해외부문과의 잠재적 경쟁과 시장구조: 실증분석과 정책적 함의

최용석,조성빈 한국개발연구원 2007 KDI Journal of Economic Policy (KDI JEP) Vol.29 No.1

Opening domestic market to international trade may enhance not only actual competition but also potential competition from foreign competitors. It seems that the competition authority has focused mainly on the actual competition (measured by the current market share) and has paid less attention to the potential competition. In this regards, this paper investigated the relation between potential foreign competition and domestic market structure. Using dynamic panel regression model, we analyzed the dynamic response of import penetration to the changes of domestic market condition in Korea as a proxy for the degree of potential foreign competition. The empirical results suggests that potential foreign competition does exist in the Korean manufacturing sector and this tendency is more stronger when the market is more concentrated. Thus, in order to effectively implement competition policy, it is necessary to consider both actual and potential competition. 대외개방의 진전은 해외로부터의 실재적 경쟁(actual competition)과 잠재적 경쟁(potential competition)을 동시에 촉진할 수 있다. 경쟁정책을 집행하는 데 있어 지금까지 경쟁당국은 국내시장에서 수입품이 차지하는 비율, 즉 실재적 해외경쟁만을 고려해 온 경향이 있으며, 잠재적 경쟁에 대한 고려는 상대적으로 적었던 것으로 판단된다. 본 논문은 수입침투율의 국내시장조건에 대한 동태적 반응을 잠재적 경쟁의 측정지표로 사용하여 해외로부터의 잠재적 경쟁이 한국의 산업별 시장구조에 따라 어떤 차이를 가지는가를 살펴보는 것을 목적으로 하고 있다. 동태적 패널모형을 이용한 실증분석의 결과, 해외로부터의 잠재적 경쟁이 유의하게 존재하며, 이는 국내시장구조가 상대적으로 독과점화되어 있는 경우 보다 강하게 나타난다는 것을 발견하였다. 이러한 결과는 국내시장구조만으로 경쟁의 정도를 파악하는 데에는 한계가 있으며, 따라서 경쟁정책의 왜곡을 줄이기 위해서는 해외부문과의 잠재적 경쟁을 적절히 반영하는 것이 필요하다는 것을 시사해 주는 것이라고 할 수 있을 것이다.

COMPETITION BETWEEN GENERALIST AND SPECIALIST IN A SMALL BUSINESS CONTEXT

Jeeyeon Kim,Woo Yong Jo,Alex Jiyoung Kim,Jeonghye Choi 글로벌지식마케팅경영학회 2017 Global Fashion Management Conference Vol.2017 No.07

