이사의 자기거래와 공정성 요건

임재연(Lim Jai Yun) 성균관대학교 법학연구소 2009 성균관법학 Vol.21 No.2

This article deals with the self-dealing transaction between the director and the corporation under American corporate law and Korea Commercial Act(KCA) focusing on the fairness requirement. The duty of loyalty requires a fiduciary to act in the best interests of the corporation. Conflict of interest usually involves some form of self-dealing where the fiduciary is on both sides of transaction and in a position to receive a benefit unavailable to other shareholders or a corporation. The key aspect of self-dealing transaction is that the director and the corporation are on opposite sides of the transaction. More precisely, the transaction is concerned when three conditions are met: (1) the director and the corporation are on opposite sides; (2) the director has helped influence the transaction's decision to enter the transaction; and (3) the director's personal financial interests are at least potentially in conflict with the financial interests of the corporation, to such a degree that there is reason to doubt whether the director is necessarily motivated to act in the corporation's best interests. Article 398 of KCA provides that a director may effectuate a transaction with the company for his own account or for account of a third person only if he has obtained the approval of the board of directors. Under American corporate law, fairness is really the key element. There is greater judicial scrutiny of both the fairness of the process and the substance of the transaction. In most states, the important method of defending a self-dealing transaction against attack is by showing that it is, under all the circumstances, fair to the corporation. In nearly all states, fairness alone will cause the transaction to be upheld, even if there has been no approval by disinterested directors and no ratification by shareholders. When fairness is what really counts, there is still some practical benefit to the approval, a benefit which stems from standards of proof and the burden of proof. The burden of proof shifts when there has been director or shareholder approval. without such approval, the burden of proof is clearly on the director to show why the transaction is fair. Once there has been disinterested-director approval or shareholder approval, the burden shifts to the person who is attacking the transaction, who must now come forward with evidence of the transaction's unfairness. The draft of the revised KCA adopted a fairness test providing that the transaction is effectuated when the director has obtained the approval of the board of directors and the transaction is fair to the corporation. The shift of burden of proof employed by the U.S. courts is likely to have a great influence on interpretation of the KCA's fairness requirement.

거래공정성, 거래진정성, 평판, 관계적 자본 간의 관계에 대한 연구

박찬권(Park, Chan-Kwon),서영복(Seo, Yeong-Bok) 한국물류학회 2019 물류학회지 Vol.29 No.5

본 연구는 거래기업들 간의 거래과정 및 결과에서 공정한 거래를 하여야 한다는 거래공정성, 또한 거래과정과 결과에서 진정성 있는 거래를 진행하여야 한다는 거래진정성이 궁극적으로 거래기업들 간의 호의적 혹은 긍정적인 평판을 확보할 수 있으며, 이러한 긍정적, 호의적인 평판은 거래기업들로 구성되는 공급사슬에서 관계적 자본으로 발전할 수 있다는 내용을 연구하는 것이다. 이를 위하여 중소 제조 관련 기업체들을 대상으로 설문조사를 시행하고 연구가설을 검정하였다. 가설의 검정결과는 다음과 같다. 먼저 거래공정성은 평판에 유의한 정(+)의 영향을 미치는 것으로 나타나며, 거래진정성 역시 평판에 유의한 정(+)의 영향을 미치는 것으로 나타난다. 그러나 평판은 관계적 자본에 정(+)의 영향을 미치지만 유의하지는 않았다. 평판의 매개효과를 분석한 결과 평판은 거래공정성과 관계적 자본 사이에서 매개변수의 역할을 하는 것으로 나타나며, 거래진정성과 관계적 자본 사이에서는 매개변수의 역할을 하지 않는 것으로 나타난다. 따라서 거래공정성은 평판을 통하여 관계적 자본에 더 높은 영향을 미칠 수 있음을 확인하였다. 이러한 연구결과 거래관계를 통해 평판의 수준을 제고하기 위해서는 거래진정성 보다 거래공정성의 수준을 제고하는 것이 훨씬 더 효과적일 수 있으며, 개별기업이 공급사슬에서 호의적인 혹은 긍정적인 평판을 확보하기 위해서는 거래기업들과 거래공정성과 거래진정성을 필요로 한다는 것과 관계적 자본의 수준을 제고하기 위해서라도 거래공정성과 거래진정성의 수준을 제고하는 것이 중요하다는 것을 제시한다. This study suggests that transaction fairness and transaction authenticity among trading firms can secure a favorable positive reputation among trading firms and that such positive and favorable reputation can develop from supply chains composed of trading companies to relational capital. To do this, we conducted questionnaires and tested the research hypotheses for SME related manufacturing companies. The results of the research hypothesis are as follows. First, transaction fairness has positive influence on reputation, and transaction authenticity has positive influence on reputation. However, reputation has positive (+) effect on relational capital, but not significant. As a result of analyzing the mediating effect of reputation, reputation appears to play a role of parameter between transaction fairness and relational capital, and does not play a role of parameter between transaction authenticity and relational capital. Therefore, it is confirmed that transaction fairness can have a higher effect on the relative capital through reputation. In order to increase the level of reputation through trading relationships, it is more effective to raise the level of fairness of transactions than to the authenticity of transactions. In order for individual companies to have favorable or positive reputation in the supply chain, And that it is important to raise the level of transactional fairness and transaction authenticity in order to improve the level of relational capital and the need for fairness and authenticity of transactions.

