대규모유통사업자와 납품업자 간의 판매촉진행사 비용분담 : 대법원 2020. 5. 14. 선고 2018두52044 판결

박세환(Park, Sehwan) 한국비교사법학회 2021 비교사법 Vol.28 No.3

대상 판례는 판매촉진비용행사 부담전가에 관한 대규모유통업법 제11조 제5항의 자발성·차별성의 의미에 대해서 구체적으로 판시하였다는 점에서 의미가 있다. 자발성·차별성을 엄격하게 해석한 대상 판례를 통하여 판매촉진행사가 보다 투명하게 이루어지는 계기가 마련되기를 기대한다. 하지만 자발성·차별성이 있는 판매촉진행사의 인정 범위가 줄어듦에 따라 납품업자와 소비자에게 유리한 판매촉진행사의 시행마저 위축되는 것이 아닌가하는 염려가 들기도 한다. 그리고 조문체계상 대규모유통업법 제11조 제5항의 자발성·차별성의 의미는 사전약정에 관한 제1항, 제2항 뿐만 아니라 판매촉진 비용 분담비율에 관한 제3항, 제4항에게도 미치게 되므로, 자발성·차별성의 의미는 동법 제11조 전체 규정들과 공정위의 관련 심사지침 등을 종합적으로 감안하여 바라 볼 필요가 있고, 동법 제11조 제5항이 예외규정이라는 이유로 자발성·차별성을 반드시 매우 좁게 해석해야만 하는 것은 아니라고 생각된다. 대규모유통업법 제11조 제1항~제4항과 같이 행위 당시의 경제적 상황이나 거래당사자의 구체적인 사정을 따지지 않고 위법성을 인정하는 불공정거래행위 특별금지 규정의 경우 비례성을 유지하는 것이 중요한데, 제11조의 균형을 유지해 주는 역할을 하는 제11조 제5항의 자발성·차별성이 매우 좁게 해석될 경우에는 제11조 전체에 있어서 비례성 문제가 발생할 수 있다는 점에 유념할 필요가 있다. Cette jurisprudence, qui précise la volonté et la distinction relative à la répercussion du coût de promotion de l’article 11, ⑤ de la loi sur sur le grand distributeur, pourrait faire les activités promotionnelles plus transparents entre le grand distrbuteur et le fournisseur. Cependant elle pourrait aussi empêcher l’activité promotionnelle favorable pour le fournisseur et le consommateur. Parce que la volonté et la distinction de l’article 11, ⑤ touche non seulement la convention unique de l’article 11, ① ou ② mais le partage des dépenses résultant de promotion de l’article 11, ③ ou ④, nous pouvons traduire la signifiacation de la volonté et la distinction avec la souplesse. En outre, il est important de maintenir la proportionnalité pour le régle de l’interdiction spécifique sur la pratique déloyale qui n’exige pas une analyse au cas par cas. Par conséquent, la volonté et la distinction interprétée rigoureusement par la Cour pourrait provoquer la préoccupation de la proportionnalité pour l’article 11.

대규모유통업법 제11조 판매촉진비용 부담전가 금지조항의 해석 및 법률상 쟁점 - 공정거래위원회 심사지침의 해석 및 최근 판례(대법원 2020. 5. 14. 선고 2018두52044 판결, 서울고등법원 2019. 9. 5. 선고 2018누63428 판결)를 중심으로 -