This paper aims to expand our understanding on the success factors of small businesses, which comprise of more than 90 percent of all businesses in U.S. in 2016. One of the most critical issues behind small business success is the competition, which becomes increasingly intense. Not only small businesses fiercely compete with larger competitors (e.g. Emergence of mega-retailers such as Wal-Mart has intensified the competition in the grocery industry, and, as a result, many mom and pop stores have gone out of business.), but also the competition against each other (i.e. competition between small businesses) becomes increasingly aggressive. Yet, the current literature in marketing have less investigated the issue of competition between small businesses, while issues on competition between small and large businesses have been somewhat explored. Another phenomenon in small business that has not received much attention is the competition between generalist and specialist firms. This phenomenon of specialist versus generalist competition is in fact frequently observed in many industries. Therefore, we study competition between small businesses, focusing on the competition between generalist and specialist small businesses. We examine how competitive intensity, as well as market environmental factors, affect the performance of small businesses. Specifically, we decompose the competitive intensity into two types, one between generalists and the other between specialists, in order to identify the differential effects of competition between generalist and specialist, and examine their impacts on the generalist and specialist performance. Given the research questions above, we develop the following hypotheses based on the past research in marketing. First, we expect competition has a positive effect on generalist performance, while we expect the opposite effect on specialist performance. We also expect that the effect of competition becomes weaker, as the competition becomes more intense. That is, the positive (negative) impact of competition on generalist (specialist) performance becomes less significant as there are more competitors in the market. We further expect that competition between the same type of businesses (e.g. between generalists) has a positive effect on their performance, while competition between the difference types (e.g. between generalist and specialist) has a negative effect on their performance. Moreover, we expect that market environmental factors have differential effects on the performance of generalist and specialist. To test the aforementioned hypotheses on the small business competition between generalist and specialist, we collected data from the health care industry on private physician practices (offices) in Korea. Out data contain, for each practice, monthly sales, number of doctors, number of nurses, type of practice, number of beds and zip code it is located in. We also have data on average consumer spending, average medical spending, percentage of patients over sixty years old for each zip code. Moreover, we have data on competition between the same type of offices (e.g. between generalists and between specialists) and competition between different types (e.g. between generalist and specialist). Note that our data collected from the Korean health care industry fit our research questions well. First, the majority of medical service providers in Korea are small private practices with an average number of two doctors, and the share of generalist and specialist practices are about half-and-half. Second, unlike the U.S. health care industry, generalist physicians in Korea usually practice a number of different fields, while specialist physicians focus on their own specialties. Third, patients in Korea do not usually distinguish between generalist and specialist offices, and they do not usually have a primary care physician. As a result, patients can easily switch between physicians, and in fact the switching is highly likely, as all medical information is centralized by government. Our main findings are as follows. First, we find that competition has a positive effect on generalist performance, while it has a negative effect on specialist performance. Specifically, we find that generalist benefits from competition with both generalist and specialist, while specialist suffers from the competition with both specialist and generalist. As competition becomes intense, meaning the number of physician offices increases, it would attract more patients to visit the area where physician offices are clustered (clustering effect), while it becomes easier for patients to switch from one to the other nearby offices. In particular, as generalist usually treats multiple fields (specialties), generalist tends to benefit from the patients who switch from specialist. In other words, generalists benefit from competition, as they free ride on clustering of physicians including specialists, while specialists would suffer from competition. Second, our findings show that as the competition becomes more intense, its effect on business performance becomes weaker. That is, a high level of competition weakens the benefits and damages imposed on the performance of generalist and specialist, respectively. When there are more physician offices to switch, the effect of free riding becomes weaker, as patients have more options to choose from. Thus, the benefit of generalist from free riding becomes weaker, as well as the negative effect on specialist performance. Moreover, our findings suggest that market environmental factors do influence the business performance. Specifically, the performance of both generalist and specialist improves as the number of doctors increases. However, an increase in the number of nurses has a different effect on generalist and specialist. Employing a larger group of nurses has a negative effect on generalist because it might cause the operation of the office to be less efficient. However, since specialist’s practice usually involves a more technical and sophisticated processes, a larger group of nurses could make the office more efficient having a positive impact on the sales performance. Similarly, we find the effects of other environmental factors have differential impacts on the performance of specialist versus generalist.

