N+1 판매촉진 행사에 대한 공정 비용부담에 대한 소고

안승호 ( Ahn Seung Ho ),최영홍 ( Choi Young Hong ),임주미 ( Lim Ju Mi ),김회준 ( Kim Hoi Jun ) 한국유통법학회 2018 유통법연구 Vol.5 No.2

『대규모유통업에서의 거래 공정화에 관한 법률』에서는 판매촉진비용의 부당한 전가를 금지하며 그 비용부담에 관한 규정을 두고 있다. 동법 제11조 제3항에 의하면 판매촉진 비용은 소매업체와 납품업체가 판매촉진으로 얻게 될 경제적 이익의 비율(예상이익)에 따라 정하되 그 비율은 산정할 수 없는 경우에는 양자의 이익이 동일한 것으로 추정한다. 이 규정은 경영 환경의 급격한 변화에 대응하기 위한 소매업자의 합리적이고 효율적인 경영상 결정을 심각하게 저해할 수 있다. 판매촉진 수단의 다양성 등을 고려하지 않고 모든 유형의 활동에 대하여 일률적인 법을 적용하는 것은 예상치 못한 부정적 결과를 초래할 수 있다. 납품업체가 주도하는 판매촉진 행사에 소매업체가 일부 협조하거나 개입하게 되면 소매업체에게 부당한 부담을 지울 수 있기 때문이다. N+1 판매촉진은 동일한 가격에 더 많은 상품을 제공하는 일종의 수량 판매촉진으로 “한 개를 사면 하나는 덤”이라는 판매촉진 행사가 대표적인 예이다. N+1 판매촉진은 다음과 같은 이유로 소매업체보다 납품업체에게 훨씬 더 큰 혜택이 돌아간다. 첫째, N+1은 특정 브랜드의 판매를 촉진하므로 납품업체에게 주는 혜택이 매우 명확하다. 반면에 소매업체가 받는 혜택은 다른 보완 제품을 판매하거나 그 행사를 통해 새로이 유치하는 고객의 규모에 따라 달라진다는 점에서 혜택이 명확하지 않다. 둘째, 납품업체는 계절 등 일시적 이유로 판매가 저조한 경우 촉진을 통해 생산 프로세스를 원활하게 하고, 제품 가치의 하락을 방지하며, 신제품 출시의 효율적인 방안으로 활용하며, 다른 판매촉진 수단과 비교할 때 한계 비용이 낮은 방안이고, 가격 할인과 동일한 효과를 창출하면서도 심각한 가격 경쟁을 방지할 수 있는 등 N+1을 통해 다양한 비용 절감기회를 확보할 수 있다. 셋째, 이에 반하여 소매업체는, N+1 판매촉진 행사는 취급해야 하는 제품의 수량을 증가시켜 추가적 공급 체인에 따른 비용과 매장 비용의 발생 및 경쟁제품의 판매기회 상실 등 다양한 추가적 비용을 부담하게 된다. 결론적으로, N+1 판매촉진 행사는 소매업체보다는 납품업체에게 훨씬 더 직접적이고 많은 혜택을 제공한다는 점에서 비록 수익 추정이 불명확한 경우에도 같은 이익을 염두에 둔 1:1의 비용부담은 합당하다고 보기 어렵다. 이 법조항은 판매촉진 비용의 공정한 분배가 소매업체와 납품업체 간의 협상의 주요 쟁점이 되는 경우만 적용될 필요가 있으며 N+1 판매촉진 행사는 그런 판매촉진이 아니라 할 것이다. The “Act on Fair Transaction in Large Retail Business” provides the rules concerning the sharing of sales promotional expenses between a retailer and its suppliers. According to the Articles 11 ③, the ratio of sharing sales promotional expenses shall be determined according to the ratio of economic profits a retailer and its supplier are expected to earn from the sale promotion. although when the expenses can not be clearly estimated, the ratio is presumed to be 1:1. This regulation may seriously impede the reasonable and efficient business decisions of retailers to respond to the dramatic changes in business environments. The author argues considering that the great diversity of sales promotional tools, the indifferent applications of the act to any type of sales promotion may generate unexpected and undesirable consequences. Any involvement of retailers in promotions even initiated and led by its suppliers may put an unjustifiable burden on the retailers. The N+1 sales promotion is a bundling promotion which is a combination of products on sale for the same price and “buy one get one free” promotion is well known example of N+1 sales promotion. The problem arises when the return or benefit from the promotion is not clearly estimated. The N+1 promotion returns much larger benefits to suppliers than retailers because of following reasons. First, the N+1 facilitates the sales of a specific brand whose benefits to a supplier is very clear while to retailer depends on the sales of other complementary products and the size of newly attracted customers. Second, there are a lot of opportunities which allow suppliers to reduce costs by smoothing production process, efficient introduction of products, incur very low marginal costs compared with other sales promotion tools, and prevent serious price war when generating the same effect as price discounts. Third, because the N+1 promotion increases the volume of products a retailer carries, the increase in supply chain expenses, store costs, the loss of future sales at full price, cannibalization among similar products and advertising should be counted in estimating the costs incurred to retailers. In conclusion the unclear estimation of the returns from N+1 promotion can not be a justifiable reason for the presumption of 1:1 ratio regarding the N+1 promotion. The Act should be applied only to the case where the fair share of sale promotional expenses become the focal issue of the negotiation between retailers and their suppliers to arrange the sales promotion and the N+1 promotion is not the case.

