시장지배적 사업자의 리베이트와 남용규제 = The Regulation on the Rebates and Abuses of Market Dominating Enterprisers

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

Recently legal principles regulating loyalty rebates as one of abuses of market dominant position became one of hot issues in the competition law all over the world. The Intel and the Qualcom were investigated by Korea Fair Trade Commission and imposed huge amount of surcharges. The legal principles about loyalty rebates are not clear. In Korea, market-dominating enterpriser refers to “any enterpriser enjoying Market Dominance and possibly determining, maintaining, or changing the prices, quantity, or quality of commodities or services or other terms and conditions of business as a supplier or a customer in a particular business area individually or
jointly with other enterprisers”. They are regulated under Article 3-2 of Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act(MRFTA). According to the Article 3-2, no market-dominating enterpriser shall commit abusive acts, especially act of unfairly excluding competitive enterprisers. However, whether loyalty rebates are act of unfairly excluding competitive enterprisers is not clear in terms of legal principles. In the United States, loyalty rebates have been considered as predatory acts, price discriminating acts, or exclusive dealing. They have not ever dealt in the Supreme Court. Some cases were dealt in the Circuit Courts, but it is very difficult to draw a coherent legal principle. In 2007, the Report by American Modernization Commission was released. In 2008, the Report by Department of Justice and the Recommendation by American Antitrust Institute were released. The AMC Report suggests hypothetical equally efficient competitor test and discount attribution rule. The DOJ Report suggests substantial disproportionality test. On the contrary, AAI Recommendation suggests structured rule of reason test. It seems that we need more time in concluding what the legal principles regulating loyalty rebates as one of abuses of market dominant position should be. We need more empirical data and considerations.

목차 (Table of Contents)

• Ⅰ. 서언
• Ⅱ. 가격차별(price discrimination) 법리의 적용여부
• Ⅲ. 약탈적 가격설정(predatory pricing) 법리의 적용여부
• Ⅳ. 배타조건부 거래(exclusive dealing) 법리의 적용여부
• Ⅴ. 결 어

참고문헌 (Reference)

1 이봉의, "포스코판결과 방해남용의 향방" (40) : 2008

2 박형욱, "의약품 리베이트 범위와 원인" 2009

3 조성국, "시장지배적지위 남용행위의 비교법적 고찰 및 시사점. in: 시장지배적 지위남용의 쟁점과 과제" 2009

4 조성국, "시장지배적 사업자의 리베이트와 남용규제. in: 독과점적 시장구조와 남용규제" 2009

5 이봉의, "보건의료산업 리베이트 관행의 법적 쟁점과 과제" 2009

6 이호영, "독점규제법의 이론과 실무" 홍문사 2006

7 홍명수, "경제법론 I" 경인문화사 2008

8 권오승, "경제법, 제6판" 법문사 2008

9 정호열, "경제법, 제2판" 박영사 2008

10 신현윤, "경제법" 법문사 2006

11 임영철, "公正去來法" 법문사 2008

12 Robert Pitofsky, "Trade Regulation, 5th" Foundation Press 2003

13 AMC, "The Report and Recommendations"

14 AAI, "The Next Antitrust Agenda(Transition Report on Competition Policy to the 44th President)"

15 Kenneth W. Clarkson, "The Federal Trade Commission since 1970" Cambridge University Press 1981

16 Alison Jones, "EC Competition Law, 3rd ed" Oxford University Press 2008

17 DOJ, "Competition and Monopoly: Single-Firm Conduct under Section 2 of the Sherman Act"

18 Ivo Van Bael, "Competition Law of the European Community" CCH EUROPE 1994

19 Richard Whish, "Competition Law" Oxford University Press 2005

20 ABA Section of Antitrust Law, "Antitrust Law Developments, 4th ed., Vol. I" 1997

21 Areeda, Kaplow & Edlin, "Antitrust Analysis(6th)" Aspen 2004