• 검색 결과가 없습니다.

(market power

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2022

Share "(market power"

Copied!
36
0
0

로드 중.... (전체 텍스트 보기)

전체 글

(1)

‘ ’

. II.

‘ ’ ‘ ’

III. ‘ ’

1.

2.

3. 2015 4.

IV. ‘ ’ ·

1. :

2.

3. · V.

*

** 2016. 4. 29. ICR :

· .

. .

: 2016. 9. 21. / : 2016. 11. 21. / : 2016. 11. 30.

(2)

.

( ‘ ’ )

, .1)

, ‘

’ .

’ .

,

. (

) ,

.

.

,

.

‘ ’

.2)

1) 2014 357

122 34% . , 2015 , 2015,

55 . 478 ,

219 (45.8%) . , 190 .

5 ,

.

(3)

.

II. ‘ ’

‘ ’

.

(market power) .

, .

‘ ’ ‘ ’

.

.

.

‘ ’ ‘ ’ .

,

.

.

2)

. , “

”, 37 3 ,

, 2013, 190 .

(4)

” .3)

,

( ‘ ’ )4) .

“ ”

‘ ’(market power)

. 30%

20~30% , 10%

.5)

10% (safety zone)

.6)7)

(unfairness)

. “

3) 2006. 5. 26. 2004 3014 .

4) (2015.12.31. 241 )

5) < > 2. . (market power) .

’(market power market dominance)

.

, .

6) III. 2. . 7)

( V. 5. .).

, .

.

(5)

.8)

‘ ’

. ‘ ’

‘ ’ .

‘ ’ ‘ ’

- - ( )

3 .9)

,

.

,

. ‘ ’ ,

, .

III. ‘ ’

‘ ’

,

‘ ’

.

8) .

.

9) , ,

, 2014. 12.

.

(6)

‘ ’ · ‘

’ ·

.10) .

. ,

.11)

‘ ’ 12)

13)

.14)

.

’ ,

.

10) , ( 12 ), , 2015, 327 ; , ( 5 ), ,

2015. 329 .

11) , , , 1999, 212 .

12) , , , 2005, 49 .

13)

2 . The JFTC Guidelines

Concerning Abuse of Superior Bargaining Position under the Antimonopoly Act, 30 November 2010.

14) , , 28 1

, , 2015, 179~180 . 2015

.

(2015.12.31. , 134 )

. 6. (2) .

(7)

.15)

, “

” .16)

‘ ’ “

.17)

, ,

· 18)

.

,

,

, ,

15) Masako Wakui and Thomas K. Cheng, “Regulating abuse of superior bargaining position under the Japanese competition law: an anomaly or a necessity?”, Journal of Antitrust Enforcement, Oxford University Press, 2015, pp.4~5.

16) 2000.6.9. 97 19427 .

17) 2011.5.13 2009 24108 .

18) 2000.6.9. 97 19427 .

(8)

, , ,

.19)

’ ‘ ’

.

‘ ’

, ,

.

,

‘ ’

.

.

, ( )

.

,

.20)

,

.

‘ ’

(hold-up) ,

19) , 14 , 178

20) 2007. 1. 12. 2004 7146 ( ).

(9)

. ‘ ’

, “

,

” .21)

.

2015 (

‘ ’ ).22)

. “

” .

.

.

, ‘ ’

.

21) , (2010)-

, 23 , , 2011, 104 .

22) (2015.12.31. 241 ) . 6.

(1)~(3)

(10)

. “

” ,

’ ‘ ’

.

.

. (lock-in) .23)

(lock-in)

,

. .

.

“ ,

” .

.

, ,

, ,

, ,

23) V. 6. (3).

(11)

,

‘ ’

, .

‘ ’

.

,

. .

, ,

, , , ‘ ’

‘ ’ ‘

’ ‘ ’(bargaining power) .

.

,

(12)

.

‘ ’ .

.24)

-

( , )

· ,

.25)

’ 4

.

.

. ‘ ’, ‘

’, ‘

’ ,

‘ ’ ‘

’ .

‘ ’ ‘

’ ,26)

24)

.

25) , 2 , 183 .

26) 3 ( )

. 3.

. .

. .

(13)

.

.

5 ,

.27)

. .

1 (false positive) 2

(false negative) .

. ·

, (hold-up)

.

· ,

.

·

.

27) Masako Wakui and Thomas K. Cheng, id., pp.5~6.

(14)

. ‘

’ , .

’ .28) ‘ ’

,

29)

.30)

1 (false positive) .

1

.

.

·

· .

· ·

,

28) 3 ( ) 1

( " " )

.