장애인 고용부담금의 손금산입 여부에 관한 연구

강지현(Jihyun Kang) 한국세무사회 부설 한국조세연구소 2024 세무와 회계 연구 Vol.13 No.1

The purpose of this article is to address the question of whether the Contributory charges under the Act on the Employment Promotion and Vocational Rehabilitation of Persons with Disabilities (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Employment of Persons with Disabilities Act’) are considered deductible expenses under the Corporate Tax Act. The key issue of this discussion is whether the paid contributory charges fall under ‘Public charges imposed as sanctions for non-performance of duties, or a violation of any of the prohibitions or restrictions imposed under statutes and regulations’ in Article 21, paragraph 5 of the Corporate Tax Act. First, this study addressed the existing theories and cases regarding the principle of including ‘public charges’ in deductible expenses under the Corporate Tax Act and the meaning of ‘public charges imposed as sanctions’ as an exception. In addition, this paper examined the meaning and types of public charges and summarized the discussion on the meaning and legal nature of the Contributory charges under the Employment of Persons with Disabilities Act. This article also addressed theories and cases on whether the Contributory charges are included in deductible expenses under the Corporate Tax Act. Afterwards, this study reviewed whether it is reasonable to consider the Contributory charges as deductible expenses. Regarding this issue, the conclusion varies depending on whether or not the Contributory charges are considered to have the nature of a sanction. After examining the arguments of the opposing views, this paper explained that it is appropriate to regard the Contributory charges as deductible expenses under the Corporate Tax Act. Under the Corporate Tax Act, public charges are, in principle, subject to deductible expenses. Exceptionally, Public charges imposed as sanctions for non-performance of duties, or a violation of any of the prohibitions or restrictions imposed under statutes and regulations’ stipulated in Article 21, paragraph 5 of the Corporate Tax Act. However, after the Ministry of Economy and Finance interpreted on February 21, 2018, that the Contributory charges are not included in deductible expenses, discussion sparked. The view opposing the inclusion of the Contributory charges as deductible expenses is that it will undermine the legislative purpose of the Contributory charges, which is to promote employment for the disabled. On the other hand, the view affirming the inclusion of the Contributory charges as deductible expenses is presented on the basis that the Contributory charges have the characteristics of adjustment charges and that they are a joint contribution to equalize the economic burden accompanying the employment of the disabled between business owners and have the nature of a business expense. The Ministry of Economy and Finance, the National Tax Service, and the Tax Tribunal have a negative stance on the inclusion of deductible expenses, but the recent rulings of the Seoul Administrative Court and the Seoul High Court, which is the appellate court, all took a positive view of the inclusion of deductible expenses. In conclusion, it is reasonable to consider that the Contributory charges are considered deductible expenses under the Corporate Tax Act. This is because, considering that the Contributory charges have the characteristics of a kind of business expense and that they are imposed without asking whether the employer has a justifiable reason, etc., they cannot be considered an administrative sanction.

