불공정거래행위에 대한 규제 분석

박영진 법무부 2014 선진상사법률연구 Vol.- No.68

The main regulatory targets under Korea’s Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act(“Fair Trade Act”) are enterprises’ abuse of market-dominant positions, excessive concentration of economic power, cartels and unfair trade practices. Among these main regulatory concerns, this thesis focuses on unfair trade practices which the Korean Fair Trade Commission(KFTC)’s enforcement activities are centered on, and provides implications for further regulatory improvement with a support of a statistical analysis. Regulations on unfair trade practices in Korea are formed with i) public regulatory measures, particularly the KFTC’s administrative sanctions such as penalty surcharges and corrective measures, and criminal penalties imposed by judicial bodies, and ii) private regulatory measures, i.e. damage claims, the Korean Fair Trade Mediation Agency’s fair trade dispute mediation system, the Fair Trade Compliance Program(CP), etc. Despite the fact that private measures are being utilized to a greater extent as manifested in the progress of the Korean Fair Trade Mediation Agency’s dispute mediation system since its adoption in 2008 and increasing remedied amount of damage claims, the KFTC’s public regulations are still dominant regulatory measures for unfair trade practices. On the basis of the statistical data on the KFTC’s current enforcement activities on unfair trade practices, economic effectiveness and efficiency of unfair trading regulations was analyzed, and the results show that the effectiveness and efficiency of the regulations are relatively low when comparing our reliance on the public regulation to the quantity of regulatory assets of the KFTC and the extent to which unfair trade practices damage market competition order. In addition, there are diverse analytical theories on the elements of unfair trade practices and the illegality criteria for each type of practices under the KFTC’s Guidelines for Review of Unfair Trade Practices are not uniform, while quite frequently appeals or administrative suits are filed against a decision rendered by the KFTC and the applicant wins the case against the KFTC. In this light, it is concluded that over-enforcement, or so called False Positive(Type 1) Errors are found in the KFTC’s public regulations. These results suggest that there is a need to direct certain types of practices to be placed under the private regulatory domain and establish a multi-faceted and integrated “optimal regulatory framework” for unfair trade practices. Furthermore, since unfair trade practices under the current Fair Trade Act are put together in one category despite their disparate nature, these practices should be classified into different types, and by comparing and reviewing policy effects of public/private regulations by each type, a balance must be struck among different measures within a regulatory system. 우리나라 독점규제 및 공정거래에 관한 법률(이하 ‘공정거래법’)은 사업자의 시장지배적지위의 남용, 과도한 경제적 집중 방지, 부당한 공동행위, 불공정거래행위를 주요 규제대상으로 삼고 있다. 이 글에서는 공정거래법의 주요 규제대상 중에서도 공정거래위원회의 규제집행이 집중되고 있는 불공정거래행위에 대한 규제 집행 현황에 대하여 통계적 분석을 시도하고 이를 토대로 규제 개선의 시사점을 제시하였다. 우리나라 불공정거래행위에 대한 규제제도는 과징금, 시정명령을 비롯한 공정위의 행정제재 및 사법기관에 의한 형사제재 등의 공적 규제수단과 손해배상제도, 한국공정거래조정원의 공정거래 분쟁조정제도, 공정거래 자율준수 프로그램(CP) 등 사적 규제수단으로 이루어지고 있다. 2008년부터 한국공정거래조정원에 의한 분쟁조정제도가 도입되어 분쟁조정 실적이 지속적으로 증가하고 있고 이를 통하여 피해구제액 등의 경제적 성과도 어느 정도 거양하고 있는 등 사적 규제의 활용이 증가하고 있기는 하나 아직 불공정거래행위에 대한 규제는 거의 전적으로 공정위의 공적 수단에 의존하고 있다. 공정위에 의하여 이루어진 불공정거래행위 집행현황에 대한 통계자료를 기초로 불공정거래행위에 대한 규제를 통해 얻을 수 있는 경제적 효과와 효율성을 분석한 결과에 의하면 공정위의 공적 규제에 의존하는 정도에 비하여 공정위가 보유하고 있는 규제자원의 양이나 불공정거래행위가 지니고 있는 시장경쟁질서에 미치는 폐해의 정도와 견주어 볼 때 규제 효과나 효율성은 상대적으로 낮은 것으로 보여진다. 또한 불공정거래행위의 요건에 대한 해석론이 다양하게 제기되고 있고, 공정위의 불공정거래행위 심사지침에서도 개별 유형에 대한 위법성 판단기준이 여러 가지로 제시되고 있는 한편, 공정위의 처분에 대하여 이의신청이나 행정소송이 제기되어 신청인의 주장이 인용되거나 공정위가 패소한 사건 비율이 상당히 높은 점을 고려할 때 공정위의 공적규제에 있어서 소위 과대집행의 오류도 있는 것으로 판단된다. 이러한 분석결과는 결국 불공정거래행위에 대한 법집행의 효율성을 극대화시키기 위하여는 공적 규제에 의존하고 있는 현재 실태에서 탈피하여 일부 유형에 대하여는 사적 규제 영역으로 전환하여 불공정거래행위에 대한 다각적·중첩적인 ‘최적 규제 체계’를 설정할 필요가 있음을 시사한다. 더 나아가 우리 공정거래법의 불공정거래행위에는 이질적 유형들이 하나의 범주에 포함되어 있는 점을 감안할 때 이를 구체적인 유형별로 분류하고 그 개별 유형에 대하여 공적 규제수단과 사적 규제수단의 정책효과를 비교, 검토하여 규제간의 조화를 꾀할 수 있는 방향으로 규제 체계를 설정할 필요가 있다.

