동의의결의 법적 성격에 대한 고찰

박혜림 서울시립대학교 서울시립대학교 법학연구소 2015 서울법학 Vol.22 No.3

It is important to study the legal character of consent order because they can provide useful clues to settle many of the legal disputes surrounding consent order. Firstly, consent order can be assessed as an administrative disposition in that KFTC(Korea fair trade commission) as an administrative agent establishes consent order and publish it in official gazette. Second, consent order can be regarded as a public contract as KFTC and a corporate have reached an agreement on the issue. Lastly, consent order can be understood as termination of criminal investigation premised on the assumption that a criminal investigation is technically devolved on KFTC. Namely it means that a professional and specialized administrative investigation is substituted for a criminal investigation in many fields. The issue on revocation of consent order can be treated with various legal aspects. It can be the object of a civil suit or an administrative party litigation from the perspective of public contract. The revocation of consent order is also likely to be object of an administrative litigation especially Cancellation of administrative sanction. If it is premised that right to apply consent order is derived from interpretation of law. Two step theory in France is appropriate to recognize the legal character of consent order and legal disputes surrounding consent order. First step is the agreement between KFTAC and a corporate in regard to corrective measures, and second step is administrative act. According to this theory, the modification of content of agreement can be object of civil or administrative party suit, and the cancellation of consent order itself can be the object of administrative litigation. 동의의결은 형식적으로는 행정기관인 공정거래위원회가 최종동의의결안을 확정하고 공고한다는 점에서 행정처분의 성격을 가지는 동시에, 내용적으로는 공정거래위원회와 피심인인 사업자 사이의 합의에 따른 공법상 계약의 성격을 가진다. 또한 공정거래법 상 동의의결 대상행위들이 형사처벌의 대상으로 규정되고 있고, 공정거래위원회가 전속고발권을 가지고 있기 때문에, 동의의결은 기능적으로는 검찰의 형사소추권의 가능성을 제한하는 역할을 하게 된다. 전문성을 요하는 영역에 이루어지는 행정조사가 실질적으로 사법경찰관 및 검찰의 수사를 대신하거나 보충함에 따라 이를 넓은 의미의 수사로 보게 되면, 동의의결은 넓은 의미의 수사의 종결이라는 기능적 측면을 가지고 있다. 따라서 사실상의 수사과정으로 볼 수 있는 동의의결 과정에서 이에 비례한 적법절차원리가 지켜질 필요가 있다. 이러한 복합적인 법적 성격을 가진 동의의결제에 대한 이해는 동의명령 절차와 관련한 전반적인 법적 검토를 다시금 하게 한다. 동의의결의 신청개시 또는 불개시 결정은 계약 전단계이자, 행정처분이 되기 전 행정기관의 조직 내부의 결정이기 때문에 민사소송과 행정소송 및 헌법소원이 모두 불가하다. 다만, 넓은 의미의 수사의 종결이라는 효과를 가진다. 동의의결 취소 및 변경의 경우, 동의의결을 행정행위로 이해하게 되면, 동의의결의 취소는 행정행위의 철회가 된다. 이에 대해 피심인이 행정법상 취소소송을 제기할 여지가 있는데, 취소소송의 요건인 처분성 인정이 문제가 된다. 처분은 신청권 유무로 결정되는데 현재 법률상 피심인의 취소신청권이 명시되어 있지 않고 해석상 도출이 되어야만 한다. 그러나 공권력의 행사로 보아 헌법소원의 대상은 될 수 있을 것으로 보인다. 공법상 계약으로 이해할 경우 처분성이 인정되지 않더라도 당사자 소송이 가능하다. 이와 관련하여 프랑스의 분리가능행위 이론에 따르면 동의의결의 내용에 대한 다툼은 당사자 소송으로, 동의의결이라는 행정처분 자체의 취소 다툼은 행정소송으로 해결할 수 있다.