국제카르텔 제재의 국제적 수렴현상

이세인 梨花女子大學校 法學硏究所 2013 法學論集 Vol.17 No.3

Competition law regulates anti-competitive activities such as cartel, illegal mergers, and abuse of market power. Global Convergence in competition law area means that the competition laws of different countries change and move to similar direction. The reason that we can see significant global convergence in competition law area during the last twenty years is that countries cooperate in legislating and enforcing their competition laws. Countries cooperate through bilateral relationship between two countries, or they cooperate through international organizations such as OECD and UN to discuss current topics on competition law and to suggest some relevant policies in the area. Actually, during the last twenty years, the United States and the European Union have been major players in leading bilateral cooperation as well as multilateral movement for global convergence in competition law area. In relation to enforcement against international cartel, many countries including the United States, the European Union, Japan, China, and Korea have recently developed its competition tools in similar direction. First of all, they increased level of criminal or administrative penalties against the companies and individuals who engage in international cartels. Some countries even greatly increased maximum number of years of imprisonment for individuals up to ten years. Second, many countries adopted leniency policy for the purpose of expediting investigation process, and actually increasing number of companies and individuals are using the leniency policy to be exempted from fines and imprisonment. Third, many countries now apply their competition laws to the activities carried on outside of their countries under the theory of extraterritorial application. Although different countries use various legal doctrines for extraterritorial application of their competition laws, Korea, the US, the EU, and many countries use “Effect Doctrine”, which mean that if the anti-competitive activities carried out outside the country brings effect to the country, the competition law of the country should be applied to such activities. In sum, countries in the world have developed their competition laws to strongly enforce anti-cartel regulations and punish severly against the law-breakers during the last twenty years. Strong anti-cartel regulation may help to stabilize world market by stimulating competition. However, it also means greater risk of violating competition laws of foreign countries for Korean multinational companies, whose main activity is making sales in different countries. Under this circumstance, global convergence can work positively for these companies because they now have an expectation on how the law may be in other countries, or how it would develop. I am in the opinion that Korean competition authority, legal community, and academics should cooperate in researching and educating fast-changing competition environment of the world to the actual players in the corporations so our corporations carry out its business under the global standard of competition. 국제화 시대를 맞아 여러 나라들의 교류를 통해 다양한 법 분야에서 수렴현상이 일어나고 있다. 이 중 한 분야가 경쟁법 분야인데, 특히 국제카르텔 제재와 관련한 부분에서 수렴현상이 두드러지게 나타나고 있다. 이 분야에서 주요하게 나타나는 수렴현상은 과징금 및 형사처벌의 강화, 자진신고제도의 도입 및 활용의 증대, 관련 경쟁법 규정의 역외적용이다. 첫째, 과징금 및 형사처벌의 강화와 관련하여서는, 미국과 유럽연합의 경우 2000년대 중반에 카르텔 가담자에 대한 형사처벌 및 과징금 부과 규정을 강화시켰고, 한국과 일본의 경우도 국제카르텔에 대한 형사 및 행정제재의 수위를 높여 최근 적발된 국제카르텔에 대해 거액의 벌금 및 과징금을 부과한 바 있다. 둘째, 자진신고제도의 도입 및 활용의 증대와 관련하여서는, 한국, 미국, 유럽연합, 호주, 일본이 현재 모두 자진신고제도를 운영하고 있다. 또한 증가하는 과징금 및 벌금에 대해 부담감을 느끼는 기업과 개인들이 자진신고제도를 보다 많이 활용하고 있다. 셋째, 경쟁법의 역외적용과 관련하여서는, 많은 국가들이 자국 영토 밖에서 행해진 카르텔 행위라고 하더라도 자국 내 시장에 영향을 미쳤을 경우에는 이를 처벌하는 법률을 제정하거나, 판례로서 법리를 구성하여 해당 카르텔 가담자들을 처벌하고 있다. 국제카르텔 제재부분의 수렴현상을 주도한 가장 대표적인 주체는 미국과 유럽연합이라고 할 수 있다. 이들은 1991년에 반독점협력협정을 맺고 다양한 경쟁법 분야에서의 협력을 꾀하여 왔다. 그러나 2000년대에 들어서는 국제기구 및 네트워크를 중심으로 세계 여러 나라가 경쟁법의 발전과 수렴에 역할을 담당하였다고 할 수 있다. 우리나라의 입장에서 볼 때, 위의 세 가지 현상을 포함한 국제카르텔 분야의 수렴현상은 몇 가지 의미가 있다고 할 수 있다. 첫째, 국제카르텔에 대한 제재 강화 및 역외적용은 수출에 의존하는 우리 기업들이 타국의 경쟁법 체재에 노출될 위험이 증대되는 것이라고 할 수 있다. 그러나 둘째로는 이미 경쟁법 관련 국제기구 및 단체에서 활발하게 활동하고 있는 우리 경쟁당국과 법조인 및 학자를 통해 변화하는 경쟁법 수렴 환경을 빠르게 파악하여 국내 기업들을 교육할 수 있는 환경에 있다는 것을 의미하기도 한다. 즉, 기업들이 처하게 될 경쟁 환경은 제재가 강화된다 할지라도, 이를 사전에 파악하고 충분히 대처하여 우리 기업들의 경쟁 활동이 글로벌 스탠다드에 맞도록 할 수 있다는 것이다. 셋째, 세계 무역의 상당 부분에 관여하고 있는 우리나라가 국제적인 수렴현상을 주도적으로 이끌 기회를 얻을 수 있다고 본다. 현재 각국에서 국제카르텔에 대한 제재 강화현상이 두드러지고 있으나, 아직까지 하나의 행위에 대해 여러 나라에서 처벌될 수 있는 위험성을 어떻게 해결할 지의 문제, 각국의 손해배상 산정법이 다른 경우 발생하는 공정성의 문제 등에 대해 거시적으로 제안을 한 경우는 없었다. 이는 다국적으로 활동하는 우리 기업들에게 현실적으로 다가오는 문제인 만큼, 앞으로 이러한 부분에 대한 연구도 더 심도 있게 진행되기를 기대해 본다.