기업집단내 내부거래에 관한 연구 - 2011년 개정상법을 중심으로 -

손영화 한국상사법학회 2013 商事法硏究 Vol.32 No.1

Admits a fiduciary duty to the controlling shareholder if the controllingshareholder to exercise control over operations company traditionally in theUnited States. However, fiduciary duty of the parent company is not meansthat the parent company can not pursue private interests the internaltransaction in corporate group. The parent company must be taken intoaccount at the same time profit of minority shareholders and the interests ofthe subsidiary to exercise their rights. By using various criteria, including theentire fairness standard in order to ensure the fairness of intercompanytransactions in American case law. In the United States, case law has aregulation of conflicts of interest transaction in order to ensure the fairnessof intercompany transactions. If there is approval by minority shareholdersand outside directors in case of conflict of interest transactions, businessjudgment rule is applied. In this case, plaintiffs claim of unfair transactionmust prove this. Doctrine of one is the corporate opportunity doctrine to regulate theinternal transaction in corporate group. The corporate opportunity doctrine isa theory that developed in order to solve the interests collision betweenentities and directors. Article 5.12 ALI criteria be specified with respect totake the corporate opportunity by the controlling shareholder. In this case, the corporate opportunity by the controlling shareholder is more narrowthan the corporate opportunity by director. In other words, only thebusiness area of subsidiaries that are not included in the business area ofthe parent company becomes the company opportunity. Such corporateopportunity attributable to subsidiary in principle. According to the fairnessstandard, controlling shareholder is able to get that opportunity if the boardof directors gave up the opportunity is provided to the subsidiary. The new regulations to govern the internal transactions within thecorporate group are introduced in the Commercial Act amended in 2011. One is self-dealing of director. It is expended to such associated person andprincipal shareholders. In addition, it has been enhanced more thantwo-thirds of the Board of Directors also approved requirements of theBoard of Directors. It defines the prior approval of the Board of Directorsstrictly too. The Commercial Act adopts the duty to disclose informationprior to the Board of Directors. And the Commercial Act adopts a fairnesstest providing that a transaction is valid when both the director obtainsBoard of Directors` approval and the transaction is fair to the corporation. There are more strict than the regulation of the United States case law onsuch self-dealing restrictions. It is necessary to put the approval provisionsof the self-dealing by a special committee for rapid corporate managementat least. As legislative theory, it is necessary to selectively-requirementsfairness of the contents of the self-dealing. Self-dealing must be to ensurethat the enabled if director proves the fairness of the transaction even ifthere is no approval of the Board of Directors. Reporting requirements for the General Meeting of Shareholders and Boardof Directors approval is granted when the deal with the largest shareholderof large listed companies and the prohibition of credit in the specialprovisions of the listed companies. Such a special provisions when restrictivethe provisions of the self-dealing has placed in the legislative purpose to try to prevent the tyranny of the controlling shareholder. Value of specialprovision will never change because the special provision are stronger thanthe self-dealing in the Commercial Act in 2011. However, it appears as itwill necessary to organize a special provision part to the more sophisticated. The Commercial Act in 2011 stipulates the prohibition of the usurpation ofcorporate opportunity to try regulate so-called the volumes of transaction. But the usurpation of corporate opportunity of the Commercial Act isdifferent tha...