불공정거래행위의 유형에 따른 위법성 판단 - 불공정성을 중심으로 -

홍명수 경희대학교 법학연구소 2015 경희법학 Vol.50 No.3

Monopoly Regulations Act has been based on the dual system, market dominant position regulations and unfair trade regulations, on the single illegal practices. The decisions of illegality of unfair trade practices will be accomplished on the grounds of the restraints of competition and unfairness. That is to say, an infringement of fair trade would be comprised of unfairness of trade, too. For decision of unfairness of trade, it would be required to confirm the factors that damage the profits of trade partners, which should belong to them reasonably. Specially it is significant to value a degree of the violation or the distortion of the reasonable choice of the trade partners. KFTC(Korean Fair Trade Commission) understands the unfairness from the perspectives of competitive means and trade matters. Among the details of types of unfair trade practices, Unfair drawing of customer, Forced Trade, Obstruction of business activities will be determine unfairness by competitive means, and Abusing the trade position by trade matters. But such a formal application could be results in difficulties in determinations of unfairness. In other to understand the nature of unfairness of unfair trade practices, it is needed to avoid the formal approaches and keep the practical and comprehensive perspectives. 독점규제법상 단독행위 규제는 시장지배적 지위남용행위와 불공정거래행위 규제로 이원화 되어 있으며, 이러한 규제 체계에서 불공정거래행위 규제는 단독행위 규제의 한 축을 이룬다. 또한 독점규제법상 불공정거래행위의 위법성 판단은 경쟁제한성과 불공정성 등 다양한 관점에서 이루어진다는 점도 중요한 특징을 이룬다. 이와 같은 규제체계에 대하여 다양한 논의가 이루어지고 있다. 단독행위 규제체계의 문제, 불공정거래행위 위법성 판단의 중층적 구조 등은 입법론까지 포함하여 다양한 논의의 대상이 되고 있다. 이러한 논의는 독점규제법 규제체계의 개선의 관점에서 의미 있는 것이지만, 논의의 기초를 올바르게 하기 위하여 현행 독점규제법상 불공정거래행위 규제에 대한 이해가 중요하다. 특히 불공정거래행위 위법성 판단에 있어서 경쟁제한성이 아닌 불공정성에 의하는 부분은 상대적으로 명확하게 정립되지 않은 상황이다. 특히 거래내용과 경쟁수단의 측면에서 형식적으로 불공정성을 파악하고 있는 공정거래위원회의 규제 실무는 불공정성에 대한 실질적인 이해를 모색하는데 지장을 초래하고 있다. 따라서 불공정거래행위 위법성의 판단 기준으로서 불공정성의 의의를 명확히 하고, 구체적인 법적용에서 드러나는 문제점을 면밀히 검토할 필요가 있다. 이를 위하여 거래 과정에서 발생하는 불이익에 초점을 맞추고 있는 불공정성의 의의를 밝히고, 불공정성의 관점에서 위법성 판단이 이루어지고 있는 불공정거래행위의 세부 유형, 즉 부당한 고객유인, 거래강제, 거래상 지위의 남용, 사업활동 방해 등을 구체적으로 분석하여 규제 법리를 개선할 필요가 있을 것이다.

