부당(不當)한 공동행위(共同行爲)(카르텔)의 성립요건(成立要件) = A Study on the Constituent Elements of Improper Cartel

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

The Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act prohibits improper concerted act(so called cartel) under Article 19(1). It prescribes that no enterpriser shall agree with other enterprisers by contract, agreement, resolution, or any other means to engage jointly in any of the enumerated acts or let others engage in such kinds of activities that unfairly restrict competition. Under this provision, improper cartels are required 3 critical elements; (1) any kinds of act under items 1-9 of clause(1) article 19, (2) any agreement of two or more enterprisers, (3) substantial restriction of competition in a particular business area. However, these requirements are controversial to apply because of their unclear expression. Among other things, the most important issue is that how the explicit or implicit agreement can be proved. It is not easy to find the direct evidence of agreement, so, in many cases, the court and the Commission seek to prove the agreement through circumstantial evidences. The Act presumes to have committed an unfair collaborative act despite the absence of an explicit agreement to engage in such act if two or more enterprisers commit any of the acts listed in Clause (1). On the other hand, this provision is criticized too be harsh to enterprisers so the Supreme Court has ruled this presumption can be reversed by independent act, unavoidable consistence of act and so on. Judgment of improper restriction of competition is also hard to be proved. So the Commission established the standard of collaborative act and tries to prove this act. This standard divides the improper cartels into hardcore cartel and softcore cartel, and hardcore cartel is treated as per-se illegal. However, hardcore cartel can not be deemed illegal without examination of restriction of competition. Rather, it would be decided under comprehensive review between effects of restriction of competition and effectiveness.

참고문헌 (Reference)

1 공정거래위원회, "합의입증과 추정에 필요한 증거수준분석 등 국내외 카르텔사건 심결례, 판례의 종합분석" 공정거래위원회 2006

2 공정거래위원회 카르텔 정책국, "카르텔규제의 이론과 실무(내부전문교육자료)"

3 공정거래위원회 경쟁법연구회, "미국 반독점법 개관−사례, 기본개념, 주요쟁점−" 일지사 2007

4 이기종, "독점금지법상의 카르텔 규제에 관한 연구−미국법을 중심으로" 연세대학교 1993

5 김두진, "공정거래법상 부당한 공동행위 자진신고자 감면제도" 한국상사판례학회 21 (21): 73-106, 2008

6 공정거래위원회, "공정거래법개정안 설명자료, 2006. 12"

7 임영철, "공정거래법 해설과 논점" 법문사 2007

8 양명조, "경제법강의" 신조사 2006

9 신창선, "경제법강의" 성문사 2000

10 이남기, "경제법, 제3전정판" 박영사 2001

11 신현윤, "경제법" 법문사 2006

12 권오승, "경제법" 법문사 2002

13 이기수, "경제법" 세창출판사 2006

14 정호열, "경제법" 박영사 2006

15 "Theatre Enterprises, Inc. v. Paramount Film Distributing Corp, 346 U.S. 537, 74 S.Ct. 257 U.S. 1954"

16 Lawrence A. Sullivan, "The Law of Antitrust: An Integrated Handbook, West Group" West Group 2000

17 "Interstate Circuit, Inc. v. United States, 306 U.S. 208, 59 S.Ct. 467 U.S. 1939"

18 Andrew I. Gavil, "Antitrust Law in Perspective: Cases, Concepts and Problems in Competition Policy" West Group 2003

19 Areeda, Kaplow, "Antitrust Analysis: Problems, Text and Cases(6th ed.)" Aspen Publshers 2004

20 공정거래위원회, "2009 공정거래백서" 공정거래위원회 2009

21 이호영, "2008년 공동행위관련 판례의 동향" 한국경쟁법학회 19 (19): 330-366, 2009

22 이호영, "'독점규제법' −쟁점과 판례−" 홍문사 2005