기업수명주기가 광고선전비 및 판매촉진비와 기업성과 간의 관련성에 미치는 영향

이상열(Lee, Sang-Ryul) 글로벌경영학회 2016 글로벌경영학회지 Vol.13 No.1

본 연구는 제품수명주기(Product Life Cycle)에서 확장된 개념인 기업수명주기(Firm Life Cycle) 를 최근에 소개된 Dickinson(2011)의 방법론을 이용해서 측정하고, 이러한 기업수명주기가 광고선 전비 및 판매촉진비와 기업성과 간의 관련성에 미치는 영향을 분석하고자 하였다. 마케팅전략 관점에서 판매비는 광고선전비와 판매촉진비로 구분할 수 있으며, 이는 매출을 증대 시켜 기업의 재무적 성과를 향상시킬 것으로 기대된다. 수명주기 초기단계에서는 제품을 시장에 알리기 위한 광고선전비가 기업의 재무적성과에 미치는 영향이 클 것이며, 수명주기 후기단계에 서는 제품의 판매활동을 촉진하기 위한 판매촉진비가 기업의 재무적성과에 미치는 영향이 클 것으로 예상된다. 따라서 광고선전비가 재무적 성과에 미치는 양(+)의 관련성은 수명주기 초기단계가 후기단계 보다 더 클 것으로 예상되며, 판매촉진비가 재무적 성과에 미치는 양(+)의 관련성은 수명주기 후기단계가 초기단계보다 더 클 것으로 예상된다. 재무적 성과는 총자산수익률(ROA)과 매출액영업이익률(PM)을 이용하여 측정하였으며, 1993년 부터 2013년까지 한국증권거래소에 상장되어 있는 회사를 표본으로 선정하였다. 분석결과, 판매촉진비가 재무적 성과에 미치는 양(+)의 관련성은 수명주기 초기단계인 도입기에 비해 다른 수명주기에서 더 큰 것으로 나타났으며, 광고선전비가 재무적 성과에 미치는 양(+)의 관련성은 수명주기 초기단계인 도입기가 다른 수명주기에 비해 더 큰 것으로 나타났다. 이러한 결과는 기업수명주기가 광고선전비 및 판매촉진비와 재무적 성과 간의 관련성에 차별적 으로 영향을 미친다는 것을 시사한다. 본 연구는 판매비를 광고선전비와 판매촉진비로 구분하여 재무적 성과와의 관련성을 분석하였 으며, 기업수명주기에 따라 광고선전비와 판매촉진비가 재무적 성과에 미치는 차별적인 영향을 실증적으로 분석하였다는 점에서 공헌점이 있다. This study investigates the impact of firm life cycle on the relationship between marketing expenses and financial performance of firm. Marketing expenses can be divided into promotion expense and advertising expense, and these expenses are expected to increase the financial performance of firm. In the introduction stage or growth stage, advertising expense will be important for introducing new product. Meanwhile, in the shake-out stage or decline stage, promotion expense will be important for sales promotion. Therefore, the impact of advertising expense on the financial performance of firm will be larger in early stages than later stages. And the impact of promotion expense on the financial performance of firm will be larger in later stages than early stages. This study uses return on asset (ROA) and profit margin (PM) ratio to measure the financial performance of firm. And the sample consists of firms listed on Korean Stock Exchange for the period from 1993 to 2013. The result of this study shows that the impact of promotion expense on the financial performance is larger in later stages than early stages, and impact of advertising expense on the financial performance is larger in early stages than later stages. These results suggest that firm life cycle effects differently on the relationship between marketing expense and financial performance of firm.