불공정거래행위의 사법상 효력

서정 민사판례연구회 2009 民事判例硏究 Vol.- No.31

In studying the enforceability of unfair trade practices proscribed in Section 23 of Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Law (hereinafter “MRFTL”), its legal nature must first be examined. There are two main body of thoughts regarding the legal nature of unfair trade practices: one school of thought argues that unfair trade practices should be understood in the limited context as only those acts that harm competition while the other school of thought argues that unfair trade practices include not only anticompetitive behavior but also any behavior in which unfairness exists (even if such behavior is not necessarily anticompetitive). Between these two thoughts, currently, the latter is the majority view among scholars. As such, the discussion on the enforceability and the scope of unfair trade practices is closely related to the discussion of its nature. If we follow the second school of thought, unfair trade practices encompass both acts that restrict competition as well as acts that, although not anticompetitive, are nonetheless considered unfair. The latter acts can be further divided into those acts subject to Article 103 of the Korean Civil Code and those acts that are not. In terms of enforceability of anticompetitive practices, acts that are anticompetitive are simply null and void; this is because competition forms a part of social order in the sense that it constitutes one of the core values behind the Constitution and helps society achieve the principle of self determination. Therefore, in principle, any activities harmful to competition should be rendered void. On the other hand, regarding acts, which, while not anticompetitive, are considered unfair, I believe if the degree of unfairness is so severe that it is against public policy, those acts should also be rendered void. Although a person can question whether there is a separate need for the Korean Fair Trade Commission (hereinafter “KFTC”) to intervene in such cases, court decisions so far generally hold in favor of KFTC intervention in such cases. In cases where an act is considered to constitute unfair trade practice but does not rise to the level of violating public policy, it is hard to say that such activity should be rendered legally void. However, MRFTL allows the KFTC to apply sanctions such as issuing cease and desist order, or imposing fine and criminal penalties to parties engaged in such act. Hence, in terms of formulating legal policy, we need to carefully study this kind of discrepancy between civil law and competition law. 독점규제 및 공정거래에 관한 법률(이하 '공정거래법') 제23조에 규정된 불공정거래행위의 사법상 효력을 논함에 있어서는 그 본질에 대한 검토가 선행되어야 한다. 불공정거래행위의 본질에 대해서는 경쟁질서를 침해하는 행위로 국한해서 이해하는 견해와 거래질서를 침해하는 행위로 확장해서 이해하여야 한다는 견해가 대립되고 있다. 전자를 경쟁질서침해설, 후자를 거래질서침해설로 칭할 수 있는데, 후자가 현재 다수설이다. 이처럼 본질론에 관한 입장에 따라 불공정거래행위에 포섭되는 행위태양이 달라지게 되고, 이것은 다시 사법상 효력론에 영향을 미치게 된다. 거래질서침해설에 따르게 되면, 현행 불공정거래행위는 경쟁을 제한하는 행위와 경쟁은 제한하지 않지만 불공정하다고 평가되는 행위, 즉 성격이 다른 두 종류의 행위유형으로 구성되어 있다고 할 것이다. 그리고 후자는 다시 민법 제103조 등의 적용을 받는 행위와 민법 제103조 등의 적용을 받지 않는 행위로 구분된다. 사법상 효력과 관련하여 먼저 경쟁제한적 불공정거래행위에 관하여 보건대, 경쟁질서는 헌법이 추구하는 가치일 뿐만 아니라 사적자치를 실질화한다는 측면에서 사회질서의 일부분을 구성한다고 할 것이다. 따라서 이러한 법률행위는 원칙적으로 무효라고 보아야 할 것이다. 경쟁은 침해하지 않지만 불공정한 행위 중에서 공정성 침해의 정도가 현저하여 공서양속에 반하는 경우에도 그 행위를 무효라고 보아야 할 것이다. 다만 이 경우에 과연 경쟁당국이 별도로 개입할 필요성이 있는지에 대해서 의문이 제기될 수 있으나, 현재 판례는 이를 긍정하고 있다. 한편, 불공정거래행위의 요건에는 해당하지만 공서양속에 반한다고 보기 어려운 경우에는 섣불리 법률행위의 효력을 부정할 수는 없을 것이다. 그렇지만 이 경우에도 시정조치, 과징금, 형벌 등의 제재를 가하는 것이 가능한 바, 과연 공정성 심사를 통과하여 사법상 유효하다고 인정되는 법률행위에 대해서 다시 경쟁당국이 동일한 잣대로 심사를 해서 제재를 가하는 것이 법정책적 측면에서 타당한지는 재검토가 필요하다.