동의명령제 도입에 대한 형사법적 고찰

김범식(Kim Burm Shik) 성균관대학교 법학연구소 2008 성균관법학 Vol.20 No.2

  The system of Consent Order is the final decision by a court as a government has approved in such cases was illegally judged by an administrative agencies. Additionally, a consent order is a series of executive procedure expressing a voluntary agreement between two potential parties - a defendant being investigated especially for unfair trade practices and the government regulatory body - to a law suit. The general rule of consent order system, however, is that consent order becomes effective by the acceptance of a court, because it should not violate the powers of jurisdiction. In this way, a fact of consent order has the validity that binds the parties and becomes definitely effective. The system of consent order originates from the United States. It is called ‘Verpflichtungszusagen" in Germany and "Consent decision" in Japan.<BR>  In Korea, as the number of the cases which have been brought to the Fair Trade Commission is rapidly increasing in recent years, the procedural improvement for not only due process but efficient treatment of flocking cases is rising as a pending task around the enforcement authority.<BR>  However, if the Fair Trade Commission which has the exclusive prosecution has the authority of consent order under unsystematic circumstances, the problem that the Fair Trade Commission infringe the right of a criminal prosecution of public prosecutors would happen.<BR>  Therefore, in order to successfully introduce the system of Consent order, in the short run, the Fair Trade Commission should have the authority of consent order and should not have the authority of an exclusive prosecution, in the long run, public prosecutors should be endowed with the authority of consent order.

공정거래법상 동의명령제 도입방안 연구

김두진(Doo-Jin Kim) 한국비교사법학회 2009 비교사법 Vol.16 No.4

The KOREA-US Free Trade Agreement (hereinafter “KORUS FTA”) was signed on 4 April 2007 between trade negotiating representatives, and is awaiting respective legislator’s recognition. The KORUS FTA Chapter Sixteen (so-called Competition Chapter) is composed of 9 articles. Among them, the article 16.1(5) declares “Each Party shall provide its authorities responsible for the enforcement of its national competition laws with the authority to resolve an administrative or civil enforcement action by mutual agreement with the subject of such an enforcement action. A Party may provide for such agreement to be subject to judicial approval.” This mutual agreement makes reference to the consent order. The antitrust consent orders are kind of the law enforcement measures and very flexible legal device through the negotiation between the antitrust authority and offending enterprises. In the USA, the majority of antitrust cases were settled by consent orders. Under the current Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act (hereinafter “Fair Trade Act”) in Korea, there are only unilateral corrective measures, including cease and desist order and surcharge order. In this study, I researched the FTC’s consent order and the DOJ’s consent decree procedure and several cases which were settled by negotiation through prescribed consent order scheme in the USA. And the commitment decision procedure in the EU, the Verpflichtungszusagen procedure in the Germany, and the consent adjudication procedure in the Japan were considered, too. This article affirms the necessity of the introducing consent order into our current scheme and seeks to find the proper legislation method of it. To avoid the abuse of power by the Korea Fair Trade Commission (hereinafter “KFTC”), I suggest some recommendations for legislature as follows: Firstly, The exclusion of all cartels from consent order's scope is not appropriate. At least, the consent order should apply to the types of cartels that should be treated under the rule of reason. However where the degree of violations is so obvious and considerable, it should be excluded and to be treated regularly. Secondly, Accepting public comments and conferences with relevant authorities are necessary before entering into consent orders. Thirdly, the judicial review of public interest is unnecessary to the consent order by the KFTC, which is not an independent regulatory body as the FTC but has different feature from the ordinary government ministries, being a quasi-judiciary and quasi-legislative body. The great weight should be put on the independence and expertise of the KFTC. Fourthly, all main opinions and final decisions will be in principle made public via the internet home page in order to accept the public comment. Lastly and not the least, Where the facts which the consent order is based on are false, misrepresented or manipulated, the consent orders should be cancelled through litigations. The reopening should be available for the competition authority and the defendant enterprises to modify the consent orders where necessitated by changed conditions of law or fact, or as required in the public interest.