대규모유통업법 제11조 판매촉진비용 부담전가 금지조항의 해석 및 법률상 쟁점 - 공정거래위원회 심사지침의 해석 및 최근 판례(대법원 2020. 5. 14. 선고 2018두52044 판결, 서울고등법원 2019. 9. 5. 선고 2018누63428 판결)를 중심으로 -

김지연 ( Kim Ji Yeon ) 한국유통법학회 2020 유통법연구 Vol.7 No.1

「대규모유통업에서의 거래 공정화에 관한 법률」(이하 ‘대규모유통업법’ 또는 ‘법’이라고 한다) 제11조는 대규모유통업자가 실시하는 판매촉진행사와 관련하여 대규모유통업자가 임의로 판매촉진행사를 기획하고 부당한 판매촉진비용의 부담을 납품업자 또는 매장임차인(이하 ‘납품업자등’이라고 한다)에게 강요하는 것을 방지하고자 제정되었다. 그러나 그동안 실무적으로는 판매촉진행사의 범위, 판매촉진비용의 해석, 법제11조 제5항 예외요건의 해석 및 적용 등과 관련하여 상당한 논쟁이 존재하여 왔다. 이에 공정거래위원회(이하 ‘공정위’라고 한다)는 2019년 「인터넷쇼핑몰업자의 판매촉진비용 부담전가 행위에 대한 위법성 심사지침」의 제정 및 「대규모유통업 분야의 특약매입거래에 관한 부당성 심사지침」의 폐지·제정을 통하여 온·오프라인에서 법제11조의 위법성 판단기준을 정립하고자 하였다. 최근 법 제11조에 관한 법원의 판결 역시 축적되고 있고, 특히 2020. 5. 14. 대법원은 법 제11조 제5항 예외요건의 해석에 대하여 전면적으로 판시하는 판결을 선고한 바 있다. 본 글에서는 이러한 공정위의 심사지침 및 최근 법원의 판례를 중심으로 대규모 유통업법 제11조의 법률상 쟁점에 대하여 검토한 후, 향후 법 제11조 집행의 방향성에 대하여 살펴보고자 한다. 살펴본 결과, 공정위의 법 제11조에 관한 심사지침의 규정 및 그 운용 원칙은 해석상 난점과 법적 안정성을 침해하는 측면이 다소 존재하는 것으로 보인다. 또한, 대법원 판결 역시 유통현실을 충분히 고려하지 못하고 지나치게 엄격하여, 이와 같은 대법원의 법리가 계속 적용될 경우 대규모유통업법 제11조 제5항이 사문화(死文化)되지는 않을지 우려가 된다. 한편, 최근 공정위는 가이드라인을 제정하여 한시적으로 기존 심사지침의 적용을 제한하는 등 대규모유통업법 제11조의 해석 및 집행에 관하여 적극적으로 검토하고 보완하고자 하는 입장을 취하는 것으로 보인다. 따라서 향후 개별 유통채널, 거래유형별로 판매촉진행사의 범위, ‘가격할인 행사’와 관련한 판매촉진비용의 산정, 법 제11조 제5항의 예외요건의 해석 등 이 글에서 살핀 쟁점들에 대한 후속 연구를 진행하고, 법 제11조의 적용에 있어 구체적인 타당성을 가질 수 있는 집행방향에 대하여 지속적으로 고민할 필요가 있을 것이다. 그 결과 대규모유통업법 제11조에 대한 예측가능성이 높아지고, 법집행기관, 대규모유통업자, 납품업자등 및 소비자 모두가 win-win하여 공정한 유통거래질서와 소비자후생이 도모될 수 있기를 기대한다. Article 11 of the Act on Fair Transactions in Large Franchise and Retail Business (hereinafter, “the Act”), in relation to sales promotion events conducted by a large franchise and retail business operator (hereinafter, a “large distributor”), prohibits a large distributor from arbitrarily planning sales promotion events and then unfairly imposing the burden of sales promotional expenses from such events to a supplier or a store tenant (hereinafter, “suppliers”). In practice, however, there has been considerable debate regarding the scope of “sales promotion events”, interpretation of “sales promotional expenses”, and the interpretation and the application of exceptions listed in Article 11 (5) of the Act. In response, the Korea Fair Trade Commission (hereinafter, the “KFTC”) enacted the “Guidelines for Examining the Unfairness of Shifting the Burden of Sales Promotional Expenses by Internet Shopping Mall Operators” and “Guidelines for Examining the Unfairness in Purchases under Special Contracts in the Large Franchise and Retail Industry”. Through these guidelines, the KFTC sought to establish the criteria for judging the illegality for behaviors occurring both online and off-line in applying Article 11 of the Act. Recently, court decisions on Article 11 of the Act are also accumulating, and in particular, the Supreme Court issued a ruling on the interpretation of exceptions listed in Article 11 (5) of the Act on May 14, 2020. In this article, after reviewing the legal issues of Article 11 of the Act focusing on the review guidelines of the KFTC and recent court cases, we will examine the appropriate direction for the enforcement of Article 11 of the Act. Based on such review, it appears that the provisions of the KFTC guidelines and its operational principles have certain issues in properly interpreting and providing a consistent legal stability of Article 11. The Supreme Court ruling also did not fully consider the realities of the distribution industry and seems to be overly strict in its application. Furthermore, there could be concerns that Article 11 (5) of the Act may be effectively void if the Supreme Court’s ruling stands as is. On the other hand, recently, the KFTC seems to be taking the position to actively review and supplement the existing interpretation and enforcement of Article 11 of the Act, such as by temporarily limiting the application of the existing guidelines mentioned above through a newly issued guideline over Article 11 in June 2020. Therefore, it would be necessary to conduct follow-up studies regarding the issues discussed in this article, such as the scope of “sales promotion events”, calculation of “expenses” especially with respect to price discount promotions, and interpretation of exceptions listed in Article 11 (5) of the Act, in each case by distribution channels or transaction types. In addition, there will be a need to continually review the authorities’ enforcement direction, to ensure its actual validity in the application of Article 11 of the Act. As a result, the author hopes to increase the predictability of Article 11 of the Act, and that law enforcement agencies, large distributors, suppliers, and consumers will all be placed in win-win situations, by promoting a fair transactional order and consumer welfare in the distribution industry.