김지연 ( Kim Ji Yeon ) 한국유통법학회 2020 유통법연구 Vol.7 No.1

Article 11 of the Act on Fair Transactions in Large Franchise and Retail Business (hereinafter, “the Act”), in relation to sales promotion events conducted by a large franchise and retail business operator (hereinafter, a “large distributor”), prohibits a large distributor from arbitrarily planning sales promotion events and then unfairly imposing the burden of sales promotional expenses from such events to a supplier or a store tenant (hereinafter, “suppliers”). In practice, however, there has been considerable debate regarding the scope of “sales promotion events”, interpretation of “sales promotional expenses”, and the interpretation and the application of exceptions listed in Article 11 (5) of the Act. In response, the Korea Fair Trade Commission (hereinafter, the “KFTC”) enacted the “Guidelines for Examining the Unfairness of Shifting the Burden of Sales Promotional Expenses by Internet Shopping Mall Operators” and “Guidelines for Examining the Unfairness in Purchases under Special Contracts in the Large Franchise and Retail Industry”. Through these guidelines, the KFTC sought to establish the criteria for judging the illegality for behaviors occurring both online and off-line in applying Article 11 of the Act. Recently, court decisions on Article 11 of the Act are also accumulating, and in particular, the Supreme Court issued a ruling on the interpretation of exceptions listed in Article 11 (5) of the Act on May 14, 2020. In this article, after reviewing the legal issues of Article 11 of the Act focusing on the review guidelines of the KFTC and recent court cases, we will examine the appropriate direction for the enforcement of Article 11 of the Act. Based on such review, it appears that the provisions of the KFTC guidelines and its operational principles have certain issues in properly interpreting and providing a consistent legal stability of Article 11. The Supreme Court ruling also did not fully consider the realities of the distribution industry and seems to be overly strict in its application. Furthermore, there could be concerns that Article 11 (5) of the Act may be effectively void if the Supreme Court’s ruling stands as is. On the other hand, recently, the KFTC seems to be taking the position to actively review and supplement the existing interpretation and enforcement of Article 11 of the Act, such as by temporarily limiting the application of the existing guidelines mentioned above through a newly issued guideline over Article 11 in June 2020. Therefore, it would be necessary to conduct follow-up studies regarding the issues discussed in this article, such as the scope of “sales promotion events”, calculation of “expenses” especially with respect to price discount promotions, and interpretation of exceptions listed in Article 11 (5) of the Act, in each case by distribution channels or transaction types. In addition, there will be a need to continually review the authorities’ enforcement direction, to ensure its actual validity in the application of Article 11 of the Act. As a result, the author hopes to increase the predictability of Article 11 of the Act, and that law enforcement agencies, large distributors, suppliers, and consumers will all be placed in win-win situations, by promoting a fair transactional order and consumer welfare in the distribution industry.