공정거래법상 동의의결제를 통한 경쟁규제집행의 책임성 확보 방안

송태원 ( Song Tae-won ) 안암법학회 2018 안암 법학 Vol.0 No.56

공정거래법의 목적을 달성하기 위한 법의 집행은 행정제재, 민사적 책임 부담, 형사처벌이 있다. 우리나라 공정거래법의 집행은 시정명령, 과징금 등 행정제재를 중심으로 운용이 되었다. 동의의결제는 공정거래위원회가 행위의 위법성을 판단하여 제재처분을 하는 것이 아니어서 사업자는 법위반 행위에 대한 제재의 부담에서 벗어날 수 있다. 이와 관련하여, 동의의결제 도입 당시부터 동의의결제가 ‘기업봐주기’로 흐를 위험이 있다는 문제제기가 있었다. 그 해결책으로 법상 ‘법위법 행위로 인정될 경우의 제재조치와 동등한 수준의 시정방안을 마련할 것’이라는 요건이 마련되었다. 그러나 이 때문에 공정거래위원회가 시정방안의 적정성을 판단함에 있어 기금 출연을 통해 사업자가 금전적 부담을 지는 식으로 운용이 된 측면이 있었다. 이러한 기금은 피해구제기금이 아니라 일반 공익목적의 기금이라는 점에서 그 성격이 정확히 무엇인지에 대해 논란이 있다. 또한, 동의의결을 통한 집행은 의결사항을 상당한 기간을 두고 이행하는 것이어서, 이에 대한 공정한 이행감시가 필요한데, 사업자가 출연한 기금으로 설립된 재단이 동의의결이행점검의 주체가 되었다. 이해관계 있는 자가 동의의결이행점검을 하는 것은 동의의결의 신뢰성 뿐 아니라 행정의 책임성을 저해시킬 수 있다. 동의의결을 통한 집행의 책임성을 제고하기 위해서는 사업자가 동의의결을 하더라도 민사적 책임에서 면제되지 않도록 하는 장치가 필요하다. 공정거래법상 부권소송을 도입하여 동의의결 과정에서 법원의 관여를 통해 사업자의 민사책임을 확정짓도록 하는 것이다. 또한 동의의결 사항의 이행점검은 제3의 독립된 이행감시기구를 통해 이루어지는 것이 바람직하다. 특히 여기에는 소비자 대표 등 사업자와 대립적인 구도에 있는 이해당사자가 포함되는 것이 필요하다. Law enforcement can be executed by administrative restriction, charge of civil obligation, and criminal penalty in order to accomplish the purpose of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act while it is mainly operated by administrative restriction such as corrective order or fine in Korea. Since the consent order system is not subject to restriction based on judging illegality of an act by the Korea Fair Trade Commission, the acting businessman can be exempted from any restrictions for the act. In this regards, it was pointed that the consent order system can be seen as too-enterprise-friendly since its introduction, thus corrective measures, which are in par with the said restrictions, would be prepared for legally illegal acts as the resolution. However, the execution of the Korea Fair Trade Commission's resolution for judging the appropriateness of corrective measures is operated by donating fund from business operators. So it is being under controversy for the exact nature of the fund since it is not a damage relief fund but the fund for general public's interest. The execution of consent order is conducted for the considerable amount of time and required fair watch on performance of a duty while the foundation being established by funds from business operators became the main agent of the watch on performance of a duty for consent order. Since the foregoing can be seen as the concerned party conducts the watch on performance of a duty for consent order, the credibility of execution of consent order and the responsibility of administration can be hampered. It is desired that the Parents Patriae Action under the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act shall be adopted for business operators not to be exempted from civil responsibility in order to enhance the responsibility of execution by consent order even if the business operators conduct the consent order so the competent court can intervene the process of executing the consent order finalizing the civil responsibility for the business operator whereas the watch on performance of a duty for consent order shall be conducted by an independent third organization. It is necessary that the concerned person, specially including the representative of consumers, who are on the opposition side with the business operator, shall be included in the organization.