하도급거래 공정성 평가틀 구축을 위한 시론적 연구

김관보(Kwanbo Kim),김명수(Myeong-Soo Kim),채경진(Kyungjin Chae) 한국경제연구원 2009 규제연구 Vol.18 No.2

본 연구는 수직적․종속적 거래의 특성을 지닌 하도급거래 공정성 추세를 평가하기위한 지속가능한 ‘하도급거래 공정성 평가틀’을 구축하고 공정정지수를 산정하는 시론적 고찰을 시도하였다. 첫째, 하도급거래 공정성 평가틀 구축을 위한 하도급거래 공정성개념을 크게 3가지, 즉 절차적 공정성, 분배적 공정성, 상호작용 공정성으로 분류하였다.둘째, 하도급거래 공정성 평가틀을 구성할 평가부문(항목) 및 세부 평가지표의 추출 근거인 하도급 관련 법령 및 상생협약 내용 등을 분석하여 분류된 하도급거래 공정성 개념과 연계하였다. 셋째, 이를 바탕으로 하도급거래 공정성 평가틀(안)을 도출한 후 평가틀에 포함된 평가부문(항목) 및 평가지표들에 대한 상호간 중요도의 가중치 조사를 위해계층분석방법(AHP)을 실시하였다. 하도급거래 공정성 평가틀은 3개의 평가항목, 11개의평가지표 및 22개의 세부 측정지표로 구성된다. 하도급거래 공정성 평가틀의 3가지 평가항목과 11개 평가지표들에 대한 상호간 중요도의 가중치 조사결과 AHP 1차 수준인 평가항목 간의 비교에서 건설업과 제조․수리업의 경우 하도급계약 이행이, 용역․서비스업의 경우 하도급계약 체결이 가장 중요한 영역으로 나타났다. 평가지표 간의 비교분석 결과 하도급계약 체결 시 하도급대금 결정 및 조정은 모든 업종에서 가장 중요한 것으로 나타났다. 종합가중치 및 전체 우선순위 분석 결과, 1순위에서 3순위까지(하도급대금지급→부당감액→하도급대금 결정 및 조정)는 모든 업종이 동일한 순위를 보였다. 끝으로 하도급거래 공정성 평가틀을 적용하기 위한 부문별 공정성 지수(SFI) 및 종합 공정성 지수(CFI)를 산정하였다. The purpose of this article is to construct the sustainable 'Fairness Evaluation System of Subcontracting Transactions' and calculate its fairness indices for evaluating the fairness of subcontracting transaction. First, the fairness concepts are categorized into three types for constructing the fairness evaluation system of subcontracting transaction: 1) procedural fairness, 2) result (outcome) fairness, and 3) mutual interaction (win-win cooperation) fairness. Second, both evaluation sectors (items) and detailed evaluation indicators are drawn from the subcontracting-related laws and win-win (cooperation) agreement and are linked to the concepts of subcontracting transaction fairness. Third, based on these findings, AHP (analytic hierarchy process) analysis is conducted to explore the degree of mutual importance and weight of evaluation sectors and their indicators. Finally, the 'Fairness Evaluation System of Subcontracting Transactions is created. The system includes three evaluation sectors: subcontracting contract conclusion, subcontracting contract execution, and subcontracting win-win cooperation. Also the system has 11 evaluation indicators and 22 detailed measurement indicators. The primary level analysis result of AHP has shown that subcontracting contract execution is the most important sector in the construction, manufacturing, and repair industries, while subcontracting contract conclusion is the most important item in the service industries. The secondary level analysis result of AHP with 11 evaluation indicators has demonstrated that subcontracting price decision and adjustment in the subcontracting contract execution is the most important indicator across all industries. The comprehensive weight and overall ranking results of all evaluation indicators have represented that subcontracting price payment is first, unfair subcontracting price reduction is second, and subcontracting decision and adjustment is third in all industries. The sectoral fairness index (SFI) and the composite fairness index (CFI) are calculated to apply the ‘Fairness Evaluation System of Subcontracting Transactions.'

