지원사업
학술연구/단체지원/교육 등 연구자 활동을 지속하도록 DBpia가 지원하고 있어요.
커뮤니티
연구자들이 자신의 연구와 전문성을 널리 알리고, 새로운 협력의 기회를 만들 수 있는 네트워킹 공간이에요.
초록· 키워드
오류제보하기
It is 25 years since the antitrust law was introduced into Korea. Until now, there have been continuous and various efforts to improve the antitrust system, and the efforts are considered to be comparatively successful. However, previous trials for development of the system have been mainly concentrated on the substantive law, and procedural reform has not seen to be so sufficient.
Especially, as the number of the cases which have been brought to the Fair Trade Commission(hereinafter, 'KFTC') is rapidly increasing in recent years, the procedural improvement for not only due process but efficient treatment of flocking cases is rising as a pending task around the enforcement authority.
In this context, what the KFTC is carefully considering introduction is so called the 'Consent Decree' or 'Consent Order'. It is known as a mechanism in which the relevant parties can quickly settle the case at issue, on condition that the enforcement promise not to investigate or accuse against the undertaking, on the other hand the undertakings agree to stop the challenged practices. In fact, it is well known that most of antitrust cases in the U.S. have been settled through the Consent Decree.
In order to successfully introduce the Consent Decree into Korean antitrust procedure, however, detailed analysis on theoretical background and actual use is firstly required. Because it has formed on the basis of the judicial regulation of the U.S. and have various incentives which cause undertakings to utilize the system.
This article attempts to examine the Consent Decree on the U.S. antitrust law with an angle of procedural improvement. And as a basis of examination, it analyzes the U.S. antitrust procedures dividing by that of FTC and DOJ. Through this process of study it suggests the points which we should consider and be regardful prior to accept the system.
Especially, as the number of the cases which have been brought to the Fair Trade Commission(hereinafter, 'KFTC') is rapidly increasing in recent years, the procedural improvement for not only due process but efficient treatment of flocking cases is rising as a pending task around the enforcement authority.
In this context, what the KFTC is carefully considering introduction is so called the 'Consent Decree' or 'Consent Order'. It is known as a mechanism in which the relevant parties can quickly settle the case at issue, on condition that the enforcement promise not to investigate or accuse against the undertaking, on the other hand the undertakings agree to stop the challenged practices. In fact, it is well known that most of antitrust cases in the U.S. have been settled through the Consent Decree.
In order to successfully introduce the Consent Decree into Korean antitrust procedure, however, detailed analysis on theoretical background and actual use is firstly required. Because it has formed on the basis of the judicial regulation of the U.S. and have various incentives which cause undertakings to utilize the system.
This article attempts to examine the Consent Decree on the U.S. antitrust law with an angle of procedural improvement. And as a basis of examination, it analyzes the U.S. antitrust procedures dividing by that of FTC and DOJ. Through this process of study it suggests the points which we should consider and be regardful prior to accept the system.
목차
Ⅰ. 同意命令 制度를 왜 論하는가?
Ⅱ. 同意命令의 制度的 意味와 效用
Ⅲ. DOJ와 FTC에 의한 同意命令 節次
Ⅳ. 同意命令制度의 示唆點과 留意點
Ⅴ. 맺으며
참고문헌
abstract
참고문헌 (0)
참고문헌 신청함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문
논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!
-
Recent Developments of Korean Antitrust Law
법학논집
1998 .01
-
독점규제법상 동의명령제 도입에 관한 고찰
형사정책연구
2009 .03
-
공정거래법상 동의명령제 도입방안 연구
비교사법
2009 .12
-
미국 독점금지법 준수를 위한 ＂반독점법 준수프로그램(Astitrusst Compliace Program)＂의 효용성과 그 내용에 대한 실무적 고찰
法學論文集
2006 .01
-
독점규제법 관련분쟁의 중재의 대상적격
중재연구
2010 .01
-
獨占禁止法上 合理性의 原則의 새로운 展開
법학논집
2000 .01
-
독점규제법상 차별적 취급
비교사법
2005 .06
-
Extraterritorial Application of US Antitrust Law and of the EC Competition Law
통상법률
1999 .08
이 논문의 저자 정보
이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0
UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2009-366-015185191