중소납품업자 보호를 위한 법제운용방안

심재한 아주대학교 법학연구소 2021 아주법학 Vol.15 No.3

대규모유통업법은 가맹사업법 및 대리점법과 더불어 소위 유통3법을 구성하고 있으 며, 이 법을 통해 대형유통업체가 대규모 구매력을 바탕으로 중소납품업자에 대해 각 종 불공정행위를 하는 것을 방지하고 있다. 이를 위해 대규모유통업자는 납품업자와 계약을 체결한 즉시 납품업자에게 계약사항이 명시된 서면을 주어야 하고 서면미교부 시 납품업자의 계약 확인 통지에 대해 15일 이내에 회신하지 않으면 통지한 내용대로 계약의 존재를 추정하도록 하여 피해발생을 방지하였다(제6조). 판매촉진행사를 실시 할 때에는 해당 판촉행사로 인해 얻을 것으로 예상되는 이익의 비율에 따라 대규모유 통업자와 납품업자가 각각 분담하도록 하되 납품업자의 부담분이 50%를 초과하지 않 도록 규정하였다(제11조). 또한 대규모유통업자는 납품업자로부터 종업원을 파견 받 을 수 없도록 규정하되, 특수한 판매기법ㆍ능력을 가진 숙련사원을 파견받아 납품받은 상품 관련 업무에만 종사하는 경우 등에 한정하여 허용하였다(제12조). 그리고 대규모 유통업자와 납품업체 간에 발생할 수 있는 정당한 사유 없는(또는 부당한) 상품대금 감액, 상품수령 지체, 반품, 배타적 거래 요구, 경영정보 제공 요구, 경제적 이익제공 요구 등 각종 불공정행위를 구체적으로 규정하였다. 대규모유통업법 시행 이후 현재까 지 10여 년간의 기간 동안 공정거래위원회에서의 다양한 법적용 사례가 축적되었다. 심결사례를 보면 대규모유통업법 적용의 많은 사례들이 대규모유통업자와 납품업자에 게 서면을 교부하지 않아 적발된 행위와 관련이 되어 있다. 대규모유통업법 규정의 숙지가 제대로 이루어지지 않은 경우 특히 중소 납품업자의 입장에서는 자신이 서면을 청구할 수 있는 권리가 규정되어 있는지 알지 못하여 불이익을 받는 경우도 예상할 수 있으므로 대규모유통업자 및 납품업자에 대한 대규모유통업법의 교육이 각종 기관을 통해 실시되어야 할 필요가 있다. 한편 대규모유통업법상의 실체적인 법위반행위가 발생될 경우 중소납품업자에게 손해가 발생할 수 있다. 납품업자에게 손해가 발생한 경우 한국공정거래조정원 내지 각종 조정기관의 조정기능을 적극적으로 활용하면 납 품업자에게 실질적으로 도움이 되는 금전의 지급을 법원의 판결보다 빠르게 보장받을 수 있는 가능성이 높아지므로 그 효용이 높다고 볼 수 있다. The Act on Fair Transactions in Large Retail Businesss, along with the Franchise Business Act and the Agency Act, constitutes the so-called 3 Distribution Act. The Act on Fair Transactions in Large Retail Businesss prevents large-scale distribution companies from engaging in various unfair practices against small and medium-sized suppliers based on their large-scale purchasing power. To this end, a large-scale distributor must give a document stating the contract details to the supplier immediately after signing a contract with the supplier(Article 6). When carrying out a sales promotion event, the large-scale distributor and the supplier should each share according to the ratio of profits expected to be obtained from the promotion, but the burden of the supplier should not exceed 50%(Article 11). Large-scale distributors are prohibited from dispatching employees from the supplier, but only when they are dispatched skilled employees with special sales techniques and abilities to engage in business related to the delivered goods(Article 12). Various legal cases have been accumulated by the Fair Trade Commission over the past 10 years since the enforcement of the Act on Fair Transactions in Large Retail Businesss. In the case of the trial decision, many cases of the application of the Act are related to the act of being caught by failing to deliver documents to large-scale distributors and suppliers. From the supplier's point of view, it is possible to expect disadvantages from not knowing whether the right to claim in writing is stipulated. Therefore, it is imperative that education for large-scale distributors and suppliers be conducted through various institutions. In addition, if damage occurs to suppliers, active use of the various mediation agencies increases the possibility of guaranteeing the payment of money that is actually helpful to suppliers faster than the court's judgment.

