RISS 학술연구정보서비스

검색
다국어 입력

http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.

변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.

예시)
  • 中文 을 입력하시려면 zhongwen을 입력하시고 space를누르시면됩니다.
  • 北京 을 입력하시려면 beijing을 입력하시고 space를 누르시면 됩니다.
닫기
    인기검색어 순위 펼치기

    RISS 인기검색어

      KCI등재

      한국의 사적 집행 사례와 시사점 = Private Enforcement Cases of Korean Competition Law and Their Implications

      한글로보기

      https://www.riss.kr/link?id=A100001328

      • 0

        상세조회
      • 0

        다운로드
      서지정보 열기
      • 내보내기
      • 내책장담기
      • 공유하기
      • 오류접수

      부가정보

      다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract) kakao i 다국어 번역

      This article reviews major damages and injunction cases for the violation of Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act (hereinafter MRFTA) and aims to obtain policy implication in the future. Starting from Military supply oil rigging case, Korean courts have addressed various legal issues such as indirect purchaser claims, causation, damages estimation, evidentiary value of appraisal, and pass-on defense. In addition, private enforcement cases provide following three noticeable points. (1) The majority number of damages lawsuits have been triggered by the action of Korea Fair Trade Commission (hereinafter KFTC) and this trend is expected to continue. (2) Factors such as transaction data keeping, economic analysis capability and financial resources tend to generate the binikbin buikbu (rich-get-richer, poor-get-poorer) phenomenon in litigation outcomes. (3) Courts generally depend on the economic analysis with respect to damages assessment in most cartel cases. From a public policy perspective, following points are noted. First, private enforcement of MRFTA such as damages claims and injunction can hardly detect any undisclosed anticompetitive behaviors and thus seems difficult to replace public enforcement. Rather, private plaintiffs are more likely to rely on KFTC to access evidence proving defendant`s violation of MRFTA. Therefore, it desirable to operate public enforcement focusing on detection and punishment of violations and private enforcement conducts complementary role of damage recovery. In addition, to improve the binikbin buikbu phenomenon, a special care is needed for petit victims. In this regard, the introduction of a class action lawsuit would be helpful. On the other hand, the introduction of punitive damages is not expected to improve the binikbin buikbu phenomenon, as long as the difficulties in accessing evidence and fund-raising consist, punitive damages would be of little help for petit victims.
      번역하기

      This article reviews major damages and injunction cases for the violation of Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act (hereinafter MRFTA) and aims to obtain policy implication in the future. Starting from Military supply oil rigging case, Korean courts ...

      This article reviews major damages and injunction cases for the violation of Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act (hereinafter MRFTA) and aims to obtain policy implication in the future. Starting from Military supply oil rigging case, Korean courts have addressed various legal issues such as indirect purchaser claims, causation, damages estimation, evidentiary value of appraisal, and pass-on defense. In addition, private enforcement cases provide following three noticeable points. (1) The majority number of damages lawsuits have been triggered by the action of Korea Fair Trade Commission (hereinafter KFTC) and this trend is expected to continue. (2) Factors such as transaction data keeping, economic analysis capability and financial resources tend to generate the binikbin buikbu (rich-get-richer, poor-get-poorer) phenomenon in litigation outcomes. (3) Courts generally depend on the economic analysis with respect to damages assessment in most cartel cases. From a public policy perspective, following points are noted. First, private enforcement of MRFTA such as damages claims and injunction can hardly detect any undisclosed anticompetitive behaviors and thus seems difficult to replace public enforcement. Rather, private plaintiffs are more likely to rely on KFTC to access evidence proving defendant`s violation of MRFTA. Therefore, it desirable to operate public enforcement focusing on detection and punishment of violations and private enforcement conducts complementary role of damage recovery. In addition, to improve the binikbin buikbu phenomenon, a special care is needed for petit victims. In this regard, the introduction of a class action lawsuit would be helpful. On the other hand, the introduction of punitive damages is not expected to improve the binikbin buikbu phenomenon, as long as the difficulties in accessing evidence and fund-raising consist, punitive damages would be of little help for petit victims.

      더보기

      분석정보

      View

      상세정보조회

      0

      Usage

      원문다운로드

      0

      대출신청

      0

      복사신청

      0

      EDDS신청

      0

      동일 주제 내 활용도 TOP

      더보기

      주제

      연도별 연구동향

      연도별 활용동향

      연관논문

      연구자 네트워크맵

      공동연구자 (7)

      유사연구자 (20) 활용도상위20명

      이 자료와 함께 이용한 RISS 자료

      나만을 위한 추천자료

      해외이동버튼