메뉴 건너뛰기
.. 내서재 .. 알림
소속 기관/학교 인증
인증하면 논문, 학술자료 등을  무료로 열람할 수 있어요.
한국대학교, 누리자동차, 시립도서관 등 나의 기관을 확인해보세요
(국내 대학 90% 이상 구독 중)
로그인 회원가입 고객센터 ENG
주제분류
인문학
인문학 일반 역사학 철학 종교학 어문학 기타 인문학
사회과학
사회과학 일반 경영학 관광학 교육학 군사학 문헌정보학 법학 사회학 신문방송학 심리과학 정치외교학 지리학 행정학 경제학 무역학 인류학 기타 사회과학
자연과학
자연과학 일반 물리학 생물학 생활과학 수학·통계학 천문학 지구과학 화학 기타 자연과학
공학
공학 일반 건축공학 기계공학 산업공학 재료·에너지공학 전기전자공학 조선해양공학 화학공학 컴퓨터학 기타공학
의약학
의학 일반 간호학 수의학 약학 한의학 기초의학 임상의학 기타 의약학
농수해양학
농수해양학 일반 농학 수산학 식품과학 임학 축산학 해상운송학 기타 농수해양학
예술체육학
예술 일반 디자인 미술 미용 사진 음악학 의상 체육 공연매체예술 기타 예술체육학
복합학
학제간연구 과학기술학 뇌인지과학 기술정책 기타 복합학

ENG

추천
검색

논문 기본 정보

자료유형
학술저널
저자정보
저널정보
고려대학교 법학연구원 고려법학 고려법학 제54호
발행연도
2009.1
수록면
283 - 321 (39page)

이용수

표지
📌
연구주제
📖
연구배경
🔬
연구방법
🏆
연구결과
AI에게 요청하기
추천
검색

초록· 키워드

오류제보하기
In Korea, discussion on the introduction of a consent order system to the enforcement of Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act (hereinafter ‘MRFTA’) was launched in 2005 as part of efforts to improve her business environment, and the discussion gained momentum with the conclusion of the Korea-US FTA in February 2007. A consent order, first introduced by the United States, is now in place in many part of the globe, including economies with the civil law system like the EU (2004), Germany (2005) and Japan (1959) and is increasingly becoming one of global standards as a tool to resolve disputes. Under the consent order system, an enterprise subject to investigation or deliberation concerning a competition case voluntarily proposes corrective measures. Competition authority examines the proposals, and when the authority gives its consent to them, it terminates the concerned case. As to compared to the corrective orders system, currently usual ways for competition authority to deal with a case, the authority explores and makes determination about legality of a case and imposes corrective orders on the concerned enterprise if her determination is negative; if the enterprise is not satisfied with the decision, it can challenge the decision in courts. In the consent order system, however, competition authority does not determine illegality of a case but consults with the examinee about corrective remedies, thereby terminating the case upon implementation of the agreed remedies. Yet, the consent order system is certainly not an institution one may expect to find in a civil administrative law system based on the rule of law in that it seeks to resolve disputes on a voluntary agreement basis. Despite all the merits and necessity of the system, its introduction should undergo careful examination over the potential negative impact on constitutional principles like the rule of law, due process of law, and third party protection. That is, as administrative laws and regulations are forcibly executed and pursue public interests, administrative litigation has a far-reaching impact on the general public as well as the concerned parties. Therefore, administrative litigation should differ from civil litigation that aims to resolve disputes between private persons. Still, case handling through the consent order system is basically activated by administrative measures, so the consent order system has nothing to do with criminal sanctions or prosecution in its nature. This can explain the fact that the proposed amendment of the MRFTA to introduce consent order system would not apply to criminal violations for which competition authority shall consult with the prosecutor general, as well as clear and grave violations or multiple-party concerned cartel cases requiring prosecution pursuant to Article 71 of the MRFTA. Moreover, by ensuring transparent implementation and keeping in place the procedure to actively reflect the third party's opinion and stakeholders', the consent order system contains an institutional tool to ensure third party protection. While there was much to regret in the progress of the discussion in vain at the National Assembly concerning the introduction of the system, legislative body's need for prudence and contemplation is quite understandable. Going forward, it is desired that there would be more progress in the discussion in favor of the system introduction when the legislatures both in Korea and the US ratify the Korea-US FTA.
#동의명령제도 #한미자유무역협정 #공정거래위원회 #유죄협상 #적법절차원리 #Consent Order #Free Trade Agreement #FTA #Korea Fair Trade Commission #KFTC #Plea Bargaining #due process of law

목차

등록된 정보가 없습니다.

참고문헌 (26)

참고문헌 신청
/ 2004 / Federal Trade Commission, File No. 031-0134 google schola / 2005 / EU Commission, Case COMP/A.39.116/B2 - Coca-Cola google schola / 2005 / Federal Trade Commission, File No. 051-0106 google schola / 2005 / 일본 공정취인위원회, 平成17年（判）第6? google schola / 2006 / 공정거래위원회, 2005경촉0867 google schola

함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문

논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!

이 논문의 저자 정보

최근 본 자료

전체보기

댓글(0)

0