개정 상법 제398조의 자기거래에 있어서 공정성 요건에 관한 연구

최호진(Choi, Ho-Jin),최준선(Choi, June-Sun) 성균관대학교 법학연구소 2011 성균관법학 Vol.23 No.3

This article deals with the self-dealing transaction between the director and the corporation under the Revised Commercial Code of 2011. Fairness of transactions can be achieved by each individual acting on his own best interest. But this principle is not workable in case where one person actually occupies both side of the transaction. A director of a corporation is a fiduciary of the corporation and its shareholder. The duty of loyalty requires a fiduciary to act in the best interests of the corporation. Conflict of interest usually involves some form of self-dealing where the fiduciary is on both sides of transaction and in a position to receive a benefit unavailable to other shareholders or a corporation. Under Corporate law, Fairness is the key element. In the most states, the important method of defending a self-dealing transaction is by showing that it is, under all the circumstances, fair to the corporation. In nearly all states, fairness alone will cause the transaction to be upheld, even if there has been no approval by disinterested directors and no ratification by shareholders. While it is not an adequate attempt to define the concept of “fairness”, the courts in the U.S. have stressed fairness both in substance and process. This article relates the concept of fairness of director self-dealing transactions under the Revised Korean Commercial Code. Procedural fairness whether through approval by disinterested directors or disinterested shareholders requires full disclosure of the existence of the interested director’s conflict and other material information concerning the substance of the transaction.

M&A거래에 있어서 투자은행의 공정성 보증의견(Fairness Opinion) 제공과 그 책임에 관한 연구 : 미국법상의 논의와 우리 법에의 함의를 중심으로

