시장지배적사업자의 사업활동방해행위- 현대자동차(주) 사건판결의 두 가지 논점 - (Interfering Others’ Business Activities by a Market-dominating Firm: Comments on the Supreme Court Decision of Hyundai Motor Company Case)

서지정보

· 발행기관 : 한국경쟁법학회
· 수록지 정보 : 경쟁법연구 / 24권 / 168 ~ 193페이지
· 저자명 : 양명조

초록

In this article, the author reviews the case of Hyundai Motor Company’s abuse of market-dominant position under the Korean competition law, the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act (“MRFTAct”). The Korea Fair Trade Commission (“KFTC”) rendered corrective orders and imposed administrative fine against Hyundai Motor’s three practices; to restrict dealers’ change of their business locations; to restrict the number of dealers’ agents; to force the fulfillment of each dealer’s sales target. Out of three alleged illegal acts, the Seoul High Court found the former two types of Hyundai’s practices unlawful but denied the illegality of the last one. The High Court ruled that the last type of Hyundai’s act lacked the restraint of competition which is one of the requirements to find abuse of the market-dominant position.
The author regrets the KFTC could have decided the last type of Hyundai’s practice in this case under the unfair business practices provision of the MRET Act. Where an act comes under the both provisions of the MRFT Act,i.e., the abuse of market-dominant position and the unfair business practices,a majority view asserts that only the former provision should be applied.
However, the legislative intent or purpose to ban each type of unlawful practices differs substantially. Restricting the abuse of market-dominant position is to control the preservation and solidification of a firm’s monopolistic power. On the other hand, the prohibition of unfair business practices is to promote fair competition and to restrain improper activities in the market. Both provisions could be applied concurrently.
The Supreme Court decision about the Hyundai Motor Company case indicated rather complicated and technical assessment of the relevant sales amount.
The directed assessing method seems to reduce the measuring basis for the administrative fine. However, such intricate and difficult calculation would render too heavy burden to the KFTC in deciding similar cases. The KFTC has to surmount the difficult technicality in assessing the relevant sales amount.

영어초록

In this article, the author reviews the case of Hyundai Motor Company’s abuse of market-dominant position under the Korean competition law, the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act (“MRFTAct”). The Korea Fair Trade Commission (“KFTC”) rendered corrective orders and imposed administrative fine against Hyundai Motor’s three practices; to restrict dealers’ change of their business locations; to restrict the number of dealers’ agents; to force the fulfillment of each dealer’s sales target. Out of three alleged illegal acts, the Seoul High Court found the former two types of Hyundai’s practices unlawful but denied the illegality of the last one. The High Court ruled that the last type of Hyundai’s act lacked the restraint of competition which is one of the requirements to find abuse of the market-dominant position.
The author regrets the KFTC could have decided the last type of Hyundai’s practice in this case under the unfair business practices provision of the MRET Act. Where an act comes under the both provisions of the MRFT Act,i.e., the abuse of market-dominant position and the unfair business practices,a majority view asserts that only the former provision should be applied.
However, the legislative intent or purpose to ban each type of unlawful practices differs substantially. Restricting the abuse of market-dominant position is to control the preservation and solidification of a firm’s monopolistic power. On the other hand, the prohibition of unfair business practices is to promote fair competition and to restrain improper activities in the market. Both provisions could be applied concurrently.
The Supreme Court decision about the Hyundai Motor Company case indicated rather complicated and technical assessment of the relevant sales amount.
The directed assessing method seems to reduce the measuring basis for the administrative fine. However, such intricate and difficult calculation would render too heavy burden to the KFTC in deciding similar cases. The KFTC has to surmount the difficult technicality in assessing the relevant sales amount.

참고자료

· 없음