본문 바로가기
  • Home

Unfairness In the Trade position abuse in Korean competition law

  • Journal of International Business Transactions Law
  • Abbr : IBT
  • 2021, (34), pp.139-174
  • Publisher : The Institute for Legal Studies Dong-A University
  • Research Area : Social Science > Law > Private Law > International Commercial Transactions Law
  • Received : June 29, 2021
  • Accepted : July 20, 2021
  • Published : July 31, 2021

SHON, DONGHWAN 1

1성균관대학교

Accredited

ABSTRACT

There are 3 standards in judging the illegality against unfair trade behavior in Korean competition law. The Supreme court has made verdicts from the point of open standards including the anti-competitiveness and unfairness where considered the totality of circumstances test. The Supreme court made a meaningful verdict in the Nambu golf club case about trade-position-abuse which is one of the unfair trade practice. This follows as that unfair trade behavior regulation in the fair-trade-law is just concerned from the view of public law, that trade-position- abuse is forbidden just where it has something with transaction order and that trade- position-abuse against consumers can be judged illegal where the abuse affects a lot of consumers and would-be consumers as the abuse-effect influences the transaction order. This precedent is important where it draws the standard line about illegality in trade position abuse. This precedent seems to be affected by Japanese fair trade commission’s guide line. This can be categorized as the anti- competitiveness standard. It can restrict the span of competition law's appliance in terms of public and private enforcement. It is found that civil law cases has denied the application of fair trade law quoting this precedent. It can be suggested that effects against consumers standard can be enlarged by considering the quality-baed competition not just by quantity-based competition. Considering the strict interpretation of Korean competition law and effective enforcement of the law this precedent’s standard should be restricted and not be expanded to other sphere of unfair behavior regulation.

Citation status

* References for papers published after 2022 are currently being built.