김범준 법무부 2011 선진상사법률연구 Vol.- No.56

Since the recent global financial crisis, the market for corporate control in Korea had significantly contracted for a while, but, after the first quarter of 2010, various M&A transactions have been completed or negotiated. In evaluating a M&A proposal, boards frequently seek to determine that the consideration to be paid or received is fair from financial point of view to shareholders. For such a purpose, they obtain a "fairness opinion" from a financial advisor. Typically, the investment banks advising on the merger render the opinion. Indeed, it appears to the author that fairness opinions will become increasingly important as the financial markets become more determined that high-stake deals are transparent and fair and that fairness opinions have a central, virtually mandatory role in the corporate control transaction. Under the circumstances that the U.S. courts differ on the extent to which an investment bank may face liability to third-party shareholders of a company when that bank issues a fairness opinion to that company's board of directors, this article analyzes investment bank liability to shareholders for negligent misrepresentation under the N.Y. and Delware law, and argues that a consistent methodology for extending liability to investment banks is needed to adequately check investment banking conduct. By permitting the negligent misrepresentation lawsuit to go forward with the third party as the real party-in-interest, investment banks would be dissuaded from acting negligently in the future. Because the regulatory environment for fairness opinions in Korea still seems to be inadequate, it is a top priority to refine defect(s) in our corporate and/or securities law. In addition, it is time to study on fairness opinions and accumulate proper principle(s) regarding this issue in order to efficiently resolve future disputes. 지난 2007년, 거래의 규모나 금액 등 모든 면에서 최대의 호황을 누렸던 우리나라의 M&A시장은 2008년 글로벌 금융위기로 인해 일시적으로 위축되었으나, 작년 1사분기부터 다시 서서히 회복세를 보이면서 대규모 거래가 성사되거나 진행 중에 있는 것으로 보인다. 이 같은 M&A거래를 평가하는데 있어서 당사 회사의 이사회는 합병대가나 대상기업의 가치가 주주에게 재무적 관점에서 공정한 것인지를 판단해야 할 필요가 있게 되는데, 바로 이러한 목적을 위하여 재무자문사로부터 제공받는 것이 이른바 "공정성 보증의견(fairness opinion)"이며, 통상 당해 M&A거래를 자문하는 투자은행에 의하여 작성․발행된다. 실제로 M&A거래에 있어서 공정성 보증의견은 리스크가 큰 거래일수록 투자정보가 투명 하고 공정해야 한다는 측면에서 미국 등 선진금융시장에서는 일반적으로 활용되고 있으며, 특히 회사의 지배권 거래에 있어 중심적이고, 필수적인 역할을 담당하고 있다. 이에 본고는 하자 있는 공정성 보증의견을 발행한 투자은행이 제3의 주주에 대하여 부담하는 책임과 관련하여 미국에서조차 각 州와 법원의 입장이 상이한 점에 착안하여 그 간의 논의와 규제체계를 검토함으로써 합리적인 범위 내에서 투자은행의 책임확장을 위해 가능한 일관된 법리의 적용방법을 분석해 보고자 하였으며, 결과적으로 당해 M&A거래와 직접적․실질적 이해관계에 있는 주주가 불법행위법상의 과실 있는 허위표시이론에 근거 하여 손해배상청구를 할 수 있도록 허용하는 것이 투자은행의 부실한 공정성 보증 의견을 미연에 방지하고, 나아가 회사와 주주의 이익보호에 기여할 수 있을 것으로 판단 하였다. 다만, 투자은행에 대하여 불법행위법상의 책임을 부담케 하는데 있어 투자은행과 주주 간에 일정한 법률관계(privity)나 유사법률관계(near privity)를 요구하는 것은 재고할 필요가 있으며, 원고인 주주에게는 사실상 예견가능성설 보다 합리적 예견가능성설의 기준에 의할 때 보다 효과적으로 투자은행의 책임을 물을 수 있다는 점에서 양자 중 어느 하나를 충족하는 경우라면 투자은행의 책임을 인정하자는 제안을 더하였다. 사실, 우리나라는 투자은행과 공정성 보증의견에 대한 법제적 환경이 아직 충분히 갖추어져 있지 않은 것으로 판단된다. 물론, 실무상 공정성 보증의견의 활용이 그 동안 활발하지 않았던 탓도 있겠으나 국내기업 간의 M&A는 물론, 대규모의 국경 간 M&A거래도 활발히 진행되고 있는 최근의 시장동향을 감안한다면, 향후 공정성 보증의견의 필요성과 활용도가 상당히 증가될 것으로 예상되며, 이러한 측면에서 입법상의 미비점을 보완해 둔다면 향후의 분쟁에 미리 대비할 수 있을 것으로 보인다. 또한, 국내 M&A거래에 있어서 투자은행의 역할을 담당해 왔던 기존의 증권社들이 그 규모와 기능면에서 해외 선진투자은행의 수준에 미치지 못한다는 점을 고려하여 국내 투자은행의 활성화 등을 골자로 한 최근의 자본시장법 개정안은 매우 고무적인 입법적 개선이라 생각되며, 이러한 인프라를 토대로 하여 투자은행의 하자 있는 공정성 보증의견으로 인한 피해와 그 책임을 둘러싼 분쟁의 해결을 위해 이에 대한 연구와 적절한 법리의 축적이 필요한 시점이라 생각된다.

대규모유통업법 적용의 전제로서 ‘거래상 우월적 지위’의 의미와 요건

신영수 한국경쟁법학회 2023 競爭法硏究 Vol.48 No.-

As one of a series of laws for fair transaction, the Large-scale Distribution Business Act enacted in 2011 plays a key role in regulating and suppressing the abuse of trading superiority in the domestic distribution industry. However, unlike other transaction fairness laws, this law requires a superior position rather than an actor’s trading position, and if it has a certain size or more of store area and sales, it is applied regardless of the other party’s size. As a result, the relationship and difference between the transaction superior position, which is a key requirement of the same law, and the transaction status under the Fair Trade Act is a theoretical and practical question in theory and practice. This paper compared and analyzed large-scale distribution business laws with other norms related to transaction fairness, while reviewing related trial cases and precedents and analyzing foreign legislation to determine the meaning of superior status in transactions as a requirement. Through this, it was pointed out that even if the difference in status is ambiguous or subtle, it is necessary to be careful in applying regulations on matters where the boundaries between fair trade and civil and commercial disputes are unclear, otherwise it can distort the transaction order or arbitrarily adjust the imbalance between the parties.