공정거래법상 동의의결제도의 문제점 고찰

강명수 ( Myung Soo Kang ) 제주대학교 법과정책연구소 2014 法과 政策 Vol.20 No.1

법 위반 여부가 의심되는 행위에 대하여 담당기관(우리나라의 경우 공정거래위원회)과 당사자 상호간의 합의를 통해 시정방안을 마련하고 그 타당성이 인정되면 사건을 소송외적으로 종결하는 절차인 동의명령제는 미국에서 처음 도입된 이래, 일본, 독일, EU 등 대륙법계 국가에서도 받아들여진 제도이다. 우리나라에서도 동 제도를 도입할 것인지 여부에 대해 그 동안 논의가 있어 왔고 한미 FTA 합의사항 이행을 위한 법개정을 통해 2011년 12월 2일 개정법에서 도입되었다. 공법 영역에서 국가기관과 사업자가 서로 협의하여 사건을 종결짓는 것이 우리법 체계와는 맞지 않는 점이 있고 특히 우리나라 공정거래법에서는 공정거래위원회의 전속고발권을 인정하고 있어 동의의결제 도입에 대한 반대의견도 많았다. 다만 이제는 동 제도가 도입된 지 2년이 지났기 때문에 제도 도입 자체에 대한 논의는 실익이 높지 않고 이미 도입된 제도의 합리적인 운용방안을 모색할 시기라고 할 것이다. 그 동안 동의의결 제도가 전혀 활용되지 않고 있다가 최근 네이버와 다음의 시장지배적 지위남용 행위에 대해 동의의결 절차가 개시되어 현재 진행중에 있다. 동의의결제도에 부정적인 측면도 있으나 효율적인 법집행, 기업의 자율적인 시정조치를 통한 예측가능성 담보 등 그 유용성이 충분히 있음에도 제도가 도입된지 2년여만에 처음으로 동의의결 절차가 진행되고 있다는 점은 의문이기도 하나, 이를 시작으로 향후에는 동 제도의 이용이 보다 활성화될 것으로 기대된다. 따라서 지금의 시점에서 동의의결제에 대해 전반적으로 재검토해 보는 것이 필요하며, 그 중에서도 형사소추권의 침해문제, 공동행위를 제외시킨 것, 법원의 관여 여부, 이해관계인의 절차보장, 동의의결 취소 절차에서의 소명기회 제공 등에 나타난 문제점들을 지적하여 향후의 입법적 개정에 있어 시사점을 제시한다. For an action which is suspected as a violation of law, the agency (in case of Korea, Korean Fair Trade Commission) and parties involved in such action agreed to corrective measure by mutual agreement, if the measure is regarded as adequate measure, the case would be closed without litigation under the system of consent order which was introduced to the United States first, then it was introduced to Japan, Germany, European Union, and other countries with the continental law system. In Korea, it had been discussed whether it would be adapted or not. Then, it was introduced in December 2nd 2011 as revision of law for execution of Free Trade Agreement between Korea and the United States. There had been strong opposition to adapt consent order since it is not acceptable for Korean public law system to close the case with agreement between public agency and parties and there is the exclusive right to accuse of Korean Fair Trade Commission. However, there is no practical mean of discussion whether it should be adapted since it has been two years after adapting by law. Therefore, it is time to discuss how to manage consent order reasonably. Even though there has been no practical use of consent order, consent order was began after Naver and Daum agreed to follow procedures of consent order. There are some worries since the case of Naver and Daum is the first time after two years of introduction, it seems consent order would be vitalized after all since there are some benefits such as effective law enforcement and voluntary corrective measure conducted by companies. Now, it is a proper time to reexamine consent order by and large. Therefore, I would like to point out problems such as a violation of criminal prosecutions, an exception of joint action, a problem whether the court participates, a participation assurance of person interested, giving opportunity to excuse during the cancellation of consent order. In addition, I would like to suggest the future direction of legislative revision in law based on problems I mentioned just above.