불공정거래행위 규제의 의의와 개선 논의의 기초

홍명수 ( Myung Su Hong ) 안암법학회 2014 안암 법학 Vol.0 No.45

The Regulations of unfair trade practices are an axis of the regulations of single-firm conducts with the regulations of abuses of market dominant power in Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act in Korea. And the regulations of unfair trade practices should be determined in perspective of the restraints of competition as well as the unfairness. Such a regulation system of unfair trade practices is not uncommon as compared to the competition law in other countries. For example the competition law systems in U. S. A., Germany and Japan have the multiple legal provisions about the regulations of single-firm conducts. And as can be seen at the applications of article 19 in Monopoly Prohibition Act in Japan and article 5 in the FTC Act in U. S. A., the perspectives of unfairness have effectively functioned for the regulations of unfair trade practices. So current the regulations of the single-firm conducts or the unfair trade practices in Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act would not be problem systematically. More importantly, the current regulation systems must be reviewed in light of real competition in the market and regulatory necessity. From this point of view, it would be sufficient to meet the demand of competition policy. So it may be premature to integrate the regulations of single-firm conducts or remove the unfairness in judgement of illegality of unfair trade practices. And it is necessary to discuss the improvement of regulations of unfair trade practices in this point, to clarify the meaning of the regulation of single-firm conduct and unfair trade practice, or the criteria of the determination of unfairness.

공정거래법상 불공정거래행위에 대한 연구

심재한 ( Jae Han Sim ) 안암법학회 2008 안암 법학 Vol.0 No.27

Seit Inkrafttreten des koreanischen "Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act" gab es viele verschiedene Meinungen uber die Regelungen gegen "Unfair Trade Practices". Diese Regelungen sind direkt vom japanischen Gesetz ubernommen. Das japanische Gesetz enthalt eine Reihe der umgesetzten Regelungen aus US amerikanischen Antitrust Law. Deswegen hat das japanische Gesetz nicht nur die Regelungen gegen "Unfair Trade Practices" als auch die Regelung, die gegen Monopol unmittelbar wirkt. Obwohl das koreanische "Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act" fast alle Regelungen vom japanischen Gesetz ubernommen hat, hat es keine Regelung, die das Monopol per se verbietet. Statt per se Verbot gegen das Monopol enthalt das koreanische Gesetz die Regelungen gegen Machtmissbrauch des marktstarken Unternehmen wie das deutsche GWB. Unter diesem Grund vergleichen einige Meinungen "Unfair Trade Practices" mit den sittenwidrigen Handlungen vom deutschen UWG oder mit unfair methods of competition von §5 FTC Act. Aber UWG und §5 FTC Act funktionieren nicht wie die Regelungen gegen "Unfair Trade Practices" in Korea. In diesem Aufsatz werden die "Unfair Trade Practices" systematisch analysieren und damit die Bedeutung der "Unfair Trade Practices" verdeutlichen.

