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.
논문 기본 정보
- 자료유형
- 학술저널
- 저자정보
- 발행연도
- 2008.5
- 수록면
- 123 - 130 (8page)
이용수
초록· 키워드
오류제보하기
The Telecommunication Business Act (the ‘Act’) confers authority on the Korea Communications Commission (the ‘KCC’) to impose various sanctions against the telecommunications carriers that violate any of the ‘prohibited acts’ under the Act to secure the effectiveness of its regulation. Furthermore, in addition to those sanctions, the Act provides for more powerful sanctions, such as cancellation or suspension of licence, permit or regulatory approval, against non-compliance of corrective orders which are issued to correct any consequences caused by the violation. However, in the case where a carrier carried out one of the ‘prohibited acts’, have been granted a corrective order on the very act, and then again does the same or similar prohibited act, a problem arises as to whether its latest act should be taken as a failure to comply with the corrective order or a new violation of the Act.
In such a case, if the corrective order imposed a duty of non-performance, which has been complied with by the carrier, the subsequent violation of the same prohibited act should not be regarded as non-compliance of the order for the following considerations that: the carrier has already ceased the prohibited act within the specified period according to the order; the corrective order is an individual and specific order, however, if it is interpreted to have a continuing effect to the future, then it would merely confirm the general and abstract contents which have already been decided by the statute, and thus may dilute or otherwise impair the specificity requirement for all corrective measures; and if the unlawfulness of the repeated violations of prohibited acts prescribed in the statute is great, then it should be judged by a separate legal ground.
Moreover, in the case where a corrective order incorporates the statutory duties as a regulatory practice, the nature of such order is to correct any harm caused by the wrongful act at issue and not simply to prevent its repetition. Since the contents of the corrective order are provided for in the statute, a clause like ‘do not violate any of the acts prohibited by the statute’ cannot be its content.
Yet, one of the ways to issue such an order, which is theoretically improper but the reality of the regulatory practice asks for its acceptance, is, like the Korea Fair Trade Commission, to specify in the order a certain time period during which the prohibited acts should be ceased. Also there is a way to legislatively insert the following language into the relevant provision of the statute: “in the case where there is a substantial violation or repeated violation of any of such acts.”
In such a case, if the corrective order imposed a duty of non-performance, which has been complied with by the carrier, the subsequent violation of the same prohibited act should not be regarded as non-compliance of the order for the following considerations that: the carrier has already ceased the prohibited act within the specified period according to the order; the corrective order is an individual and specific order, however, if it is interpreted to have a continuing effect to the future, then it would merely confirm the general and abstract contents which have already been decided by the statute, and thus may dilute or otherwise impair the specificity requirement for all corrective measures; and if the unlawfulness of the repeated violations of prohibited acts prescribed in the statute is great, then it should be judged by a separate legal ground.
Moreover, in the case where a corrective order incorporates the statutory duties as a regulatory practice, the nature of such order is to correct any harm caused by the wrongful act at issue and not simply to prevent its repetition. Since the contents of the corrective order are provided for in the statute, a clause like ‘do not violate any of the acts prohibited by the statute’ cannot be its content.
Yet, one of the ways to issue such an order, which is theoretically improper but the reality of the regulatory practice asks for its acceptance, is, like the Korea Fair Trade Commission, to specify in the order a certain time period during which the prohibited acts should be ceased. Also there is a way to legislatively insert the following language into the relevant provision of the statute: “in the case where there is a substantial violation or repeated violation of any of such acts.”
목차
Ⅰ. 문제의 제기
Ⅱ. 시정명령의 이행 여부 문제
Ⅲ. 비교 사례
〈ABSTRACT〉
참고문헌 (0)
참고문헌 신청함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문
논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!
-
공정거래법 위반 사업자에 대한 시정조치의 허용 범위 : 대법원 2015. 9. 10. 선고 2014두11113 판결을 중심으로
법경제학연구
2017 .08
-
업체탐방-(주)ACTS
프린팅코리아
2002 .01
-
전기통신사업법상 금지행위 구성요건의 쟁점과 문제점
경제규제와 법
2008 .05
-
통신법상 금지행위 제도의 개선방향 : 규제경제학의 관점
행정법연구
2010 .12
-
전기통신사업법상 금지행위 규제의 개선 : 이용자이익 저해행위를 중심으로
행정법연구
2008 .04
-
금융기관 적기시정조치 제도에 대한 소고
法學論文集
2006 .01
-
소비자단체소송제도의 개선방안에 관한 연구
재산법연구
2020 .01
-
교정사고의 대응방안에 관한 연구
법학연구
2007 .05
-
대학에서의 영어 말하기 오류수정 피드백과 학습자 반응: 교사와 학습자의 태도를 중심으로
영어어문교육
2009 .01
-
방송법 개정 동향 : 방송사업자에 대한 금지행위규제 도입을 중심으로
경제규제와 법
2011 .11
-
한국 금융지주회사에 대한 적기시정 조치
원광법학
2007 .01
-
전기통신사업법 제36조의3상 금지행위에 관한 법적 고찰
행정법연구
2007 .08
-
자동화 컨테이너터미널 개발 전략에 관한 연구
해운물류연구
2005 .01
-
중소기업공동사업에 대한 공정거래법의 적용 : 공정거래법상 적용제외를 중심으로
기업법연구
2007 .06
-
영국 상사법의 개별입법화 동향
기업법연구
2009 .12
이 논문의 저자 정보
이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0