활발하게 논하여지지도 못하고 있는 것이 우리의 현실이다. 이 논문에서는 이러한 점을 고려하여, part ∏ 에서는 기업결합에 대한 전반적인 이해를 위하여 그와 관련된 주요 문제점 및 공정거래법상의 규제요건을 다루고, 특히 미국에서의 입법의 전개과정과 판례의 변천사는 우리 공정거래법을 해석하는 중요한 척도가 될 것이라는 생각에 비교적 상세하게 설명하고 있다. part Ⅲ에서는 관련시장의 획정문제를 다루고 있는데 관련시장의 문제는 거의 모든 결합사건에서 문제가 되고 있고, 기업결합 분석의 출발점이자 핵심적인 사항임에도 공정거래법에 그 획정의 기준에 대하여 아무런 언급이 없다. 따라서 관련시장의 획정은 학설과 판례에 의존할 수밖에 없다 할 것이데, 그에 관하여 우리나라에서는 아직 그 연구가 미흡한 상태라 하지 아니할 수 없다. 이 논문에서는 그 동안 우리나라에서 단편적으로 소개되고 있는 관련시장의 획정 이론을 좀 더 체계적이고 역사적인 관점으로 접근하는 논문을 요약하여 소개하고, 아울러 미국의 판례들도 우리 공정거래법을 이해하는데 도움이 될 것으로 판단하여 가급적 많이 언급하고 있다. 특히 가상적인 독점가 이론과 임계매출감소분석 등 비교적 최근의 경제분석이론을 소개하고, 셀로판의 오류에 대하여도 자세하게 다루고 있다. 현대 상거래에서 국제거래와 전자상거래가 그 비중이 점차 증가하고 있음은 분명한 사실이라 할 것이다. 변화된 상거래 현실을 고려하면서 어느 기업의 시장지배력을 정확하게 구분하기 위한 이론 정립이 필요하다 할 것이고, 특히 지역시장 획정의 문제와 관련하여 많은 문제점을 내포하고 있다고 보여진다. 이 논문에서는 전자상거래와 지역시장의 문제를 비교적 자세하게 다루고 있고, 최근 미국 FTC가 발표한 와인 보고서도 언급한다.

공정거래법상 기업결합의 관련시장 획정

손창완(Sohn, Chang-Wan) 원광대학교 법학연구소 2011 圓光法學 Vol.27 No.1

The Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act in Korea prohibits mergers which substantially restrict competition in the line of commerce. The term "the act substantially restrict competition" refers to any of the practices that affect or threaten to affect the setting of price, quantity, quality, or other terms or conditions of trading in accordance with the intent of a certain enterpriser or an enterprisers' organization owing to reduced competition in a line of commerce. Market concentration, which is found based on market share of the company is a key indicator in determining anticompetitive effect due to mergers. In order to calculate market share of the company, it is necessary to specify the 'line of commerce' that is subject to calculation of the company's market share, and this is known as 'relevant market'. Defining relevant market for goods where competition is being questioned, is a prerequisite to determining anticompetitive effect of mergers with respect to the Fair Trade Act. However, defining the relevant market is more than just a precondition in determining anticompetitive effect via mergers; it has a critical role in determining whether the merger restrict competition. Relevant markets refer to the scope of enterprisers which are co-competitors, and thus, broad definition of relevant market lowers the market share or market power of the company thereby alleviating the evaluation standard of anticompetitive effect via mergers. On the other hand, if relevant market is defined narrowly, the opposite effect results. This shows that in determining the illegality of mergers, reasonable and accurate definition of the relevant market is imperative. Therefore, in many merger review cases, the recipient assert the market in mergers defines broadly, which brings the issue of ddefinition of relevant markets an essential issue in merger review cases. This paper thus analyzes how relevant markets defines in Free Trade Commission's decisions related to review of mergers for future in-depth studies on relevant markets.

공정거래법상 기업결합의 관련시장 획정 - 공정거래위원회의 심결례 분석을 중심으로 -

손창완 원광대학교 법학연구소 2011 法學硏究 Vol.27 No.1

The Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act in Korea prohibits mergers which substantially restrict competition in the line of commerce. The term "the act substantially restrict competition" refers to any of the practices that affect or threaten to affect the setting of price, quantity, quality, or other terms or conditions of trading in accordance with the intent of a certain enterpriser or an enterprisers' organization owing to reduced competition in a line of commerce. Market concentration, which is found based on market share of the company is a key indicator in determining anticompetitive effect due to mergers. In order to calculate market share of the company, it is necessary to specify the 'line of commerce' that is subject to calculation of the company's market share, and this is known as 'relevant market'. Defining relevant market for goods where competition is being questioned, is a prerequisite to determining anticompetitive effect of mergers with respect to the Fair Trade Act. However, defining the relevant market is more than just a precondition in determining anticompetitive effect via mergers; it has a critical role in determining whether the merger restrict competition. Relevant markets refer to the scope of enterprisers which are co-competitors, and thus, broad definition of relevant market lowers the market share or market power of the company thereby alleviating the evaluation standard of anticompetitive effect via mergers. On the other hand, if relevant market is defined narrowly, the opposite effect results. This shows that in determining the illegality of mergers, reasonable and accurate definition of the relevant market is imperative. Therefore, in many merger review cases, the recipient assert the market in mergers defines broadly, which brings the issue of ddefinition of relevant markets an essential issue in merger review cases. This paper thus analyzes how relevant markets defines in Free Trade Commission's decisions related to review of mergers for future in-depth studies on relevant markets.

시장지배적 사업자의 거래거절에 대한 공정거래법리: 대법원의 포스코 사건 판결

황창식 ( Chang Sik Hwang ),신광식 ( Kwang Shik Shin ) 한국경쟁법학회 2008 競爭法硏究 Vol.18 No.-

시장획정 방식의 개선과 과제

홍명수 ( Myung Su Hong ) 법과사회이론학회 2005 법과 사회 Vol.0 No.29

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.