공정거래법상 동의명령제 도입방안에 대한 연구

홍준형(Joon-Hyung Hong),김정희(Jeoung-Hee Kim) 한국기업법학회 2007 企業法硏究 Vol.21 No.4

Since the Korea-U.S. Free Trade Agreements (hereinafter “FTA”) was signed in 2007, it seemed to be inevitable to introduce consent order system in Korea. A consent order is a series of executive procedure expressing a voluntary agreement between two potential parties - a defendant being investigated especially for unfair trade practices and the government regulatory body - to a law suit. That is, without admitting guilt, the defendant might agree to cease the activities alleged by the government to be illegal, in return for closing the case. At the same time, the government might efficiently accomplish regulatory purposes thereby. This article tries to give some significant advices in introducing the institution of the “Consent order” in Korea from the standpoint of the domestic legal system. For that purpose, the article explores the definition, institutional characters and functions, and other relevant information of the consent order system. Given that inquiry, it discusses some issues and alternatives that should be considered in relation to the Bill for『Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act』on August 7, 2007. Specifically, the article maintains that the institutional advantages of “Consent order” should not wrongfully be taken as to be adding another arbitrary leverage to apply rules to the existing list of measures for government's intervention. It is necessary to deliberate the possibilities of moral hazard, unpredictability of the government affairs, or the government’s over-regulation problems which may follow the “Consent order” system. These problems, however, can be solved by existing rules or procedural-complements, such as making public the agreement reached between the parties or having a certain period of time seeking public comments related to the “Consent order”. In sum, the “Consent order” system should be introduced in Korea as a form that fits well into the domestic legal system. For that purpose, it is highly recommendable to refer to the “Consent order” practiced in the U.S., where the system originated from. The Bill『Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act』of 2007 proves to be by and large a very positive one, in which sets institutional devices to soften unexpected impacts of the new system. Nonetheless, there still remain some shortcomings, such as limitation of scope to apply “Consent order” and exclusion of a defendant’s right to advance opinions.

한,미 FTA와 경쟁정책 -법적 쟁점을 중심으로-

이동원 ( Dong Won Lee ) 한국경쟁법학회 2012 競爭法硏究 Vol.26 No.-

The Free Trade Agreement between the Republic of Korea and United States of America (hereinafter “KORUS FTA”) was signed in April 2007 and went into effect March 2012. KORUS FTA has 24 chapters and 3 annexes, which includes several chapters related to the competition policy such as Competition-Related Matter(chapter 16), Pharmaceutical Products and Medical Devices(chapter 5), and Telecommunications(chapter 14). This article is intended to provide the several legal issues derived from the KORUS FTA, and to show the desirable settlements especially in Competition-Related Matter related to competition law and anticompetitive business conduct containing consent order issue, designated monopolies, state enterprises, differences in pricing, transparency, cross-border consumer protection, consultations, and dispute settlement etc. In particular, there are three main issues among them as follows; In the first place, the relationship between the trade agreement and competition law is of great significance for the economic efficiency and consumer welfare, which could be attained by application of the competition law by protecting anticompetitive behaviors of enterprises of the Party. In the second place, each Party shall provide its authorities responsible for the enforcement of its national competition laws with the authority to resolve their administrative or civil enforcement actions by mutual agreement with the subject of the enforcement action, which was enacted by the name of “consent order” in Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act in Korea. In the third place, the designated monopolies shall act in a manner that is not inconsistent with the Party`s obligations under the KORUS FTA wherever such a monopoly exercises any regulatory, administrative, or other governmental authority that the Party has delegated to it, act solely in accordance with commercial considerations in its purchase or sale of the monopoly good or service in the relevant market, provides non-discriminatory treatment to covered investments, and shall not use its monopoly position to engage in anticompetitive practices. So shall the state enterprises comply with two obligations among these obligations.