29) “ , ”, 2015. 11. 1. .

http://www.yonhapnews.co.kr/bulletin/2015/10/30/0200000000AKR20151030112800030.HTM L?input=1195m

30) “ ' '”, 2011. 9. 11. .

http://news.naver.com/main/read.nhn?mode=LSD&mid=sec&sid1=101&oid=001&aid=0005260810

(15)

. .

. ,

, ( 2 7 2 )

, , , ·

.31)

.32)

.

,

.

.

· ,

·

. ·

31) ( 2012-52

, 2012. 8. 13. ) III. .

32)

,

,

(III ).

.

(16)

.

.

.

. ‘

.

.

.

‘ ’ ‘

’ .

,

. ‘ ’

.

.

.

(17)

“ ”

, ‘ ’

‘ ’ .

.

IV. ‘ ’ ·

.

. ‘ ’

,

. ,

.

.

. ,

·

.

(18)

·

, .

,

.33)

(hold-up) .

( ),

,

” .

,

.34)

.

.

,

. .

33) , “

· ”, 78 , , 2015,

203 , 214 ; , “ ”,

, , 1998, 413 ( , ,

29 1 , , 2015, 467 ).

34) , 2 , 190 .

(19)

.

,

.

,

. .

.

.

. (outside option)

,

. .

.

(20)

,

.

.35)

.

.

.

.

, R&D

(hold-up) .

,

.36)

,

.37)

35) Li, Cuihong · Joseph Giampapa and Katia Sycara, "Bilateral negotiation decisions with uncertain dynamic outside options“, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part C (Applications and Reviews) 36.1 (2006): 31-44.

36) Luke Froeb, Mikhael Shor, “Innovators, Implementers, and Two-sided Hold-up”, 14(6) Antitrust Source (Aug. 2015).

37) , “ ” ,

35 , 72 (2014) ( , (2014);

NBL985 43 ૠ45 (2012).

(21)

, .

(countervailing buying power)

. 1952 Galbraith ,

(buyer) .38) Galbraith

,

.

(volume discount)

.39)

3

.40)

,

38) John Kenneth Galbraith, American Capitalism: The Concept of Countervailing Power, Transaction Publishers, 1952

39) G. J. Stigler, “The economist plays with blocs”, American Economic Review 44, American Economic Association, 1954, 7-14.

40) Robert O'Donoghue and Jorge Padilla, The Law and Economics of Article 102 TFEU , 2nd edition, HART Publishing, 2013, p.168-169. U.S. Dep’t of Justice and Fed. Trade Comm’n, Horizontal Merger Guidelines §8 (2010); Case 6/72.Europemballage and Continental Can v. Commission [1973] ECR-215 para. 36.

(22)

.

. ‘ ’ ,

. Galbraith

,

. ‘

’ ‘ ’

.

. (Gesetz gegen Wettbewerbsbeschränkungen:

‘GWB’ )

. (market power)

, (überragende

Marktstellung) (GWB 18 1 3 ).

, . GWB

(GWB 18 3 ),

. , ,

, ,

,

, ,

(23)

.41)

.42)

GWB 20 1 2

, 20 3

.

. ,

. ,

, ,

.43)

. .

.

GWB 20 GWB 18

, GWB

3

.44)

41) , , , 2016, 138~139 .

42) , 33 , 211 .

43) . , (GWB)

, Vol.2010 No.1, ,

2010, 9 .

44) , 2 , 190 .

(24)

·

, ‘ ·

’ .

. ‘ ’

‘ ’

. “

, ,

” .

. “

,

, ,

.45) , ‘

· ’

. .

‘ ’

45) 2000.6.9. 97 19427 .

(25)

.

.

.

.

, ·

.

.

.

.46)

.

‘ ’

,

.

,47) GWB

. ,

46) 10%

.

47) , 33 .

(26)

,

. .

·

,

. ,

, .

.

‘ ’

“ ”

.48)

·

.49) ‘ ’

·

.

.

48) 2010. 1. 24. 2008 14739 .

.

49) , 33 , 467~469 .

(27)

,

.50)

,

.

,

.

.

50) , & ,

,

81 , , 2016.6., 337~394 .

(28)

V.

.

.

.

. ,

.

, .

, .

.

, ‘ ’ ‘ ’

. · ‘

’ · ‘ ’

.

.

(29)

.

1.

, ( 12 ), , 2015

, , , 2016

, ( 5 ), , 2015

, 2015 , 2015

2.

& ,

,

81 , , 2016

, “

”, 37 3 ,

, 2013

, ,

, 2014. 12.,

, ,

28 1 , , 2015

, (2010)-

, 23 , ,

2011 , “

- · ”, 78

, , 2015,

, , 29 1 ,

, 2015

(30)

, (GWB) , Vol.2010 No.1,

, 2010

.

1.