산림치유 활동의 의료비 절감효과

이연호 ( Yeonho Lee ),김상미 ( Sang Mi Kim ),이남 ( Nan Li ) 한국여성경제학회 2015 여성경제연구 Vol.12 No.2

본고는 산림치유 활동이 건강증진을 통해 의료비 절감에 미치는 영향을 분석했다. 분석자료는 인터넷조사(1,043명)와 국립 치유의 숲 3곳과 자연휴양림 12곳에서 현장조사(672명) 를 실시해 구축했다. 조사결과, 산림치유 참가목적에 대해 전체 응답자의 62.6%가 정신적 건강증진, 42.6%가 육체적 건강증진으로 답해 건강증진이 산림치유 참가의 중요한 목적임이 밝혀졌다. 산림치유의 건강증진 또는 질병치유 효과 여부에 대한 조사결과 38.8%가 ‘많이 있다’, 44.6%가 ‘약간 있다’로 답해 83.4%가 산림치유가 건강증진 또는 질병치유에 효과가 있다고 인식하고 있다. 산림치유의 의료비 절감효과에 대해 연간 8~10만원의 절약효과가 있다고 응답한 비율이 19.7%로 가장 높았으며, 그 다음으로 10만원 이상이라고 답한 경우도 18.6%에 달해 절감효과에 매우 긍정적이었다. 산림치유로 인한 1인당 평균 의료비 절감효과(103,600원)에 2015년 산림치유 참가자 수(123,386명)을 곱하면 산림치유로 인한 의료비 절감효과는 127억 8,278만원이며, 치유의 숲이 운영된 지난 7년간 참여자는 총 328,100명으로서 의료비 절감액은 총 339억 9,116만 원에 달하는 것으로 추정된다. 선형회귀모형과 순서형 로짓 모형 추정결과 산림치유 참가횟수가 많을수록 의료비 절감액이 커지는 것으로 밝혀졌다. This study examines the effect of forest therapy on reducing medical expenses through health promotion and disease cure. We conducted an internet survey with 1,043 individuals and a site survey with 672 individuals. The survey result showed that important motives for participating in forest therapy were promoting mental health(62.6%) and physical health(42.6%). The question on whether forest therapy promotes health or cures diseases resulted in 83.4% positive responses. The question on the effect of forest therapy on saving medical expenses also resulted in positive responses; the largest number of respondents(19.7%) answered 80,000~100,000, followed by over \100,000 (18.6%). When per capita saving of \103,600 was multiplied by the number of participants (123,386) in forest therapy, total medical cost savings in 2015 were estimated to be \12,782,780,000. The linear regression and ordered logit analyses reinforce the finding that forest therapy contributes to saving medical expenses.

