단독행위 관련 최근 판결에 대한 분석과 전망 = Analysis and Prospects of the Recent Supreme Court Decision on Unilateral Conduct

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

The Supreme Court decision of 2002du8626, rendered on January 22, 2007, referred to as the POSCO case is known to have provided a standard to distinguish between conduct relating to abuse of market dominance under Article 3(2) of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act (the “MRFTA” or the “Act”) and conduct relating to unfair trade practices under Article 23 of the Act, which had been a long-time problem in the area of competition law. The ruling is also known to be a milestone that provides the basis for judging the unfairness of a refusal to deal as a type of abuse of market dominance. The POSCO case ruled that in order for a refusal to deal to constitute an unfair conduct as an act of market dominance, it must satisfy both the subjective element of intention or purpose to maintain/strengthen its monopoly and the objective element of conduct likely to have anticompetitive effect. In this regard, the decision ruled that a refusal to deal as an act of abuse of market dominance is different from a refusal to deal as an unfair trade practice. However, the academia presented a strong view that objective element alone is sufficient to serve as a standard for judging the unfairness of abuse of market dominance and that subjective element is unnecessary. In addition, the academia also voiced that the POSCO case should be interpreted as being limited to refusal to deal as an act of abuse of market dominance. With regard to the standard for judging conduct involving the interference with business practices, the Supreme Court states that the same standard of unfairness in the POSCO case applies, while the subjective element is de facto presumed for exclusionary conduct due to the nature of the conduct. With respect to conduct that harms consumer interests, the Supreme Court states that the legislative intent lies not only in the promotion of competition in a monopolistic or oligopolistic market but also in the protection of consumer interests. In effect, the Supreme Court places the focus on deciding whether there is harm to consumer interests. The Supreme Court`s position may have been prompted to maintain its standard for deciding the illegality in the POSCO case, while offering to seek for a more detailed logic. In other words, with regard to exclusionary conduct, the Supreme Court maintained its unfairness standard in the POSCO case through effective elimination of the subjective element by focusing on the nature of the conduct at issue, while accommodating the criticisms of the academics regarding the unnecessariness of the subjective element. Furthermore, the Supreme Court states that the unfairness standard in the POSCO case is insufficient to decide on the conduct that harms consumer interests, and instead decides on the matter by examining whether the conduct harms consumer interests by pointing out that protection of consumer interests, in addition to promotion of competition in a monopolistic or oligopolistic market, was part of the legislative intent for abuse of market dominance. Based on the Supreme Court`s foregoing interpretation of the law, it is likely that the POSCO`s standard of unfairness will be invariably applied in the future in deciding on the unfairness of the conduct involving interference with business practices as a type of exclusionary conduct as an act of abuse of market dominance. However, the subjective element of the POSCO case may be loosely applied in deciding on the unfairness for conduct involving restriction on market entry and exclusion of competition. Meanwhile the standard may be substantially modified in deciding on the unfairness for exploitative abusive conduct including price abuses, output control and conduct that harms consumer interests since the fact-finding and the decision regarding the consumer interests protection aspect seems to be of importance.

참고문헌 (Reference)

1 이봉의, "포스코판결과 방해남용의 향방" (140) : 2008

2 이황, "포스코 판결 이후 시장지배적 지위 남용행위 판례에서 ‘부당성’판단의 경향과 전망" 2013

3 김정중, "오픈마켓(Open Market) 서비스의 관련 시장 획정과 시장지배적 지위의 남용행위로서 배타조건부 거래행위의 부당성" (87) : 2011

4 조성국, "시장지배적지위 남용행위의 위법성 판단기준에 관한 연구, 포스코판결 5주년:판결의 의미와 향후 발전방향-21세기 중요 판결 재조명 1-" 2013

5 이완희, "시장지배적 지위남용행위로서 다른 사업자의 사업을 부당하게 방해하는 행위에 해당하는지 여부" 2011

6 조성국, "시장지배적 지위남용에 대한 위법성 판단기준에 관한 연구 - 대법원판결을 중심으로 -" 한국경쟁법학회 19 : 367-399, 2009

7 김정중, "소비자이익 저해행위의 성립요건 중 현저성과 부당성의 판단기준" (84) : 2010

8 황태희, "소비자 이익 저해행위의 부당성 판단기준" 2011

9 홍대식, "사법적 관점에서 본 공정거래법 ― 시장지배적지위 남용행위를 중심으로 ―" 한국상사법학회 27 (27): 333-371, 2008

10 이봉의, "보험산업에서의 불공정거래행위에 관한 경쟁법적 고찰" 서울대학교 금융법센터 (29) : 2008

11 강상욱, "배타조건부 거래행위, 대법원 판례해설 81호"

12 이봉의, "독점규제법 제3조의2 제1항 제5호 후단 “소비자이익 저해행위” 금지의 위헌성 판단 - 명확성의 원칙을 중심으로 -" 법학연구소 49 (49): 241-280, 2008

13 신동권, "독점규제법"

14 이호영, "공정거래법상 시장지배적사업자 규제의 재점과 과제" 한국법학원 (104) : 75-99, 2008

15 정재훈, "공정거래법상 거래거절 규제: 시장지배적 지위 남용행위와 불공정거래행위의 관계를 중심으로" 2013

16 강우찬, "공정거래법 제3조의2(시장지배적 지위남용금지)와 제23조(불공정거래행위금지)의 관계에 관한 연구 - 규범의 중복현상을 중심으로 -" 44 : 2007

17 윤인성, "‘不當하게 消費者의 利益을 顯著히 沮害할 憂慮가 있는 行爲’에 관한 小考" 한국행정판례연구회 16 (16): 187-231, 2011

18 윤인성, "‘독점규제 및 공정거래에 관한 법률’관련 2008년 대법원판례의 개관" 한국경쟁법학회 19 : 279-329, 2009