금융소비자 사후구제제도의 개선방향 연구

윤민섭 한국금융소비자학회 2022 금융소비자연구 Vol.12 No.2

The Financial Consumer Protection Act went into effect on March 25, 2021. Therefore, financial consumer protection has been strengthened more than before. Financial consumer protection policies, such as the expansion of sales regulations, the creation of new financial consumer rights, strengthening of financial education, and the introduction of surcharges, seem to have gone a step further than before. However, the current Financial Consumer Protection Act focuses on strengthening prior regulations, prevention, and sanctions, and only the dispute settlement system is stipulated for ex-post damage relief of financial consumers. In relation to this, there is a lot of discussion about the class action system, punitive damages system and dispute settlement system, which are more binding on area. Such discussions are also important, but we need to consider not only the current system but also the various ex-post remedies introduced in other areas and countries. Therefore, this study briefly explained not only the improvement of the current financial dispute system, but also the new post-relief system such as fair funds, patriarchal lawsuits and settlement of consent. After considering each system in this study, I believe that it can be fully introduced into the financial sector. 2021년 3월 25일 금융소비자보호법의 시행으로 금융소비자보호가 이전보다 강화되었다고 볼 수 있다. 6대 판매규제의 확대, 새로운 금융소비자권리의 신설, 금융교육 강화, 과징금 도입 등 금융소비자보호정책은 과거보다 진일보했다고 볼 수 있다. 그러나 현행 금융소비자보호법은 사전규제 및 예방, 제재를 강화하는 것에 초점을 두고 있고, 금융소비자의 사후구제에 대해서는 기존과 동일하게 분쟁조정제도만을 규정하고 있다. 이와 관련하여 집단소송제도, 징벌적 손해배상제도 및 분쟁조정제도의 편면적 구속력 등으로 논의가 집중되고 있다. 그러한 논의도 중요하지만, 현행 제도 뿐만 아니라 다른 분야 및 국가에서 도입하고 있는 다양한 사후구제수단을 도입하는 방안도 고려할 필요가 있다. 이에 본 연구에서는 현행 금융분쟁제도의 개선 뿐만 아니라 페어펀드, 부권소송 및 동의의결제 등 새로운 방식의 사후구제제도에 대해서 간략하게 살펴보았다. 물론 각 제도마다 논의하여야 할 사항이 많기 때문에 심도깊은 논의를 하지 못하고 있지만, 금융분야에 충분히 도입될 수 있는 제도라고 판단된다. 앞으로 논의를 통해 다양한 제도를 동시에 검토하여 효율적 있는 사후구제체계가 구축되기를 기대한다.

최근 동의의결의 동향과 향후 과제- 제도 활성화를 위한 개선방안 -

최난설헌 한국상사법학회 2022 商事法硏究 Vol.40 No.4

According to the ʻʻconsent decree system,ʼʼ in the process of investigation or deliberation by the competition authorities, business operators or business associations may voluntarily propose corrective measures such as the voluntary resolution of restrictions on competition and remedies for consumer damage. After collecting opinions from people and entities that have interests in the matter, the competition authority determines the validity of the corrective measures. If the validity of such corrective measures is admitted, the consent decree system promptly closes the case without determining whether the case is illegal or not. In the consent decree system, the Korea Fair Trade Commission reaches an agreement with the person accused of potentially violating the law. Through this agreement, it is possible to voluntarily, promptly, and efficiently correct the situation where concerns about illegality have been raised. In addition, the consent decree system has a positive function that can effectively relieve consumer damage. When the consent decree system is adequately operated in accordance with its original purpose, positive effects such as prompt guarantees for victims, resolution of restrictions on competition, improvement of trade order, and cost