2024년 대규모유통업법 관련 주요 사건과 개정안에 관한 연구

윤선우 한국유통법학회 2024 유통법연구 Vol.11 No.2

2024년에는 「대규모유통업에서의 거래 공정화에 관한 법률」과 관련하여 굵직한 고등법원 판례를 비롯하여, 전 사회적으로 상당한 파장을 일으켜 언론상에도 대서특필되었던 사건을 계기로 관련 법령의 제도보완 필요성이 대두되었으며, 그에 따른 활발한 논의 및 공정거래위원회의 대규모유통업법 개정안이 발표되기까지 다양한 쟁점들과 사건들이 있었던 한해였다. 특히 공정거래위원회와 관련 실무 및 학계에서 꾸준히 논의되어 오고 있는 온라인 플랫폼 규제와 혁신·성장의 촉진이라는 측면에서 대규모유통업법 역시 제도보완 및 개정의 필요성이 제기되었다. 이는 공정거래법 중심으로 논의되던 플랫폼 규제와 혁신 및 성장 저해 가능성 등에 관한 쟁점들이 특별법으로까지 확대되는 양상으로 보이며, 급속도로 성장하고 있는 온라인 플랫폼 사업자와 관련된 제도적 보완 필요성과 이와 함께 고려되어야 할 혁신과 성장의 문제가 다양한 규제 측면으로 빠르게 확산될 것임을 보여주는 현상으로 이해된다. 본고에서는 2024년에 있었던 공정거래위원회의 대규모유통업법 심결례와 고등법원 판례들을 검토하고, 2024년 10월 공정거래위원회의 대규모유통업법 개정안 발표의 시발점이 되었던 티몬·위메프 판매대금 정산사태에 대해 살펴보면서법률 개정안도 함께 분석 및 검토하기로 하면서, 향후 대규모유통업법의 제도적 보완방향에 관하여 논의해본다. In 2024, the need to supplement the system of the Act on Fair Transactions in Large Retail Business(the “Act”) emerged in the wake of the case that caused significant social repercussions and made headlines in the media, and it was a year of active discussions and various issues and incidents until the Fair Trade Commission's revision of the Act was announced. In particular, the need to supplement and revise the system was also raised in terms of online platform regulation and promotion of innovation and growth, which have been constantly discussed by the Fair Trade Commission and related practice and academia. Issues related to platform regulation, innovation and the possibility of hindering growth, which were discussed mainly in the Fair Trade Act, appear to be expanding to special laws, and it is understood that the need for institutional supplementation related to rapidly growing online platform operators and the issues of innovation and growth to be considered will spread rapidly to various regulatory aspects. In this paper, we will review the rulings rendered in 2024 by Fair Trade Commission and the High Court, examine the Timon and Wemap case, which was the starting point for the Fair Trade Commission's announcement in October 2024, and discuss the direction of institutional supplementation of the Act in the future.

대규모유통업법의 주요 법률상 쟁점과 향후 과제

이효석 경북대학교 법학연구원 2015 법학논고 Vol.0 No.49

This article reviews some issues on Large-Scale Retailers’ Fair TradePractices Act and suggests it’s tasks to be solved after. Large-Scale Retailers’Fair Trade Practices Act enacted on 2012 and it prohibited large scale retailersfrom abusing his trade position. A retailer may have some buyer power against suppliers due to differentstructural nature of demand-supply market. If retailers use their bargainingleverage to negotiate price or conditions of supply contract, supplier sufferfrom disadvantage in their inferior position. Many of unfair practices(for example,additional discounts, slotting fee requirements, pass on sales promotionexpense to supplier, etc.) are unilateral and performed confidentially, so competitionauthority had difficulty finding evidence. With that point in view, Large-ScaleRetailers’ Fair Trade Practices Act prevent the abuse of the buyer powerand shift in burden of proof. This article explored and identified three different issues–First, definitionof large scale retailers(include relative superior trade position), Second, illegalityof unfair practices and for the last, sanction propriety. In general, this worksought to identify key issues and analyze each point to suggest implicationsof the interpretation rather than to develop specific answers to each provisions. 우리나라의 유통시장에서는 대규모유통업자와 거래상대방인 납품업자나 매장임차인과의 관계에서 주로 억압적이거나 착취적인 거래관행이 자주 문제점으로지적되었다. 대규모유통업법이 제정·시행되기 전 대규모유통업자의 불공정 거래는독점규제 및 공정거래에 관한 법률(이하 ‘독점규제법’) 제3조의2 시장지배적 지위남용규정이나 제23조 제1항 불공정한 거래행위 금지규정 등에 따라 규율되어 왔다. 보완적 법제로 대규모유통업자의 잘못된 거래관행을 시정하기 위한 대규모소매업고시가 제정·운용되어 왔다. 그러나 여러 법적·제도적 뒷받침에도 불구하고현실적인 규제효과는 기대에 미치지 못했다. 이에 하나의 강력한 법제적 대응방안으로 대규모유통업법이 제정·시행되고 있다. 대규모유통업법은 금지행위 유형이나위법성 판단에 있어 종전의 독점규제법상 규제와는 상당한 차이를 보이는 바, 본논문은 시행 4년 차에 접어든 오늘 날의 시각에서 대규모유통업법의 해석과 실제운용상 제기되는 법적 쟁점들을 총론적 관점에서 검토·분석하였다. 한편으로는 대규모유통업법에서 금지하고 있는 행위유형 중 대규모유통업자의 일방적인 판매촉진행사 비용의 부담전가를 금지하고 있는 제11조 및 판매장려금의 예외적 허용을규정한 제15조를 주요 위법성 요건을 중심으로 고찰하였다. 결론적으로 본 논문은대규모유통업법의 향후 해석 및 운용상의 개선방안과 앞으로의 과제를 입법론적관점 및 해석론적 관점에서 분석하여 제시하고 있다.

