특집논단 : 렉서스 사건에서의 관련시장 획정을 위한 경제분석 방법론에 관한 연구

최초 등록일
2016.03.17
최종 저작일
2015.01
37페이지/파일확장자 어도비 PDF
가격 7,200원 할인쿠폰받기
판매자한국학술정보(주)
다운로드
장바구니
자격시험 이용후기 이벤트

* 본 문서는 배포용으로 복사 및 편집이 불가합니다.

서지정보

발행기관 : 한국경쟁법학회 수록지정보 : 경쟁법연구 / 32권
저자명 : 권도형 ( Dohyung Kwon ) , 김남우 ( Namwoo Kim ) , 오선아 ( Sunah Oh ) , 이상승 ( Sang Seung Yi )

영어 초록

Market power - the ability of a firm to raise price above the competitive level for a sustained period - is a part of the legal framework in antitrust contexts. Monopoly power (or market dominance) is an element of the offense of abuse of dominance under Article 3-2 of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act (the “MRFTA”). In addition, market power is assessed under Article 19 of the MRFTA to determine whether conduct undertaken pursuant to an agreement has an adverse impact on the market. Market share is still often used as a good proxy for market power. The common method of proving market power in antitrust cases involves first defining a relevant market in which to compute the defendant’s market share, next calculating that share, and then deciding whether it is large enough to support an inference of the required degree of market power. In other words, to measure market power, it is the first step to define markets. Numerous empirical techniques, including SSNIP are employed to define markets. These techniques are usually purposed to identify the products and geographic regions that should be included in the relevant market by analyzing seller/buyer substitution based on sales and price data. It is also well recognized that it is very difficult in drawing clear boundaries and thus market definition has been often a thorny issue in competition law analysis. The issue of market definition was brought up in two recent court cases in Korea - alleged collusion by BMW and Lexus dealers. In both cases, a concerted action by the dealers carrying the same brand was under the judicial review. The enforcement agency, the Korea Fair Trade Commission (the “KFTC”) in its decision narrowly delineated the relevant market as single brand automobiles (i.e., BMW automobiles market and Lexus automobiles market in Korea, respectively) and the appellants in both cases countered by arguing that the relevant market includes at least other luxury brand automobiles-both foreign and domestic. These two cases have drawn many antitrust scholars and practitioners’ attention so as to become a leading case in connection with market definition. Many antitrust economists and attorneys wrestled with market definition issue for considerable time. This article provides a critical opinion particularly regarding the KFTC’s narrow approach to market definition through an in-depth analysis of BMW and Lexus cases, identifying methodological and analytical errors. Chapter 2 describes a summary of the court decisions in Lexus case and its procedural history. Chapter 3 conducts an economic analysis in Lexus and BMW cases from a critical perspective. Chapter 4 discusses the merits and demerits of two methods to delineate relevant markets-consumer survey and econometric method. Chapter 5 concludes that the economic methods and analysis used to define market should be very carefully assessed by the court to avoid false negatives.

참고 자료

없음

자료문의

제휴사는 별도로 자료문의를 받지 않고 있습니다.

판매자 정보

한국학술정보(주)는 콘텐츠 제작에 도움이 되는 솔루션을 기반으로 풍부한 문화 콘텐츠를 생성하여 새로운 삶의 가치를 창조합니다.

본 학술논문은 한국학술정보(주)와 각 학회간에 저작권계약이 체결된 것으로 AgentSoft가 제공 하고 있습니다.
본 저작물을 불법적으로 이용시는 법적인 제재가 가해질 수 있습니다.

찾던 자료가 아닌가요?아래 자료들 중 찾던 자료가 있는지 확인해보세요

상세하단 배너
우수 콘텐츠 서비스 품질인증 획득
최근 본 자료더보기
특집논단 : 렉서스 사건에서의 관련시장 획정을 위한 경제분석 방법론에 관한 연구