공정거래법과 지적재산권법 : 공정거래법 위반의 주장과 지적재산권침해금지소송

홍대식 민사판례연구회 2009 民事判例硏究 Vol.- No.31

지적재산권은 그 행사가 야기하는 법적 상황이 공정거래법상 문제를 제기하는 경우가 적지 않다. 그 이유는 지적재산권의 경우 그 창출을 통한 시장활동을 통하여 시장경제의 활성화를 지향하는 측면이 있다는 사실에서 찾을 수 있다. 이로 인하여 지적재산권의 행사에 공정거래법을 적용하기 위해서는 공통적인 목적이 필요하다. 공정거래법과 지적재산권법은 소비자 후생을 증진하고 기술혁신을 촉진하는 공통적인 목적을 공유하고 있다고 인식되고 있다. 기술혁신과 관련된 목적에 초점을 맞출 때, 기술혁신은 정태적 경쟁과 동태적 경쟁을 포괄하는 경쟁 개념에 기초한 경쟁을 촉진하는 것으로도 이해될 수 있다. 이 논문은 지적재산권 보유자의 일정한 행위가 공정거래법에 위반한다고 판단된 우리나라 하급심 판결을 논의의 소재로 삼고 있다. 판결의 분석을 통해 추출되는 몇 가지 쟁점은 다음과 같다. 지적재산권의 행사와 그 제한에 관한 법적 원리를 어떻게 정립할 것인가, 공정거래법의 목적과 지적재산권법의 목적을 어떻게 이해할 것인가, 그리고 그와 같은 목적들을 실현하기 위한 법적 수단 사이의 긴장을 조정하기 위하여 어떤 법해석적 방법을 사용할 것인가? 이러한 배경 하에, 이 논문은 먼저 지적재산권의 행사와 그 제한에 관한 일반론을 살펴보고(II), 이어서 공정거래법이 지적재산권의 남용을 규제하는 규범으로서 작용하는 상황을 법적 기초와 판단기준이라는 관점에서 고찰한다(III). 이 부분에서는 지적재산권의 행사에 대한 적용제외 원칙을 규정한 공정거래법 제59조과 불공정거래행위를 규정한 공정거래법 제23조가 자세히 검토될 것이다. 그때까지의 논의의 연장선상에서 이 논문은 판단기준의 적합성과 구제수단의 유효성을 평가하는 방식으로 대상 판결을 분석한다(IV). 이상의 논의를 종합하여, 이 논문은 공정거래법과 지적재산권법의 관계는 공통적인 목적을 추구하는 것으로 인식되어야 하고 지적재산권의 허용된 한계를 넘는 행위에 대하여 공정거래법을 적용할 때 그러한 목적에 따른 한계가 설정되어야 한다는 결론을 맺는다. 남은 문제들 부분에서는 향후의 연구과제들이 제시된다(V). Intellectual property right("IPR") raises some competition law issues under the situations caused by the exercise of IPR. The reason can be found in the fact that IPR has an inclination to activate market economy via market activities for the creation of IPR. This requires the common principles to be applied to the exercise of IPR with competition law. Competition law and intellectual property laws are recognized to share the common purpose of promoting innovation and enhancing consumer welfare. Focusing on the purpose relating to innovation, promoting innovation can be also understood as promoting competition based on the competition concept covering both static competition and dynamic competition. This article takes a Korean low court decision which held against IPR owner's certain act as infringing competition law for a discussion source. The analysis of the decision draws several issues; how to establish the legal principles of the enforcement of IPR and its restraints, how to understand the purposes of competition law and intellectual property laws, and which analytic method to use for co-ordinating the tension between legal measures to materialize those purposes. Against this background, this article first deals with the general theories regarding the enforcement of IPR and its restraints(II), and then explores the situations in which competition law works as rules controlling misuse of IPR in light of legal basis and standard(III). In this part, Article 59 of Korean competition law which stipulates exemption principle for the enforcement of IPR and Article 23 of Korean competition law which provides unfair trade practices are closely reviewed. To the extension of the discussion that far, this article analyses the decision in the way to assess the appropriateness of its standard and the effectiveness of its remedies(IV). The discussion leads to the conclusion that the relationship between competition law and intellectual property laws should be perceived as searching for the common purposes and there should set a limitation following such purposes when applying competition law to acts going beyond the permitted limit for the enforcement of IPR. The research subjects later are suggested as a closing(V).