지역유형별 노인의 생활체육 참가와 건강증진행위 및 의료비 지출의 관계

김성국(Sung Kuk Kim) 한국사회체육학회 2009 한국사회체육학회지 Vol.0 No.37

The purpose of this study was to find out The study on the relationship among the sports-for-all participation, health promoting lifestyle, and medical expense of the elderly, and to basic data to establish the Sports-for-All participation policy for the promotion of quality of the life of the elderly. Total 284 Korean elderly, big, small city and gun area were sampled as of 2008 as the population, who were aged over 61 and attended the elder`s college, silver town. Using the purposeful sampling method. For the investigation, we used the questionnaire method. And to construct the contents of the questionnaire, we referred to related previous works and then constructed the relevant questionnaire items after testing the validity and reliability of them. t-test, linear multiple regression, and path analysis were used for the analysis of the data. The results were as being follows. First, the sports-for-all participation is partially influences on the health promoting lifestyle, medical expense. Second, each of the participation frequency and participation period affected significantly at the health promoting lifestyle, medical expense. Lastly there is a causal relationship between the sports-for-all participation, health promoting lifestyle and medical expense.

Improvement Plans of Accounting in Korean Casinos: Focus on Promotional Activity Expenses

Jae-Woo Kwak(곽재우),Myeong-Jun Park(박명준) 융복합지식학회 2021 융복합지식학회논문지 Vol.9 No.4

본 연구는 카지노 산업의 활성화를 위한 방안을 제시하는 것을 목적으로 하였다. 이를 위하여 주요 국가의 카지노 프로모션 회계의 사례에 대한 검토를 통하여 프로모션 활동과 관련된 비용을 중심으로 국내의 카지노 회계의 문제점과 이슈들을 검토하고, 이에 대한 개선방안을 제시하고자 하였다. 이에 대한 연구 결과는 다음과 같다. 첫째, 카지노 마케팅 활동으로 제공되는 프로모션 쿠폰 및 칩스를 고객이 제출하면 수입금액에 포함하는 동시에 동일금액을 총지급 금액에 포함함으로써 총매출액에 영향을 미치지 못 하게 하는 방안을 제시하였다. 둘째, 프로모션 칩스 및 쿠폰에 해당하는 금액을 총매출액에 포함시키고, 고객이 승리하는 경우 해당 금액을 총매출액에서 차감하는 방안을 제시하였다. 셋째, 고객으로부터 수입한 총수입 중에서 프로모션 칩스 및 쿠폰에 해당하는 금액은 포함하지 않고, 고객이 승리하였을 때 지급하는 금액을 총지불금에 포함하는 방안을 제시하였다. The purpose of this study is to examine the problems and issues of casino accounting in Korea forced on the expenses related to promotional activities through reviewing cases of casino promotional accounting in other major countries and tried to suggest improvement plans for casino accounting in Korea. The results of this study are as follows. First, we suggested that the promotional coupons and chips provided by casino marketing activities should be included in the amount of income when the customer drops it, and at the same time include the same amount in the total payment amount so as not to affect the total sales amount. Second, we included the number of promotional chips and coupons in total sales, and suggested that if the customer wins, the amount would be subtracted from total sales. Third, we proposed to include the amount of money to be paid when the customer wins, not including the amount corresponding to the promoted chips and coupon, from the total income collected from the customer.

