특별논단 : 배타조건부거래의 위법성 판단에 관한 검토 -최근의 판례를 중심으로- = An Antitrust Analysis of Exclusive Dealings in Korea

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

An exclusive dealing contract itself is neutral to market competition. Itscompetitive/anti-competitive effect is mainly dependent on the market positionof undertakings and market situations. In a case where a dominant supplierentered into exclusive dealing arrangements with most of dealers, they mayresult in foreclosure of competitors or raising rivals`` costs to accessdistribution channels. On the other hand, when such agreements are used bynew players, they may facilitate their market penetration and are more likelyto promote competition. Therefore, when determining illegality of exclusivedealings, detailed market analysis is required. The Korean Supreme Court analyzes exclusive dealings basically based on harmto competition. Plaintiffs including Korean Fair Trade Commission(hereinafter ``KFTC``) may prove the harm through showing direct evidencesuch as increase in price, decrease in output, and restriction on diversity orinnovation. In Nonghyup case, exclusive dealing contracts adopted byNonghyup with manufacturers helped Nonghyup maintain its 100% marketdominance in fertilizer distribution market. The court found such behaviorillegal abuse of market dominance. It is also allowed to infer the harm tocompetition through foreclosure or raising rivals`` cost effect. In HyundaiMobis case, the court recognized that Hyundai Mobis possessed a marketdominant position in automobile parts market. The court concluded that itsagreement with dealers to handle only Hyundai Mobis products hindered itscompetitors to access to the dealers. While exclusive dealings of undertakingsless than 30% of market share are as a general rule in safe harbor in theUnited States and European Union, Korea has a narrower safe area, i.e. lessthan 10%. To increase predictability for business community, it is preferableto expand the safety zone. Korean Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act (hereinafter ``MRFTA``) forbids* Attorney, Kim & Chang, Ph.D. 46 특별논단exclusive dealing as a form of unfair trade practices as well as abuse ofmarket dominance. With regard to exclusive dealing as unfair trade practices,the KFTC and the court view that it is illegal because of either harm tocompetition or limits of counterparty``s free will. In S-Oil case, the courtcondemned S-Oil , the fourth provider with 13% share in gas market, for itsrequirement contracts with a part of gas stations. In this case, the marketforeclosure rate was only 2.71% and S-Oil entered into requirementagreements to promote its brand and service. S-Oil ruling was too obsessedwith the proposition that standard for abuse of market dominance and unfairtrade practices should differ. Such strict punishment for exclusive dealings ofminor companies or new entrants may block active competition and is againstthe MRFTA``s goal to "promote fair and free competition." The court needs torethink S-Oil ruling. In the recent Hyundai Mobis case where both abuse ofmarket dominance and unfair trade practices were at issue, the SupremeCourt did not cite S-Oil ruling.

참고문헌 (Reference)

1 강우찬, "불공정거래행위로서의 배타조건부 거래행위의 위법성 판단 기준" 사법 1 (22) : 139 ~ 199, 2012

2 신현윤, "병행적 배타조건부거래의 위법성 판단" 경쟁법연구 21 : 37 ~ 55, 2010

3 홍대식, "배타조건부거래행위, 경쟁제한성 기준인가 강제성 기준인가?" 법조 60 (10) : 140 ~ 188, 2011

4 김성훈, "배타조건부거래의 위법성 요건" 법학논고 (32) : 241 ~ 264, 2010

5 백승엽, "배타조건부거래에 있어서의 위법성 판단기준" 경쟁과 법 (창간) : 107 ~ 122, 2013

6 강상욱, "배타조건부 거래행위" 대법원판례해설 (81) : 817 ~ 852, 2009

7 황태희, "배타조건부 거래의 위법성 판단기준 - 오픈마켓을 중심으로" IT와 법연구 (5) : 229 ~ 254, 2011

8 오승한, "배타조건부 거래를 포함하는 시장선점ㆍ봉쇄전략에 대한 단계별 위법성 판단절차" 비교사법 17 (4) : 431 ~ 487, 2010

9 이봉의, "독점규제법 제3조의2 제1항 제5호 후단 “소비자이익 저해행위” 금지의 위헌성 판단 - 명확성의 원칙을 중심으로 -" 서울대학교 법학 49 (3) : 241 ~ 280, 2008

10 박해식, "단독행위 관련 최근 판결에 대한 분석과 전망" 경쟁법연구 29 : 146 ~ 181, 2014

11 이민호, "끼워팔기 및 배타조건부거래에 관한 소고" 경쟁저널 (69) : 32 ~ 47, 2013

12 Richard Whish, "Competition Law" 2009

13 Andrew I. Gavil, "Antitrust Law in Perspective: Cases, Concepts and Problems in Competition Policy" 2008

14 ABA, "Antitrust Law Developments" 2012