경쟁과 다양성: 방송관련법의 목적의 관점

홍대식 한국법제연구원 2013 법제연구 Vol.- No.44

This article firstly explores into the concepts, components, and pictures of institutional realization of competition and diversity respectively on the premise that competition and diversity comprise the primary objectives to be pursued by the broadcasting-related laws which provide the concrete measures of media policy, and argues that while the competition objective has differentiation factors, there are also particularities in the diversity value in the broadcasting-related laws as sector-specific competition laws. Then assuming that special competition rules including structural regulatory measures particularly in the broadcasting market are required in order to realize values of competition and diversity harmoniously, this article suggests the following improvement directions for regulations aimed at protection of competition and diversity in the broadcasting-related laws. The first one is with the improvement method for regulations aimed at protection of competition. Regulation on share of audience as an ex ante regulation of status and regulation on prohibited activities as an ex post regulation of conduct may play important roles in substituting the causative regulation while seeking for diversity value. For this purpose, it is needed to develop a concrete method that incorporates diversity-related factors as consideration factors in the standard for determining illegality of prohibited activities by inference to methods of determining illegality in the competition law. The second one is with the improvement method for regulations aimed at protection of diversity. This could be considered from three viewpoints that are the setting of regulatory objectives, the identification of alternative regulatory measures, and the choice of regulatory measures and levels suitable for regulatory objectives. From these viewpoints, the regulatory framework should be improved mainly with institutional measures in which diversity value is used for tools of assessment and analysis, not just remaining as mere rhetorical devices, and whether or to what extent to maintain regulations seemingly unreasonable in terms of harmonization with economic objectives such as competition should be discreetly reviewed. 이 글에서는 먼저 경쟁과 다양성이 미디어 정책의 구체적인 수단을 규정한 방송관련법이 추구하는 주된 목적이 된다는 것을 전제로 하여 각각의 개념과 구성요소 그리고 그 제도적 구현의 모습을 살펴보고, 특정분야의 경쟁법으로서의 방송관련법에서는 경쟁 목적이 차별성 요인을 갖는 한편 다양성 가치도 특수성을 갖는다는 논의를 전개한다. 다음으로 경쟁과 다양성 가치를 조화롭게 실현하기 위해서는 방송시장 특유의 구조적 규제수단을 포함하는 특별한 경쟁규칙이 필요하다고 전제하면서, 방송관련법상 경쟁 목적 규제와 다양성 목적 규제에 대하여 개선되어야 할 방향을 다음과 같이 제시한다. 첫째, 경쟁 목적 규제의 개선 방안이다. 사전적인 상태적 규제로서의 시청점유율 규제와 사후적인 행위규제로서의 금지행위 규제는 다양성 가치를 추구하면서도 원인적 규제를 대체하는 데 중요한 역할을 할 수 있다. 이를 위하여 공정거래법의 위법성 판단방식을 유추하여 다양성 관련 요소를 금지행위의 위법성 판단기준의 고려요소로 하는 방식을 구체적으로 개발할 필요가 있다. 둘째, 다양성 목적 규제의 개선 방안이다. 이는 규제 목적의 설정, 대체가능한 규제수단의 식별, 규제 목적에 맞는 규제수단과 규제수준의 선택이라는 3가지 관점에서 검토될 수 있다. 이러한 관점에서 다양성 가치가 단순한 수사적 도구에 그치지 않고 평가 및 분석 도구로 사용될 수 있는 제도적 수단 위주로 규제 틀을 개선하는 한편, 경쟁과 같은 경제적 목적과의 조화를 고려할 때 불합리해 보이는 규제에 대하여는 이를 유지할 것인가 또는 어느 정도로 유지할 것인가를 신중하게 재검토해야 한다.

