공정거래 행정사건의 심급 구조에 관한 연구 = Research on the Instance System for Administrative Cases Concerning Fair Trade

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

The Korea Fair Trade Commission (hereinafter referred to as “KFTC”), as a collegiate administrative agency under the authority of the Prime Minister, administers and enforces laws and regulations, including the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act (hereinafter referred to as “Fair Trade Act”), which functions as a fundamental law of competition. In the event of violations of the Fair Trade Act, KFTC imposes corrective measures: impose surcharges, issue corrective orders, send warning letters, etc.
In accordance with article 100 of the Fair Trade Act, the Seoul High Court has jurisdiction over any lawsuit contesting the administrative actions of the KFTC, and the Supreme Court hears the cases on appeal. Accordingly, administrative cases concerning fair trade (hereinafter referred to as “fair trade cases”) are carried out in two-instance court proceedings.
Critics have pointed out problems with the two-instance trial system for fair trade cases, and have argued that three-instance system should be available for fair trade cases as it is for general administrative cases. Related amendments to the law have been submitted several times.
The debate on the instance system for fair trade cases involves issues relating to the scope of the court's jurisdiction and court specialization. Therefore, it needs to be studied comprehensively and systematically in the perspective of judicial policies as well.
The main arguments for maintaining the two-instance system for fair trade cases include the need for a high level of expertise in judging violations of the Fair Trade Act, the adverse effects of prolonged litigation, the existence of alternative measures to protect the rights of the accused such as making amendments to the Fair Trade Act, etc. On the other hand, arguments of the critics who are for the three-instance system include the need for protection of the rights of the parties in accordance with the expanded scope of the right to access to courts, the necessity for the independence of the KFTC, existing problems related to the quasi- judicial proceeding by KFTC, the controversy over the KFTC’s unseparated authority to conduct investigations and to adjudicate, the need for balance between regulatory actions of the KFTC and other agencies, etc.
The debate on the instance system for fair trade cases is linked to the issues of the independence and regulatory expertise of the administrative agency, prompt resolution of disputes by courts, protecting the parties rights through expanding the scope of the right to access to courts, quasi-judicial administrative proceedings, etc. In this context, deciding on which instance system to adopt for fair trade cases is a matter of establishing a legislative policy by balancing the advantages and disadvantages of the two system.
In order to maintain the two-instance system for fair trade cases the following requirements must be met: Strengthen the independence of the KFTC; Enhance fairness by separating the KFTC’s power to investigate and adjudicate; Guarantee substantive due process and legal representation; Contain individual and dissenting opinions in adjudications if the adjudication does not represent in whole or in part the unanimous opinion of the commissioners.
In case the three-instance system is introduced by a statute revision, legal uncertainty may increase as litigations take longer. Therefore, it is necessary for the court to reduce the appeal rate by improving fact-finding hearings, increase the number of professional judges, and establish specialized chambers in courts. The KFTC may also consider having career groups such as “financial examiner” (tentative name) and professional advisors engaged in the process of fair trade cases, and having the KFTC officials dispatched to courts.
Furthermore, in order to balance the advantages of the two systems for fair trade cases, another possible option would be adopting both systems for different cases: Applying two-instance system for the cases where the amount of the surcharge imposed does not exceed a certain level, and three-instance system for the rest.
Courts have accumulated considerable experiences and gaind expertise in fair trade cases, and judicial interpretations have contributed to the fair trade system, protecting the rights of people as well. Considered from perspectives on judicial policy, the instance system for fair trade should focus on the prompt resolution of cases based on the judicial expertise and on the protection of the peoples’ rights through court's substantial fact-finding.
If three-instance system becomes available for fair trade cases, it would be a way of enhancing judicial fairness, judicial transparency and judicial specialization. In this context, it is considered necessary to actively discuss the introduction of the three-instance system for fair trade cases.