우리나라와 인도의 부당노동행위제도비교

김교숙 한국비교노동법학회 2008 노동법논총 Vol.13 No.-

33 years have passed since Korea normalized with India. Today India is related closely with Korea at economic side. I think that sooner or later the Korea-India FTA will be signed. Therefore this paper studies India’s labour law, especially the Indian Unfair Labour Practices. The characteristics of unfair labour practices in India are as followings; ① non-provision of guarantee of worker’s basic rights in Constitution Law, ② the continuity of unfair labour practices, ③ the registration of trade union, ④ unfair labour practices on the part of workmen and trade unions of workmen, ⑤ judicial remedy process etc. The Indian Trade Unions Act,1926 was accordingly amended by the The Indian Trade Unions(Amendment) Act,1947(Act No.XLV of 1947). Certain acts are specified in the Act as unfair labour practice. Provision has been made enabling withdrawal of recognition of a registered trade union, when an unfair labour practice is committed by the executive or members of a registered trade union, or where a trade union has ceased to be a representative trade union or failed to submit any return prescribed under the Act. An unfair labour practice on the part of the employer has been made an offence punishable with fine. The Industrial Disputes Amendment Act, 1982 prescribes unfair labour practice on the part of the employer and trade unions of employers as well as on the part of workmen and trades unions of workmen. Conclusively speaking, this paper suggests that our labor law should more concretely prescribe unfair labour practice on the part of the employer by studying unfair labour practice on the part of the employer in India.

부당노동행위 구제제도의 실효성 확보를 위한 제언

방준식 노동법이론실무학회 2019 노동법포럼 Vol.- No.18

In the above, some legal issues were examined to secure the effectiveness of the unfair labor practice remedies. In short, First, the right to apply for the relief of unfair labor practice is available to both workers and unions whose rights have been violated. Unlawful unions, if they have independence and democracy, should seek remedies for all types of unfair labor practices. In particular, Article 7 of the Trade Union Law should be deleted in the sense that bargaining or negotiating intervention against non-union unions is possible. Second, in order to secure the validity of an unfair labor practice remedy, it is not considered that the remedy was made by merely admitting unfair labor activity or by posting a notice or a decision on the bulletin board, and there is no general preventive effect to eradicate unfair labor activity. Therefore, effective unfair labor practice relief orders such as administrative sanctions are required. Third, unfair labor practice doctors are considered unnecessary in the system of unfair labor practice remedies. This is because it is sufficient to assume that unfair labor behavior is estimated from objective facts and to shift the burden of proof that requires the disprovement of the user. Only by relieving the burden of burden of proof on the part of the workers can the effectiveness of the system of remedy for unfair labor practices be secured. Fourth, it is desirable to resolve unfair labor practices by administrative remedy rather than criminal punishment on the basis of original restorationism rather than coexistence. This is because punishment that punishes employers is ineffective even from the viewpoint of labor and management autonomy. Rather, it is possible to consider civil solutions (such as compensation) for unfair labor practices of employers, corresponding to civil solutions (compensation and imprisonment / disposal) for illegal disputes by trade unions. Lastly, under the system of unification of bargaining windows, unfair labor practices of representative unions against minority unions can be solved by recognizing unfair labor practices of trade unions under union law. 이상에서 부당노동행위 구제제도의 실효성 확보를 위해 몇 가지 법적 쟁점을 살펴보았다. 간단히 요약해보면 다음과 같다. 첫째, 부당노동행위 구제신청권자는 권리를 침해당한 근로자와 노동조합 모두 가능하다. 법외노조도 자주성과 민주성을 갖추었다면 모든 부당노동행위의 유형에 대한 구제신청이 인정되어야 한다. 특히 법외노조에 대한 교섭거부나 지배개입도 법외노조의 구제신청이 가능하다는 점에서 노조법 제7조는 삭제되어야 한다. 둘째, 부당노동행위 구제명령의 실효성을 확보하기 위해서 단지 부당노동행위를 인정한다거나 공고문이나 판정문을 게시판에 공고하는 것으로 구제가 이루어졌다고 볼 수 없고 부당노동행위를 근절시키는 일반예방효과도 없다. 따라서 행정적 제재와 같은 실효성이 있는 부당노동행위 구제명령이 요구된다. 셋째, 부당노동행위의사는 부당노동행위 구제제도에서는 불필요하다고 본다. 객관적인 사실로부터 부당노동행위가 추정되고 사용자의 반증을 요하는 입증책임의 전환이면 충분하기 때문이다. 오로지 근로자측의 입증책임부담을 덜어줌으로써 부당노동행위의 구제제도의 실효성은 확보될 수 있을 것이다. 넷째, 부당노동행위에 대해 병존주의가 아닌 원상회복주의를 근거로 하여 형사처벌보다는 행정적 구제로 해결하는 것이 바람직하다고 본다. 사용자를 처벌하는 처벌주의는 노사자치의 관점에서 보더라도 실효성이 없기 때문이다. 오히려 노동조합의 불법쟁의행위에 대한 민사적 해결방법(손해배상과 가압류/가처분)에 상응하여 사용자의 부당노동행위에 대한 민사적 해결방법(손해배상 등)이 고려될 수 있는 것이다. 마지막으로 교섭창구단일화 제도하에서 소수노조에 대한 교섭대표노조의 부당노동행위는 노조법상 노동조합의 부당노동행위를 인정함으로써 해결할 수 있을 것이다.