오스트리아 학파의 관점에서 본 시장경제질서에서 경쟁과 독점의 의미

배진영 ( Jin-young Bae ) 한국질서경제학회 2008 질서경제저널 Vol.11 No.1

본 연구의 목적은 시장경제와 관련된 핵심적인 몇 가지 개념들을 통념적인 의미와는 다르게 해석하여 시장경제의 본질을 이해하는 데 도움을 주고자 하는 데 있다. 본 논문에서 다루어질 개념은 시장과 경쟁 그리고 독점이며 이들의 개념 이해를 오스트리안 경제학자들의 시각에서 정리하고 해석하였다. 시장은 교환의 상징적 표현에 불과하며, 시장은 개인의 자발적 거래로 형성된 질서이다. 따라서 시장은 무엇을 의도하지 않기 때문에 시장 실패라는 용어는 잘못된 것이다. 경쟁은 지식의 교환과 평행 과정이고 미지로의 탐험이며 조정과 혁신의 과정이다. 또한 경쟁은 승패의 과정이 아니라 차별화의 과정이며 각자의 능력과 장점을 발견해 주는 절차이기도 하다. 따라서 경쟁이 비인간적이고 냉혹한 과정이란 편입 견을 버려야 한다. 모든 제품과 생산요소는 소비자의 위치와 판매되는 시공간의 차이에 의해 동일하지 않다. 그렇다면 독점이란 처음부터 존재하지 않으며 시장을 완전경쟁, 독점, 불완전경쟁, 과점 등으로 분류하여 분석하는 것은 의미가 없다. 완전경쟁은 현실에서 존재하지 않기 때문에 누구도 경쟁가격을 모른다. 그렇다면 경쟁가격과의 비교로부터 나오는 독점가격도 존재하지 않는 개념이다. Korea is engulfed everyday by uproar of thousands of citizens against U.S. beef imports in May 2008. The textbook of economics always teaches that trade can make everyone better off. Regardless of this principle, the everyday uproar of beef imports leads to the situation of anarchy. This shows evidently how difficult it is to get them to understand logics of market economy order and competition from their hearts. To a certain extent this difficulty should result from the somewhat distorted and false interpretation about competition and monopoly. Economists should at least be responsible for providing an accurate knowledge about the essentials of the disciplines of market economy. This paper aims to provide a valuable appraisal of crucial aspects of market, competition and monopoly which differs from the textbook of economic principles which is dominated by Marshallian and Keynesian paradigm. This paper is based on the thoughts of Austrian School, especially Hayekian and Misesian paradigm. Market economy is a spontaneous order of a collaboration of free human actions. It is not the result of human design. This implies that a free market economy can be interpreted and understood in the best way only by analysing human behaviors and circumstances which set the limit of human actions, stressing knowledge and discovery. The Austrians adhere to these paradigms. It is the reason why this paper on the topic of competition and monopoly is written in the Austrian school's perspectives Despite all the criticism given on the model of perfect competition, it still occupies the starting point of all the positive and normative discussions. In fact, perfect competition is a sleeping competition. There is no competition at all. This has virtually ignored the role of competition in the market. As a result, it makes lots of students sketch the real market falsely and leads to the inaccurate interpretation of competition. Competition is a process of knowledge exchange between buyers and sellers. It is interpreted as a voyage of exploration and discovery into the unknown, too. It is also a process of differentiation through which one discovers his own best advantage that others have not. Therefore it could not be said that competition is inhumane. Interpreting competition like that, we can observe and understand the vitality of a real dynamic market process. There can be no monopoly or monopoly price on the free market. Monopoly can be defined only as a grant of privilege by the state. Monopoly price can not be distinguished at all from competitive price, because there is no discernable and identifiable competitive price. There is also no grounds that monopoly diminishes social welfare. The profit comes from the differences of the product and production factor. All profit should return not to the entrepreneur but to the production factors that enable to attain the profit.

동계학술대회 : 공정거래위원회의 사건처리절차와 관련된 제 문제 : 공정거래위원회의 제재 내용의 방향성에 관한 연구 -시정명령을 중심으로-

김두진 ( Doo Jin Kim ) 한국경쟁법학회 2010 競爭法硏究 Vol.21 No.-

If the competition authority detects an entity committing competition law violation, it can pursue administrative proceedings to investigate, prohibit and sanction anti-competitive behavior. The main focus of this article is on the content of the remedies, especially Corrective Measures by the Korea Fair Trade Commission (hereinafter "KFTC"). I discuss on the desirable content of competition authority`s remedies which are most appropriate for innovation. My concern is about which content the KFTC`s Corrective Measures should have and under which condition the KFTC has to intervene in the firm`s business practices. As for the optimum market structure for promoting innovation competition, there have been disputes between the Schumpeterians and the followers of Kenneth Arrow. The Schumpeterian viewpoint suggests that market dominant firms and monopolists may be more innovative than firms in competitive markets by virtue of their size and capacity. However the opposite party tackles them by defying that a monopolist bears a opportunity cost when innovating that an innovating competitor does not. I agree with the latter because if market dominant firms and monopolists are sheltered from competitive pressure, they will probably try to innovate only to the extent necessary for guarding their status. The amount of innovation by firms in competitive markets could be expected to increase by competition policy. So does the amount of innovation by market dominant firms and monopolists. Citing Professor Jonathan Baker, the competition authority`s intervention should be focused on industry settings and categories of behavior where enforcement can promote innovation. He reasonably and rationally argues that an competition policy aimed at fostering innovation would challenge practices that directly reduce innovation competition regardless of industry. For example, competition authority should attack agreements among innovation rivals not to conduct R&D, undertaken with no legitimate justification. Innovation competition can also be promoted by remedies to restrictions on competition in technology markets. Competition authority`s intervention to foster product market competition in "winner-take-most" or "winner-take-all" markets, including many high-tech markets, can be expected in general to benefit innovation. Enforcing the competition law to protect product market competition can be expected to benefit innovation in the type of industry in which the extent of future product market competition is likely to be unaffected by the extent of current product market competition because of probable technological or regulatory developments. All these comments seem to give us very important implication for competition policy. After all, like other competition authority such as the Federal Trade Commission in US, the KFTC should have and exercise broad discretion to choose the advisable content of structural or behavioral remedies that may improve innovation competition.