대규모유통업자와 납품업자의 판매촉진비용부담과 납품업자의 종업원사용금지

심재한 전북대학교 동북아법연구소 2019 동북아법연구 Vol.13 No.2

The Act on Fair Transactions in Large Franchise and Retail Business regulates various unfair practices between large franchise and retail business operators and suppliers. The Fair Trade Commission has taken a number of corrective actions regarding the Unjustly Shifting Burden of Sales Promotional Expenses and the Use of Employees. Since the promotion of sales promotions incurs expenses, Article 11 (1) prohibits the burden of selling promotion expenses to suppliers, etc., without contracting them with suppliers. This regulation is intended to regulate the act of transferring excessive sales promotion costs to suppliers. The share ratio of sales promotion costs should be based on the proportion of economic benefits (estimated profits) that large franchise and retail business operators and suppliers are expected to obtain directly through the sales promotion events, respectively. However, the economic benefits that large franchise and retail business operators and suppliers can obtain through sales promotions are not easily assessed. In addition, the gains from sales promotions conducted by both parties may be underestimated or overestimated. Nevertheless, if the expected profit ratio cannot be calculated, the expected profit is assumed to be the same. According to Article 11 (4), the share of the sales promotion cost sharing ratio of suppliers is allowed to be up to 50%. Article 12 prohibits the use of employees, stating that "A large franchise and retail business operator shall not request a supplier, etc. to dispatch employees or other human resources employed by such supplier, etc. to work in the workplace of the large franchise and retail business operator." Article 12 is closely related to the provisions of Article 11 concerning the burden of the promotion costs. The supplier can perform effective sales promotion activities by sending competent assistants to retailers. The question is how large franchise and retail business operators and suppliers will share the costs incurred by employees and so on. Reasonable interpretation and enforcement of The Act on Fair Transactions in Large Franchise and Retail Business should benefit distributors, suppliers and consumers. 유통업자와 납품업자 사이의 다양한 불공정행위를 규율하는 대규모유통업법상 많은 시정조치 실적이 있는 행위유형은 판매촉진비용의 부담전가와 납품업자 등의 종업원사용이다. 판매촉진행사를 실시하면 비용이 발생하기 마련인바, 제11조 제1항에서는 판매촉진비용의 부담 등을 납품업자등과 약정하지 아니하고는 이를 납품업자등에게 부담시키는 행위를 금지하고 있다. 이 규정은 대규모유통업자보다 거래상 열위에 있는 납품업자에 대하여 지나치게 과도한 판매촉진비용을 전가시키는 행위를 상대방에 대하여 불이익을 부과하는 행위라고 보고 이를 규제하려는 것이다. 판매촉진비용의 분담비율은 대규모유통업자와 납품업자등이 각각 해당 판매촉진행사를 통하여 직접적으로 얻을 것으로 예상되는 경제적 이익(예상이익)의 비율에 따라 정하는 것이 원칙이다. 그런데 대규모유통업자와 납품업자가 판매촉진행사를 통해 획득할 수 있는 경제적 이익이 용이하게 평가될 수 있는 성질의 것은 아니다. 또한 양 당사자가 실시하는 판매촉진행사를 통해 획득하는 이익이 과소평가되거나 혹은 과대평가 될 여지도 있다. 그럼에도 불구하고 예상이익 비율 산정불가의 경우 예상이익이 같은 것으로 추정되며, 제11조 제4항에 따라 납품업자등의 판매촉진비용 분담비율은 최대 100분의 50까지만 인정된다. 대규모유통업법 제12조는 제1항 본문에서 “대규모유통업자는 납품업자 등으로부터 종업원이나 그밖에 납품업자 등에 고용된 인력을 파견받아 자기의 사업장에서 근무하게 하여서는 아니 된다”고 하여 납품업자등의 종업원 사용 금지를 규정하고 있다. 제12조는 원래 판매촉진비용의 부담에 관한 제11조의 규정과 밀접한 관계를 가지고 있다. 제11조에 대한 설명에서 볼 수 있는 바와 같이 납품업자가 판매자 보조를 제공하는 것은 판매촉진대상중 소매업체에 대한 판매촉진 수단에 해당하기 때문이다. 즉 납품업자는 자신의 제품을 받아 소비자에 대한 직접적인 판매활동을 수행하는 소매업체에 능력있는 보조자를 파견하여 효과적인 판매촉진 활동을 수행할 수 있다. 문제는 납품업자가 파견한 종업원 등으로 인하여 발생한 비용에 관하여 대규모유통업자와 납품업자가 어떻게 분담할 것인가이다. 대규모유통업법의 합리적인 해석과 시행을 통하여 유통업자와 납품업자 그리고 소비자에게 모두 이익이 되도록 하여야 할 것이다.