대리점 거래에 대한 연구

강선희(Sun Hee Kang),조성국(Sung Kuk Cho) 중앙법학회 2013 中央法學 Vol.15 No.4

Up to now, Korean Commercial Code doesn`t have special provision on a dealership agreement. Generally, Unfair trade practices in dealership agreement are restrained by Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act of Korea (herein after “Korean Anti-Monopoly Act”)Article 23. Lately, with so-called ``Namyang Dairy Products Co., Ltd. affair`` as a momentum, the issue related with unfair practices such as ``Pushing-Out`` in distributorship agreement looks set to spread to the society at large. Political community also seeks to counteract those problems with legislative measures. It is to enact a special act for regulating distributorship agreement or to revise the Korean Anti-Monopoly Act. Unfair trade practices through the Fair Trade Commission Survey revealed the following: Forced Purchase, Forced Sales Target, Imputed Cost of Sales Promotion·Salesperson`s Wages, Demand Money and Valuables, Offering Disadvantages, Unfair Reject of Returns, Unfair Intervention in Management and Unfair Termination of Contract, etc. Typically, these unfair trade practices in the market are due to an imbalance of power. First and foremost, it is necessary to find nature and to set up concept of dealership agreement. The purpose of discussion is to set up fundamental concept of dealership agreement and to provide an institutional strategy for resolving unfair trade practices. Dealership agreement is continual trade relationship between a provider and a dealer who wants to sell goods in his own name through purchase and consignment trade for some period of time. That is, purchase trade is to buy from provider and resell goods in the dealer`s name and for the dealer`s profit. Consignment trade is to buy goods in the dealer`s name and to sell them to large scale retailer for the provider`s profit. There are Institutional strategy for resolving unfair trade practices: Restitution Order, Punitive Damage, making the best use of Claim System for Accusation Duty or Small & Medium Business Administration etc.

