.
. ( )
1.
2.
. - -
1.
2.
3. :
4.
5.
. 1.
2.
3.
V.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
* ,
: 2012. 12. 10. / : 2012. 12. 15. / : 2012. 12. 17.
I.
2012 .
,
,
( , “
” ) . ,
, ,
.
( , )
( , ) .
,
, ,
. ,
.
. ,
,
.
.
,
.
, .
II. ( )
‘ ’ 23 1 7
.
" ·
· · · ·
"
‘ ’ .
' ' .
( ‘ ’ )
. ,
,
, 1997 , , , , .
(usurpation of corporate opportunity) (tunnelling effect),
, ,
, ,
, .
. ,
,
,
.1)
1980 . , 1980 15
,
,
.
1) 1996 23 1
7 .
, .
(price discrimination) ,
.2)
. ,
,
( )
.
, 1986 1
( , )
3 .
3 .
1992 (
10 2) 3
. ,
, 3 ,
. 1992 7 1
‘
2) , (Clayton Act) 2 -
(Robinson-Patman Act) . 1914 2
(price discrimination) ,
(1ocal price cutting) , 1936
- 2
. , 1891 (Sherman Act) 2 3
- 2
.
’
.
1996 6 (1996 12 30 5235 , 1997
4 1 )
. “ ” “
” ,
3 5 ( ) 23 1
7 .
. ,
"
"
.3)
, 1997 7 29
‘ ’ , 1999 2 5
( , ) (
50 5 ) 2
.
, 2010
.4)
2007 4 13 ,
5)
. 23 1 7
3) , (1996.11) .
4) 2001 1 16 3 , 2004 12 31 2007
4 13 2010
12 .
5) 2004. 10. 14. 2001 2935
.
. 2008 2004 6) “
,
” ,
2011 ‘
’ .
. 1 1981
(1997 ) 1996 .
( 23 1 1 7)),
(
2 3 ) .
1
2 .
,
1993 .8)
6) 2004. 9. 24. 2001 6324
7) 15 ,
1986 1 23 .
8) 1993 ( )
(1993.9.9 93-178 ) ,
'' ’
.
. 23 1 1 .
1996
,9)
( , ) .
.
. ,
, , ,
, .
.
,
.
.
9) 1996
23 1 1
. 1997 ( ) 6
(1997.2.11 97-24 ), 1998
18 (1998.1.30.
98-27 ) 1996 ,
96 1 ( ) .
. , ,
·
,
. ,
,
.
‘ ’
1 ,
.
,10) , ,
(MRO: Maintenance, Repair and Operation)
11) .
, 23 1
‘ ’ .12)
.
10) 1993 ( ) (1993.9.9
93-178 )
11) 1993 ( ) (1993.9.9
93-181 )
12) 1997 ( ) 6 (1997.2.11
97-24 )
, 1996
2007
2 .
, 23 1 1
7 . 7
1998 1998
.13)
1998 5 8
1 5 2003
10 31 13 .
,
. .
.
24 2
.
14)
,
.
13) 1998 · · ( )
(1998 10 19 98 - 234 9804 0618)
14) 2003.7.24. 2001 25
,
.
2001 92
2007 7 .
2
. 2007
.15)
2007 ,
, (
) . 2010
, , ,
, , 2011 SI( )
MRO( )
.
,
, ,
.
15) , “
”, 64 , (2012.3), 401 .
.
- -
16)‘ ’ ,
( 3 ) ( 5 )
‘ ’ .
.
' ' ‘ ’ ‘ ’
, ,
,
.
, ‘ ’
, , ‘
’
.
, 23 1 7 ‘
’ ,
.
,
.17)
16) , , , 423~430
.
17) , ,
.
(a
single economic unit) 23 1 7 '
,
,18)
( )19), 3 20)
, .21) ,
,
.
.
‘ ’ , ( · ),
( · · ), · ,
.
,22)
' , “ 100%
( ' ' )
, 23
1 7 ' '
23 1 7
” .( 2004. 11. 12. 2001 2034 )
18) 2004. 9. 24. 2001 6364 SDS
19) 2005. 5. 27. 2004 6099
20) 2004. 10. 14. 2001 2881 ( )
21) 100% : 2004. 11. 12. 2001 2034 ,
53.44% : 2004. 7. 15. 2002
1092
22) . 2007. 1. 25.
.23)
24), 25),
,26) 27),
28), 29)
.
,
, ,
( )
.
,
( ( ) ( ) ), ,
, , , ,
. .
2004 7610 .
23) ,
,
.
24) 2007. 7. 11. 2006 10223 ,
25) 2007. 1. 25. 2004 1490 , 2003. 12. 23. 98 13159
26) 2006. 10. 27. 2004 3274
27) 2004. 2. 3. 2001 2562 ,
28) 2004. 11. 12. 2004 9630 , 2004. 7. 15. 2002 1092
, 21
29) 2007. 1. 26. 2005 2773
* : ×
, , =>
* ( ):
× =>
,
.30)
, , ,
, .31)
.