공직선거법상 기부행위제한 위반죄와 지방의회의원의 업무추진비 집행행위의 위법성 ― 대법원 2017. 4. 28. 선고 2015도6008 판결 ―

김서영 ( Kim Seoyoung ) 연세대학교 법학연구원 2021 法學硏究 Vol.31 No.1

The target sentence above was made on the act in which the defendants such as the chairman, and vice chairman of local gu-council and chairman of its standing committee in a gu-level council spent the business operating promotion expenses by providing the public officials who were the constituency or the public organization's employees with meals without reasonable legal grounds. In the decision, the court considered that the act of providing public officials working for gu-office constitutes the requirements of contribution acts according to the Public Official Election Act (the Act) but does not belong to any acts which are in violation of social practices. Therefore, it concluded that the act does not violate any laws except for the act of giving the meals to other people other than specified above, which constitutes a violation of the contribution acts which shall be complied with according to the said Act. As business operating promotion expenses are the expenses which are allowed in the wide discretion of the executing organization and there is much room in handling or spending, it is necessary to proactively or normatively control the spending standard. That also applies to the case of any chairman of the district council in addition to any head of local governments. Therefore, there is a regulation in the Rules on the Execution of Business Operating Promotion Expenses for Local Governments (the Rules) which was revised in 2015 specifying the rules of execution standard for business operation promotion expenses to be spent by any chairman of council of the local government. If an Act complies with the Rules, it falls under the money giving acts according to Article 112 (2) (4) (a) of the Act and in such case, it should does not violate any prohibited contributions specified in Article 256 of the Act. However, the administrative office of the gu-district council applied the Rules on the head of the local governments to account for the accounting of the business operating promotion expenses spent by the defendants, and the defendants also thought that their act was is allowed by the Rules. So, it was determined that there is no violation of any social practices, therefore having no illegality because the act of providing meals is within the scope extent required for the implementation of duties of establishing ordinances, and the act does not violate social practices. The decision seems to consider the following facts; that the holding of meeting held with the public officials working for the gu-office level public official is required in order to establish the ordinance, which are the main job of the defendants, and confirm the opinion of the head of gu-office, and that the expenses, time and frequency of proving meals to the gu-office level public officials do not violate social practices such as meeting the general requirements for non-violation in terms of motive or goal of the act, the social properness of the means and method of the act, the legal balance between protective benefits and the infringement benefits, as well as urgency and complementation. As such, the target decision by the court has implications in that it has clearly specified the standard on how much the head of local council can provide the public officials with the means according to the Rules. This has led to a suggestion of the requirements of avoiding the illegality in terms of violation of prohibited contributions specified in the Act, considering the circumstances of the act even when the act does not fall on the exception of the contributions.

대규모유통업법상 판촉비용 관련 법적 쟁점과 개정의견

심재한 한국경쟁법학회 2023 競爭法硏究 Vol.48 No.-

The Act on Fair Transactions in Large Retail Business enacted in 2012 lists various prohibitions for large-scale retailers. However, the provisions of the sales promotion costs stipulated in Article 11 are significantly degrading the practical suitability of the regulations. Since the scope of the current definition of promotional events is wider than the scope of actual law enforcement, it is necessary to define them as temporary events for consumers. The current provisions on the cost sharing of sales promotion events are stipulated in favor of a supplier, and are strictly enforced in practice by reflecting this. In particular, Article 11 (5) of the Act on Fair Transactions in Large Retail Business stipulates voluntary requirements, and in 2020 the Supreme Court precedent and the Korea Fair Trade Commission interpret them as initiative, but this results in a deviation from reality. As a side effect of strict law enforcement, large-scale retailers are hesitant to conduct promotional events, and as a result, small and medium-sized suppliers are left behind in competition. In response to this, the Korea Fair Trade Commission has established a guideline and is implementing it until the end of 2023. It is necessary to revise the Law on the cost sharing of sales promotion events by reflecting the purpose of this guideline. The current written contract obligation clause was meaningful in the past when offline distributors led promotional events, but now, in the era of online shopping, a far greater number of vendors than in the past are conducting promotional events from time to time, but uniform compliance obligations are imposed. Therefore, there is a need to amend the law to reflect the reality of these transactions.