여행사간 B2B 거래공정성이 가맹여행사의 관계지향성과 성과에 미치는 영향

서선(Sun Seo) 한국콘텐츠학회 2012 한국콘텐츠학회논문지 Vol.12 No.5

최근 확대되고 있는 여행사간 B2B2C 거래에 있어서, 여행사간 힘의 불균형으로 인하여 가맹점은 도매여행사와의 거래에 있어 거래공정성의 영향을 받고 있다. 따라서 본 연구는 여행업의 발전적 방향을 제시하기 위하여, 여행사간 거래공정성이 가맹여행사의 관계지향성과 성과에 미치는 영향을 검증하기 위하여 실증분석을 실시하였다. 여행사간 B2B 거래에 있어 가맹여행사의 재무, 비재무적 성과에 가장 큰 영향을 미치는 것은 관계지향성이며, 관계지향성에 가장 큰 영향을 미치는 거래여행사의 공정성은 상호작용공정성과 절차공정성 순으로 나타났다. 따라서 여행사간 장기적인 관계지향성에 영향을 미치는 상호작용공정성과 절차공정성의 구성요소인 거래여행사 직원들의 정확한 정보제공 능력과 가맹여행사에 대한 긴밀한 유대관계 유지 능력이 가장 중요한 요인임을 반영하여 상호 win-win할 수 있는 파트너십을 유지하는 것이 중요하다 하겠다. B2B2C distribution channel between travel agencies, the travel franchisers fairness become a big issue. So this study examines the effects of B2B transaction fairness between travel agencies on relationship-orientation and travel franchisees performance. The research results are as follows: First, the most influential factor on the franchisees performance was found as relationship-orientation factor. Second, among the 3 variable factors of B2B transaction fairness, the most influential factor on the franchisees relationship-orientation was found as interactional fairness. And procedural fairness was found as next. Third, distributive fairness and interactional fairness were found to have a significant effect on franchisees financial performance. And distributive fairness and procedural fairness were found to have a significant effect on franchisees non-financial competency. Conclusively, excellent employees of travel franchiser are the most valuable factors in B2B2C transactions due to the nature of the travel industry where human services are valued above everything else.

실질과세원칙과 거래의 재구성―국세기본법 제14조의 해석론을 중심으로

송동진,전병욱 한국세법학회 2013 조세법연구 Vol.19 No.1

Where taxpayers attempt to avoid the application of unfavorable tax laws by adopting circuitous transactions with identical economic effect arise the issues of whether to recharacterize the transactions into taxable one and how far such recharacterization is allowed by the tax laws. In principle, the transaction mode used by taxpayers shall be respected in tax purpose, for general introduction of recharacterization will lead to serious impairment of taxpayers’ predictability or legal certainty. However, when a specific transaction mode used by a certain taxpayer is deemed to be misuse of the taxpayer’s choice, such transaction shall be subject to recharacterization for the realization of fairness of taxation. Thus, taxpayers’ predictability or legal certainty should be inevitably limited within the appro- priate range. Recharacterization shall be carried out carefully so that the balance between achieved tax fairness and deteriorated legal certainty can be sustained. In that regard, following requirements should be needed to approve recharac- terizing taxpayers’ circuitous transactions. First, the taxpayers’ intent of tax avoidance shall be their sole or main motive of the transactions. Second, there has to be a means of tax avoidance for the transactions. Last, the tax avoidance in the transaction needs to be examined from the view of tax laws. Once achieving above requirements, detailed facts and circumstances in each case are to be taken fully into account and deliberately appreciated. 납세의무자의 우회적․다단계적 거래행위 등에 대하여 세법상 재구성을 할 것인지의 여부는 납세의무자의 거래형식 선택가능성과 조세부담의 공평이 첨예하게 충돌하는 문제이다. 본 연구에서는 이와 같은 우회적․다단계 거래행위 등의 세법상 재구성과 관련하여 대법원 판례 등의 검토를 통하여 국세기본법 제14조가 그 근거가 될 수 있는지의 여부와 함께 그 구체적 요건 및 인정범위를 분석한 후에 해당 조항에 대한 해석론을 제시하였다. 본 연구의 분석에 의하면 납세자가 선택한 거래형식은 원칙적으로는 세법상으로도 존중되어야 할 것이지만, 조세회피의 목적으로 거래형식 선택의 가능성을 남용하였다고 판단될 수 있는 경우에는 제한적으로 경제적 실질에 의한 재구성을 인정하는 것이 타당하고, 일정한 범위에서 납세의무자의 예측가능성 및 법적 안정성이 제한되는 것이 불가피한데, 국세기본법 제14조는 이와 같은 재구성의 법적 근거가 될 수 있을 것이다. 다만, 재구성을 인정하는 경우에도 이를 통하여 제한되는 납세의무자의 예측가능성 및 법적 안정성과의 균형이 유지되도록 재구성의 요건을 세부적으로 설정할 필요가 있는데, 구체적으로는 조세회피의 목적, 조세회피수단인 거래행위 및 조세회피의 부당성의 요건을 중심으로 하되 개별 사건과 관련된 구체적 사정들을 충분히 살펴볼 필요가 있을 것이다.