관람자가 인지하는 태권도 개인ㆍ단체경기에 따른 종목이미지와 관람요인의 차이에 관한 연구

한겨례(Han Gyeo rye),전정우(Jeon Jeong Woo) 세계태권도문화학회 2014 세계태권도문화학회지 Vol.- No.9

Taekwondo can say it is representative of the cultural symbol and this opinion is supported by 2014' operational plan report of Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism in which Taekwondo will be designated to apply Korean wave proliferation, along with Hangul(Korean alphabet) and Song of Arirang as Korean three cultural brands. While Taekwondo solid settled down as an quantitative index of game sports, the public preference is inferior to it these days. especially, increasing spectators in sports is an absolute task to subsist and to develop, and look at a rational argument(Park, 1995) in which an effort to satisfy spectators' desire is needed to understand their spectating motivation because disregarded sports by spectators can't be existed, it needed to confirm a view of disinterested spectators with the purpose of qualitative development of Taekwondo. Also, it considered to provide a basic data to expand the base of Taekwondo participants. Whereupon, the propose of this study was to grasp problems of spectators' cognition toward Taekwondo competition during they was watching the competition using the electronic protective gears on TV for providing the basic data of interesting Taekwondo competition to the spectators. Achieving the aim of this study, 72 undergraduate school students(individual competition: 31, team competition: 41) who ever had any experience with Taekwondo competition were participated and were tested spectating motivation and event image. The collected data were analysed by descriptive statistical analysis and 3-way(2×2×2)RGㆍRM ANOVA on PASW 18.0 version program. The results showed that 1) after spectating game was higher than before on game content factor and game knowledge factor, and individual competition was higher than team competition on game knowledge factor and game skill factor of spectating motivation, 2) team competition was higher than individual competition and after spectating game was higher than before on behavioral image factor, psychological image was higher after spectating game than before, and interaction effect was significantly different between spectating game timing and sex, and spectating game timing and game type. In case of female, while negative image was higher after spectating game than before, it showed opposite results in male, and in case of individual competition, negative image was lower after spectating game than before, on the other hand, the negative image was higher after spectating game than before. From the results, there were these proposal. Frist, spectating motivation was lower because the spectators has shortage of knowledge about the rule of Taekwondo game so, it was considered to provide a guidebook for better understanding the rule. Second, a way of team competition needed to be improved. According to the result of this study, the spectators was interested in the way but it was disordered and distracted. Judging from these results of this study, the improvement of the way of team competition could affect to improve the image of Taekwondo competition in a way of positive.