부당지원행위규제에 관한 논의- 부당지원행위의 성립요건을 중심으로-

임정하 한국경제법학회 2011 경제법연구 Vol.10 No.2

Unfair support practice is provided as one type of unfair trade practice under Article 23 Paragraph 1 Item 7 of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act (the “MRFTA”). The restriction on unfair support practice is a unique and independent legislation as there is no similar or comparable legislation to such restriction in other foreign countries. Accordingly, there still exists controversy on the legislation purposes of and requirements for the restriction on unfair support practice. This article intends to review criteria of unfair support practice by examining definition of support practice and standards for illegality(unfairness). In connection with definition of support practice, this article reviews a recent relevant case where large volume transactions has been issued. The conflict of normative purposes between competition restriction and economic concentration restriction shown during the legislation history has been an obstacle to the predictability of people in determining whether to constitute unfair support practice. Practice of Korea Fair Trade Commission and court decisions encompassed plural values which could be in conflict in the elements of illegality, which resulted in the consequence that illegality is actually presumed without any specific judgement as long as there deems support practice. Under the current the MRFTA which provides unfair support practice as one type of unfair trade practice, it would be resonable and desirable to determine illegality(unfairness) based on one single standard, that would be restriction of competition. However, if unfairness is seen as abstract risk, constitution of support practice could result in presumption of illegality of the support practice. To avoid such result, it would be necessary to set objective and specific indicators to determine the restriction of competition. For the future legislation scheme, it would be desirable to clarify whether unfair support practice is subject to unfair trade practice restriction or economic concentration restriction to avoid any confusion with regard to the position of unfair support practice in the legislation structure under MRFTA. 부당지원행위는 공정거래법 제23조 제1항 제7호에서 불공정거래행위 유형의 하나로 규정되어 있다. 부당지원행위 규제는 비교할 만한 외국의 입법례가 없는 독자적인 제도로 도입․발전되어온 것으로 그 입법목적 및 적용 요건에 대해서 여전히 다양한 견해가 존재한다. 본고는 지원행위의 개념과 위법성(부당성)의 판단요소를 살펴봄으로써 부당지원행위의 성립요건을 검토하고자한다. 지원행위의 개념과 관련하여 최근에 문제가 되고 있는 물량몰아주기 사례를 검토한다. 부당지원행위 규제의 입법연혁에 나타나는 다양한 규범목적의 충돌은 부당지원행위의 성립요건에대한 수범자들의 예측가능성을 저해하고 있다. 공정거래위원회의 실무와 판례는 여러 상충될 수있는 다원적 가치들을 부당지원행위의 위법성 요소로 포섭함으로써 사실상 위법성에 대한 구체적 판단없이 지원행위만 있으면 위법성이 추정되는 것과 같은 결과를 초래하고 있다. 부당지원행위를 불공정거래행위의 유형으로 규정하고 있는 현행 공정거래법하에서는 부당성의 판단요소를경쟁제한으로 보는 일원적 기준에 의해 그 위법성을 판단하되, 부당성을 단지 추상적 위험으로보는 경우에는 지원행위의 성립만으로 곧 부당지원행위가 성립되는 결과를 초래할 수 있으므로경쟁제한성을 판단하는 객관적이고 구체적인 지표가 필요한 것으로 보인다. 입법론적으로는 부당지원행위를 불공정거래행위로 규제할 것인지 아니면 경제력집중 억제를 위한 규제로 볼 것인지를 분명히 하여 법체계상의 혼란을 해소하는 것이 바람직할 것이다.

노조활동을 곤란하게 할 목적으로 한 행위의 부당노동행위해당성 ― 대판 2011. 7. 28. 2009두9574를 중심으로 ―

이상덕 한국비교노동법학회 2012 노동법논총 Vol.26 No.-

Korean Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act Article 81(TULRAA) prescribes that an employer shall not commit an act falling into the following categories. That is, an act dominating, or interfering with workers in the organisation or operation of a trade union, or an act assisting a trade union with the expenses for operation, provided that the employer allows workers to negotiate or bargain with him during working hours, that he donates welfare funds or funds for the prevention of or relief from economic troubles and other disasters, and that he provides a minimum office space. Trade unions must be organised and operated independently of the influence of employers so that they may represent the interests of workers in the true sense of the word. If they are controlled or dominated by employers or their organisation they are no less than company unions. TULRAA guarantees the independence of trade unions from the influence and interference of employers in two ways. Firstly, it deprives a union of legal protection which does not satisfy the requirements which are provided in Article 2 to keep a trade union independent from employers. Secondly, it prohibits acts of an employer which infringes the independence of a trade union. The unfair labor practice called 'domination and interference' is the second legal system that guarantees the independence of a trade union. Domination and interference would include persuading or forcing an employee to join a company union; preventing employees from attending an inaugural meeting; dismissing important promoters of the organisation; or criticizing the organisation or the operation of a trade union which stands against an employer. Forcing an employee who is a member of a trade union to withdraw from it, or ordering an employee to work on a rest day when a general meeting of a trade union is to be held on that day also constitutes control or interference with a trade union. In the above cases, if the employer dismisses the employee on the ground that s/he has joined or has not withdrawn from the trade union, this constitutes both domination and interference with a trade union and discrimination against the employee. As mentioned above, it seems that activities done by an employer with a view to making trade union activities difficult shall be regarded as unfair labor practices. In addition to this, unfair labor practices should be recognized in case the attempts of an employer to break trade unions are found and recognized.