,
.
.
30) 2004.10.14. 2001 2935
31) ‘ ’
, , ,
,
. 2005. 5. 27. 2004 6099 .
.
, ZYP,
, ,
, ,
‘
’ .
‘
’ZZP ,Z[P
.
,
. .
‘ ’
, , ,
,
. 2005. 5. 27. 2004 6099 .
,
, ,
. ,
, , 2009 .
, “
”, BFL 10 , (2005.03) .
.
. ,
. ,
( , )
.
. 23 1 (7
) 7
, 7
.
.
.Z\P
‘ ’
,
.
2004. 10. 14. 2001 2935 .
,
. , ,
.
, .
2004 .
.
.
,
.
, , .
,
.
.
, .
,
3 (ex-ante regulation)
(ex-post regulation) .
1986 .
3 (
) 5 ( ) ,
. ,
. ,
, .
1996 5
, ( ) (
)
. ,
,36)
,
.
. ,
. (principle of order)
. ( )
, ,
,
.37) (principle of economy)
, , ,
.38)
i> (
; problem of division), ii>
( ; problem of classification), iii> ,
( : problem of sequence).39)
23 1 7
.
. ( ) ,
36)
.
37) , , , (2005. 12), 90 .
38) , 90~91 .
39) 91 .
( ) ,
7 (8 ) .
, 3
. 3
1996 3
5
,
.
, ,
, 23 1 7
.
1 7 '
' ' ' .
' ( , , )',
' ' .
.
23 1 ,
7 . 1
, 7
.
.
(anti-competitiveness) ,
(unfairness) ,
.
, , , , (
) . 23
,
, (= )
, .40)
.
3 2%
, 3
5%
.
. 3 23 (
) 1 7 41) 36 1 2 10.
~ . 42) .
40) . 2004.3.12. 2001
7220 , 2004.4.9. 2004 6197 .
41) “7. · · · ·
· · ·
”
42) “ . ( )....
.
( , , , ) ,
‘ ’ ‘
( , )' ,
, .
" "
. ,
.
. “ ”
.
.
( )
( ) .
.
. 23 1 2 (
) ,
( 3 ( 11 2), )
.
.
, “
” .
,
. · : ( )
. : ( )
.
(1997. 7. 19.
)
,43)
.
, ,
.
.
V.
,
. .
,
.
. 23 1
1 , 5
( ) , 3
(11 2), 10 (50 5 )
43) 2004. 9. 24. 2001 6364
.
.
,
.
, .
, , ,
(
) .
,
, “ ”
" “ ” “
.
(
) ( 10 )
. ,
.
5 ( ) (1 )
. 23 23 1
, 23 2
. ,
.
.
. 11 2
. (tunneling effect)
.
3 ( ) (2 )
.
10 , 3
,
( 12 )
.
“ ” .
3 ,
8 , 9 ( , ,
), 10 , 11 , 11 2
. 2
. , . . 3
, 5
, ,
.
( , ‘
’)
(3 ).
,
.
. 3
8 11 4
.
, .
.
.
. 3
, .
,
. ,
,
. ,
. . ,
.
.
.
, .
.
, 3
.
, . ,
, 3 , 5
.
, ,
. .
, “ ”, 2011.1.12
, , 2001
, 30 , 2011
, , , 2005.12
, “ ”, 2004
( 52 ), , 2004.10.14.
, “ -
-”, , 2010.11
, “ ”, ,
, 2008.
, “ ”, BFL
10 , 2005. 3
, “ ( )
”, , 64 , 2012.3
, “ . 23 1 7
‘ ’ .
”, ( 68 ) , , 2008. 1.
, “ ?” 149 ,
2010. 3.
, “ :
”, 18 2 ,
, 2009.12.
, “ ”,
( ) , 2004 , “
,” 24 , 2011. 11. 30.
< >
( , )
( , ) .
, , ,
. ,
. ,
,
.
.
.
.
:
A Legislative Analysis on the Regulation of the Unfair Assisting Behaviors under the Fair Trade Act
Shin, Young-Su*44)
As the issue of the economic democracy has been emerged, concerns on internal trade and unfair assisting behavior among subsidiaries or affiliates are raising again.
The internal trade among subsidiaries which is also called to unfair assisting behavior is stipulated in the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act(hereinafter
"Fair Trade Act") as a kind of the unfair trade practices( Article 23 §1( )).
However the purpose of the regulation on unfair assisting behavior have been considered rather to suppress economic power concentration than to prohibit unfair trade practices.
The mismatch of legislative intent and external form causes confusion of interpretation on the stipulation and even limitation of enforcement of law for the economic democracy.
In this circumstances, this paper tries to make an legislative research on the regulation on the unfair assisting behavior under the Fair Trade Act, and review its legislative history through the analysis on the current provision of the Fair Trade Act and judicial decisions. Under the basis of that analysis, it suggests an idea for legislative enhancement as a ex-post method for the economic democracy.
* Associate Professor, Kyungpook National University Law School