디지털 경제에서의 경쟁법 상 착취남용규제 - 비교법적 방법으로 -

최요섭 경북대학교 법학연구원 2021 법학논고 Vol.- No.74

Data is one of the most important sources for the development of dynamic efficiency and disruptive innovation in the era of digital economy. Collecting and processing data has caused not only positive outcomes but also negative results in our modern society: this has brought competition law issues. In particular, some argue that privacy is a part of consumer welfare, and competition law should be applicable to the case of infringement of privacy protection, especially where the undertaking holds a market-dominant position. The German Facebook case, which is in front of the Court of Justice of the European Union, indicates a possible application of competition law against any harm to consumer welfare, including privacy, and the type of privacy infringement may fall within the category of exploitative abuse. To discuss possible implementation of competition law to privacy case, it is essential to discuss the typology of abuse of market dominance, focusing on the types of exploitative abuse. The current approach to consumer welfare indicates its focus of price, quality, choice, and innovation. In addition, some critics argue that privacy in the sector of digital economy should be considered as consumer welfare. It is timely to discuss the assessment standard for privacy infringement under competition law. In effect, there is a possibility of the overlap between competition law and data protection law when competition law of abuse of market dominance is applied to the privacy infringement cases. Therefore, it is important to establish a standard for appraising exploitative abuse of privacy by looking at the existing competition law approaches to excessive pricing that is the typical exploitative abuse. This article provides a number of suggestions for assessing abuse of market dominance relating to privacy as follows. First, competition law should be applicable to the privacy case relating to abuse of market dominance. In other words, the rule on unfair trade practices should not be considered as an option, thereby to avoid any possible conflicts between competition law and data protection law. The competition rule can be applied to the case of a super platform or digital gatekeeper. Second, a privacy infringement itself cannot be an automatic violation of competition law. It is necessary to consider cumulative abuse, which means that a competition authority needs to provide other evidences of exclusionary effects. Third, the test of alternative services or existence of multi-homing is essential in the assessment. The lack of competition in the market is the crucial proof of abuse of market dominance relating to privacy. It is beyond doubt that privacy has become one of the most important parts in the market competition of the digital economy. Data is the source of digital competition. Therefore, the trade-off or balance between privacy protection and dynamic efficiency should be the important part in assessing a violation of competition law. In addition, to solve a potential overlap problem of competition law and data protection law, the scope of competition law to privacy should be limited to the case of abuse of market dominance rather than of unfair trade practice. 최근 디지털 경제가 발전하면서 다양한 독점폐해의 문제가 등장하고 있다. 특히 인공지능이 소비자의 행동을 관찰・분석・이용할 수 있는 기술이 발전하면서, 온라인 플랫폼 이용자의 프라이버시보호의 문제가 논의되고 있다. 무엇보다 대규모 플랫폼에 의한 데이터 결합이 시장지배적 지위남용인지에 대해서 유럽연합을 중심으로 논의가 진행되고 있다. 착취남용과 관련된 가격남용규제의 내용과 유사하게, 대량의 개인정보를 수집・통제하는 행위를 시장력의 원천으로 논의하기도 한다. 따라서 착취남용의 범위를 프라이버시침해까지 포함하는 넓은 개념으로 확장되어야 한다는 의견이 있다. 디지털 착취남용의 내용은 프라이버시와 관련하여 소비자선택, 서비스 품질의 저하와 소비자의 동의 없는 개인정보의 획득과 같은 행위를 포함한다. 일반적으로 착취남용인 가격남용의 경우 위법성 판단을 위해 경제분석이 필요한 반면, 프라이버시침해의 경우 경제분석보다는 행위자체로 판단이 이루어질 가능성이 많다. 따라서 착취남용으로서의 프라이버시의 내용을 논의하고 규제의 범위에 대해서 연구하는 것은 현대 경쟁법의 발전과 관련하여 중요하다. 현재 이와 관련된 법리가 제대로 형성되지 않은 상황이며, 프라이버시가 소비자후생에 포함되어야 한다는 논의에도 다양한 이론과 이견이 존재한다. 디지털 경제가 급속도로 발전하는 상황에서 현대 경쟁법은 진화를 할 수밖에 없다. 디지털 경제 관련 남용행위의 유형화와 범위, 그리고 위법성 판단기준을 설정하는 것이 필요하다. 이 논문은 디지털 경제와 관련하여 현대 경쟁법에서의 착취남용 기준을 비교법적 방법으로 논의하는 것을 연구목적으로 한다.

Changes in pain perception and hormones pre- and post-kumdo competition

Choi, J.C.,Min, S.,Kim, Y.K.,Choi, J.H.,Seo, S.M.,Chang, S.J. Academic Press 2013 Hormones and behavior Vol.64 No.4

The psychological stress of competition is a powerful stimulus affecting numerous hormones, which in turn change how pain is perceived. This study investigated whether a kumdo (kendo) team competition may be related to changes in hormones and pain. Seventeen healthy male kumdo practitioners participated in this experiment. Pain experiments were conducted by applying noxious stimuli with a thermal stimulator 10min before a kumdo competition and 30min post-competition. Serum testosterone, cortisol, beta-endorphin levels, pain thresholds, pain ratings at 48<SUP>o</SUP>C and during blood sampling (sampling pain), anxiety, blood pressure, and heart rate were measured pre- and post-competition. Anxiety, pain threshold, testosterone/cortisol ratio, and blood pressure were significantly higher pre-competition compared to post-competition, while cortisol and pain ratings were significantly lower pre-competition than post-competition. There were significant correlations between the number of previous competitions and testosterone levels both pre-competition and post-competition. In pre-competition measurements, sampling pain increased with an increase in systolic blood pressure, heart rate, and beta-endorphins, and a decrease in age. In post-competition measurements, sampling pain increased with an increase in diastolic blood pressure and a decrease in testosterone levels. These results indicate that severe psychological pre-competition stress was associated with reduced pain ratings, perhaps in order to improve athletic performance. This also suggests that competitors may be at risk of potential injury due to changes in pain perception, and careful consideration should be taken to avoid potential injury before and during competition.