거래상대방 제한 구속조건부거래행위의 공정거래저해성 판단기준에 대한 검토 - 고어텍스 사건을 중심으로 -

최난설헌 한국유통법학회 2022 유통법연구 Vol.9 No.1

Recently, as transactions and consumption through the internet have rapidly increased, manufacturers are devising various measures to promote the efficiency of their sales. In competition law, “restricting the sale of products in the online markets” has attracted attention in the EU and Korea. In particular, the manufacturers’ restriction of distribution channels has been introduced as a “selective distribution system.” A selective distribution system is referred to as a vertical type of contract in which manufacturers set minimum standards for their distribution chain and agree to supply only to the distributors who satisfy these requirements. A selective distribution system can be used whether the distribution takes place offline or online or not. Also, in general, manufacturers are not legally obligated to disclose the selection criteria of the distribution network. In the online market, however, recently there have been problems, including the conditions that manufacturers introduce more restrictive conditions for online sales (internet addendums). Since manufacturers are concerned that the sale of their products at a lower price may lead to a decline in brand image, they place the restrictions on the transactions in the online markets such as open markets or price- comparison sites. Online distributors are dissatisfied with these restrictions. Regarding the Gore-Tex case in Korea, the plaintiffs are manufacturers of GORE-TEX fabrics, an intermediate good, and the plaintiffs’ act corresponds to restricting the trading conditions (distribution channels) of their counterparties, the producers of the finished product. Whereas the significant cases in Europe deal with the problem of ‘imposing certain transaction conditions on distributors who sell the finished products,’ the Gore-Tex case is associated with the plaintiffs imposing certain restrictive transaction conditions on customer companies which sell the finished products based on the intermediate product that the plaintiffs supply. Since the core issue of the Gore-Tex case is related to the intermediate product rather than the finished product, the adverse effect on the market competition is likely to be broader than the imposition of restrictions on the distributors of finished products. In other words, based on its reputation or market power, if a company that supplies a significant raw material or an intermediate good restricts the finished product manufacturers’ transaction by, for example, the conditions about the distribution channels, the competition between intermediate goods as well as the competition between finished products can be limited in the market. Such restrictive behavior can be seen as more inhibiting the fair trade, compared to a general selective distribution system. Therefore, the criteria for determining fair-trade obstruction for restricted trading conditions using the manufacturer’s selective distribution system of the finished products should not be applied to the restricted trading conditions of the manufacturers with intermediate goods. When analyzing the manufacturer’s restricted trading conditions in relation to the intermediate goods, the characteristics of the intermediate goods, the structure of the market, and the anti-competitive and pro-competitive effects resulting from the conduct should be thoroughly analyzed to determine whether or not the transaction falls under the category of an illegal conditional transaction.