reduction of competition authorities can be expected. However, since the adoption of the consent decree system in the Fair Trade Act and the Labeling and Advertising Act, only 13 cases (18 cases based on case number) have been applied for the consent decrees, raising the problem that the utilization of the system is poor. In addition, issues such as the Korea Fair Trade Commissionʼs broad discretion, granting indulgences to businesses violating the law, and poor performance management have been consistently pointed out. However, since the consent decree system is an alternative enforcement means introduced to resolve concerns under the competition law and has various advantages, it is necessary to continuously improve the institutional framework to alleviate the shortcomings and maintain the social benefits generated by the system. In particular, in the case of complex competition issues appearing in the digital economy or in cases where the theoretical framework is not sufficiently robust, the consent decree system can be very effective, such as quickly revitalizing market competition and contributing to transaction improvement. When the consent decree system was introduced in 2011, concerns were pointed out that the system was highly susceptible to abuse and that the consent decrees could not be used as evidence of illegality. However, given the current state of the systemʼs operation in Korea, these concerns did not appear to be realistic. There are few cases of application for consent decrees. In order to utilize the system, it is necessary to find the cause of the low application rate and to find a way to alleviate the rigidity of the system. In addition, the successful establishment of the system is also related to the issue of transparency and reliability of system operation by competition authorities. Therefore, not only from the viewpoint of the applicant business but also from the viewpoint of consumers and third parties who have suffered damage, an institutional frame that can recover damage and solve problems in the consent decree system should be systematically established. 동의의결제도란 경쟁당국의 조사 또는 심의과정에서 사업자 또는 사업자단체가 스스로 경쟁제한 상태의 자발적 해소, 소비자 피해구제 등의 시정방안을 제시하고, 경쟁당국이 이해관계자 등의 의견수렴을 거쳐 그 타당성을 인정하는 경우, 위법성 여부를 판단하지 않고 사건을 신속히 종결하는 제도이다. 동의의결제도는 법 위반 혐의를 받는 행위자와의 협의를 통하여 법 위반 우려가 제기된 상태를 자발적으로 시정하도록 함으로써 신속하고 효율적인 시정이 가능하고, 소비자피해 역시 효과적으로 구제할 수 있는 긍정적인 기능이 있다. 동의의결제도는 본래의 도입 취지에 맞게 적절하게 운영될 경우 피해자에 대한 신속한 보장, 경쟁제한 상태의 해소, 거래질서의 개선, 경쟁당국의 비용 절감 등 긍정적 효과를 기대할 수 있음에도 공정거래법과 표시광고법에 동의의결제도가 도입된 이후 현재까지 단 13건(사건번호 기준 18건)의 동의의결이 신청되어 그 활용이 저조하다는 문제가 제기되고 있다. 또한, 공정거래위원회의 광범위한 재량 및 법 위반 사업자에 대한 면죄부 부여, 이행관리부실 등의 문제가 꾸준히 지적되어 왔다. 그러나 동의의결제도는 경쟁법상 우려 사항을 해결하기 위하여 도입된 다양한 장점을 가진 대체적 집행수단이므로 계속적으로 제도적 틀을 개선하여 단점을 완화하고 혜택을 유지해야 한다. 디지털 경제에서 나타나는 복합적인 경쟁이슈나, 이론적인 틀이 충분히 견고하지 않은 사건에서 동의의결제도는 신속한 시장의 경쟁 활성화와 거래개선에 기여하는 등, 매우 효과적일 수 있다. 2011년 동의의결제도 도입 당시 제도의 부작용으로 예상되었던 제도의 남용 소지 및 동의의결 사실이 위법성 입증자료로 쓰일 수 없다는 점은 그간 우리나라의 제도 운영현황을 비추어 볼 때 현실적인 우려 사항은 아닌 것으로 보인다. 동의의결 신청사례 자체가 적은 만큼 제도의 활용을 위해서는 신청률 저조의 원인을 찾아보고 제도의 경직성 완화 방안을 모색할 필요가 있으며, 그간의 동의의결 인용사건과 기각사건 관련 지적사항들을 분석하여 개선할 필요가 있다. 또한, 제도의 성공적인 안착 여부는 경쟁당국에 의한 제도 운영의 투명성과 신뢰성의 문제와도 결부된다고 할 것이므로 신청 사업자와의 관계에서뿐만 아니라 피해를 입은 소비자와 및 제3자의 입장에서도 동의의결로 피해가 회복되고 문제가 해결될 수 있다는 공정위의 판단을 신뢰할 수 있는 체계가 구축되어야 할 것이다.