John Kenneth Galbraith, American Capitalism: The Concept of Countervailing Power, Transaction Publishers, 1952

Robert O'Donoghue and Jorge Padilla, The Law and Economics of Article 102 TFEU , 2nd edition, HART Publishing, 2013

2.

Masako Wakui and Thomas K. Cheng, “Regulating abuse of superior bargaining position under the Japanese competition law: an anomaly or a necessity?”, Journal of Antitrust Enforcement, Oxford University Press, 2015

Li, Cuihong · Joseph Giampapa and Katia Sycara, "Bilateral negotiation decisions with uncertain dynamic outside options“, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part C (Applications and Reviews) 36.1 (2006)

Luke Froeb, Mikhael Shor, “Innovators, Implementers, and Two-sided Hold-up”, 14(6) Antitrust Source, 2015

G. J. Stigler, “The economist plays with blocs”, American Economic Review 44, American Economic Association, 1954

3.

, “ ”,

, , 1998

(31)

, , , 1999

, , , 2005

4.

, “ ” ,

35 , ,

, 2014

, “ ”, NBL985 , 2012

(32)

< >

‘ ’

.

‘ ’

.

.

- - ( ) 3

.

‘ ’ ‘

’ .

‘ ’ · ‘ ’

·

, .

‘ ’

‘ ’ .

,

. 2015

, .

· .

.

(hold-up) .

(33)

. (outside option)

.

. ·

.

(34)

Journal of Legislation Research / 51th Issue

Concept and Criteria of ‘Superior Bargaining Position’ in Korean Competition Laws

Lee, Hwang*51)

There have been a lot of researches regarding the concept and criteria on market dominant position. However, regarding the conducts of Abuse of Superior Bargaining Position(‘ASBP’), most researches concentrated on the prong of ‘abuse’ rather that of ‘superior bargainin position’(‘SBP’). This approach is not plausible because it gives excessive burden on the prong of

‘abuse’ to support liability as well as does not satisfy so-called screening function of liability requirements.

Academia view that the qualification of ‘doer’ in unilateral conducts in competition laws can be categorized into three; market dominant position, SBP, and ordinary(or no) position. This categorization tend to simplify excessively the concept of ‘doer’ that is diverse per each characteristic type of diverse unfair trade practices. In addition, it may not incorporate the possibility of overlapping between SBP and ordinary position. Majority in academia explain that SBP differs from market dominant position in that the former tend to be characterized as subjective and relative concept while the latter be objective and absolute. Details are the role of the Guideline of the Korea Fair Trade Commission(‘KFTC’) and/or case laws by judiciary. Case laws emphasize the factors of constraint of trade relationship or difference of overall business ability to determine SBP. This criteria give flexibility but not clear enough to give justifiable predictability. Also only small differences in business size or ability may allow the requirement of SBP found easily.

The KFTC Guideline amended in 2015 introduced a developed criteria that emphasize the factor of dependence in continuous trade relationship, however, it falls short of satisfaction.

* Professor, Korea University School of Law

(35)

:

The author argues for the need for comprehensive and dynamic criteria.

SBP tends to be different per each fact settings and in-depth observation and economic analysis is essential to incorporate the dynamics. One should be reminded that the determination of SBP is required to find whether each of trade parties has balanced bargaining power and ultimately the regulation is to prevent hold-up occurred. For the purpose, it is necessary to consider comprehensive factors to find market dominant position so as to reflect the market position of each business. Also, other relevant factors including outside option and countervailing power should be assessed. SBP in one time trade relationship may not be easy to admit and clearly abusive conducts may be considered as a direct evidence to support SBP.

(36)

참조

관련 문서

The KBox A-150-BYT is connected by the Input power connector on the front panel to a DC power source via a DC power supply wiring; consisting of the Phoenix power

The index is calculated with the latest 5-year auction data of 400 selected Classic, Modern, and Contemporary Chinese painting artists from major auction houses..

1 John Owen, Justification by Faith Alone, in The Works of John Owen, ed. John Bolt, trans. Scott Clark, &#34;Do This and Live: Christ's Active Obedience as the

The paper examines the incentives of power generating companies (GENCOs) for efficient fuel procurement for power generation under the Cost-Based Generation

Million Solar Roofs Initiatives, H2 Fuel Initiatives + FreedomCAR Green Power Market, RPS (National Energy

Competition on the Labour Market: An Analysis of the Position of Types of Training... Competition on the Labour Market: An Analysis of the Position of Types

Cavanagh, “Twombly: The Demise of Notice Pleading, the Triumph of Milton Handler, and the Uncertain Future of Private Antitrust Enforcement”.. Law Offices

“A Theory of Competition Among Pressure Groups for Political Influence.” The Quarterly Journal of Economics. Improper Influence: Campaign Finance Law,