대규모유통업법상 판촉비용 관련 법적 쟁점과 개정의견

심재한 한국경쟁법학회 2023 競爭法硏究 Vol.48 No.-

The Act on Fair Transactions in Large Retail Business enacted in 2012 lists various prohibitions for large-scale retailers. However, the provisions of the sales promotion costs stipulated in Article 11 are significantly degrading the practical suitability of the regulations. Since the scope of the current definition of promotional events is wider than the scope of actual law enforcement, it is necessary to define them as temporary events for consumers. The current provisions on the cost sharing of sales promotion events are stipulated in favor of a supplier, and are strictly enforced in practice by reflecting this. In particular, Article 11 (5) of the Act on Fair Transactions in Large Retail Business stipulates voluntary requirements, and in 2020 the Supreme Court precedent and the Korea Fair Trade Commission interpret them as initiative, but this results in a deviation from reality. As a side effect of strict law enforcement, large-scale retailers are hesitant to conduct promotional events, and as a result, small and medium-sized suppliers are left behind in competition. In response to this, the Korea Fair Trade Commission has established a guideline and is implementing it until the end of 2023. It is necessary to revise the Law on the cost sharing of sales promotion events by reflecting the purpose of this guideline. The current written contract obligation clause was meaningful in the past when offline distributors led promotional events, but now, in the era of online shopping, a far greater number of vendors than in the past are conducting promotional events from time to time, but uniform compliance obligations are imposed. Therefore, there is a need to amend the law to reflect the reality of these transactions.

대규모유통법 규제 재검토 논의를 위한 조항별 판례 분석

강정희 한국경쟁법학회 2023 競爭法硏究 Vol.48 No.-

The structure and market environment of the retail industry today is very different from that of 2012, when the Act on Fair Transactions in Large Retail Business was first enacted and implemented. Not only are distribution channels shifting from offline to online, but the commercialization of mobile devices has created a variety of sales channels that are incomparable to those of a decade ago. As consumers have more options, their purchasing behavior has also changed significantly from the past. The most significant regulatory effect of the Act on Fair Transactions in Large Retail Business is that it shifts the burden of proof for abuse of dominance from the KFTC to mass distributors. As such, the Act on Fair Transactions in Large Retail Business has a very strong regulatory effect compared to other antitrust laws such as the Subcontracting Act, so it is necessary to be wary of efforts to lay the foundation for fair competition in a way that shrinks the distribution market or conflicts with the creativity and innovation of business operators. At a time when there are increasing calls for an overhaul of the regulatory framework for large-scale retailers, which was built for the existing offline-oriented retail market, it is very meaningful to look at how the courts have interpreted and applied the provisions of the Act on Fair Transactions in Large Retail Business in order to find the most effective way forward. Considering that courts are bound to have certain limitations in interpreting the text and determining the burden of proof, no matter how much they reflect market conditions and transaction realities, the gaps caused by these limitations are best filled through legislative improvements. This article introduces and analyzes the most recent Supreme Court decisions or major cases in which violations of the Act on Fair Transactions in Large Retail Business were at issue, and explores the direction of reorganizing the Act on Fair Transactions in Large Retail Business.