공정거래법상 동의의결 제도의 내용과 문제점 검토

유진희 ( Jin Hee Ryu ),최지필 ( Ji Pil Choi ) 고려대학교 법학연구원 2012 고려법학 Vol.0 No.64

2011년 12월 한미 자유무역협정 이행법안의 하나로 공정거래법 개정안이 국회를 통과하면서 동의의결 제도가 도입되었다. 동의의결 제도가 여러해에 걸친 논의 끝에 도입되기는 하였지만, 관련 규정 여러 곳에서 해석상 논란이 있는 부분과 입법론상 재검토가 필요한 부분이 발견된다. 이를 요약하면 다음과 같다. 첫째, 동의의결은 사업자의 자발적인 신청에 의한 것인데 동의의결의 요건으로 시정방안의 적정성을 요구하는 것은 동의의결의 본질에 맞지 않는다. 특히 법위반을 전제로 하지 않는 동의의결에서 법위반을 전제로 통상적인 제재절차에서의 제재수준과 균형을 이루도록 하는 것은 타당하지 않으므로 입법론적으로 재검토가 필요하다. 둘째, 검찰권의 과도한 개입이나 동의의결이 후속 소송에서 증거로 사용될 여지는 동의의결 신청 인센티브를 저해하는 요인이다. 따라서 검찰총장과의 협의의무를 삭제하고, 동의의결의 법적 효과에 대한 규정을 동의의결이 있었다는 사실 및 동의의결을 하기 위한 절차에서 제출된 자료는 별도의 민사소송 또는 형사소송에서 위반행위를 입증하기 위한 증거로 사용되어서는 아니된다고 개정하는 것이 타당하다. 셋째, 동의의결에 대한 사업자나 제3자의 불복의 소 제기는 사건의 신속한 해결을 통한 경쟁질서의 회복이라는 제도의 도입취지에 맞지 않는다. 따라서 동의의결에 대한 불복을 동의의결 절차에 하자가 있는 등 아주 제한적인 경우에 당해 사업자에 한하여 허용하거나 또는 미국의 경우처럼 동의의결의 내용안에 당해 사업자가 장차 불복의 소를 제기하지 않겠다는 합의(부제소 특약)가 포함되도록 할 필요가 있다. 그리고 동의의결 절차와 원절차를 동시에 진행하는 것도 절차의 경제라는 동의의결의 취지에 맞지 않으므로 동의의결 절차가 개시되면 원절차가 바로 중단되도록 하는 것이 타당할 것이다. 넷째, 동의의결의 악용·남용의 방지 및 이해관계인의 이익 보호라는 측면도 함께 고려되어야 한다. 동의의결 절차가 개시된 후에는 동의의결 신청의 철회를 하지 못하게 한다면 동의의결을 악용하거나 남용할 여지가 줄어들게 됨은 물론, 부수적으로 절차의 경제도 도모할 수 있을 것이다. 또한 공정거래위원회가 동의의결을 취소하고 신청인을 구속력 있는 동의의결에서 해방시키는 경우 이해관계인의 이익이 침해될 가능성이 있으므로 이 경우에도 의견수렴 절차를 거치도록 할 필요가 있다. Consent decision is a mechanism that allows the Korea Fair Trade Commission (KFTC) to stop an enforcement procedure without any determination of wrongdoing by adopting a measure to the same effect as a remedy that a business entity or business association under investigation or adjudication by the KFTC has proposed to voluntarily resolve an anticompetitiveness, compensate consumer damages, or restore the fairness of the transaction. The KFTC may accept the remedies proposed as long as it considers the remedies appropriate to restore fair and free competition or to protect consumers or other business entities. Although the consent decision framework was introduced into Korean Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act along with the ratification of Korea-United States Free Trade Agreement, there remain issues in interpretation of the provisions and other issues that need to be resolved on a legislative level. The purpose of this article is to examine the problems of the current consent decision provisions and to suggest some legislative alternatives that could maximize its beneficial effects. First, given that the remedies are to be voluntarily proposed by a business entity, requiring the appropriateness of remedies as an element of consent decision is unreasonable. Especially when considering that consent decisions do not assume a breach of law, it is inconsistent to require that a proposed remedy match the level of severity in enforcement of a conventional infringement decision which would be based on a breach of law. Second, excessive intervention by prosecutorial authorities and the possibility that a consent decision can be used as prima facie evidence in a subsequent lawsuit weakens the incentive to apply for a consent decision. Therefore the obligation to consult with the Public Prosecutor General should be eliminated and the legal effect clause of consent decisions should be revised to state that the existence of a consent decision and the materials submitted in a consent decision proceeding shall not be used as evidence to establish a violation of law in a separate civil or criminal proceeding. Third, allowing the appeal of a consent decision by an applicant (business entity) or some other third party is inconsistent with the original purpose of consent decisions which means to restore free and fair competition through efficient resolution. Therefore, an appeal of a consent decision should be allowed in very limited circumstances such as a serious procedural defect and only available to the applicant. Alternatively, a covenant not to appeal could be required to be included in consent decisions, similar to U.S. laws. Also, in interests of procedural economy, once a consent decision proceeding is initiated, the original infringement decision proceeding should be immediately suspended. Fourth, the prevention of abuse and misuse of consent decisions procedures and the protection of interested third parties must be taken into consideration. The prohibition on the withdrawal of an application for a consent decision once a proceeding is initiated will reduce the possibility of abuse and misuse of consent decisions and will also be helpful for the procedural economy. And when the KFTC terminates a consent decision and releases the applicant (business entity) from a binding consent decision, there should be a public consultation in the same manner as in the original consent decision procedure in order to protect interested third parties.