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

추천
검색

논문 기본 정보

자료유형
학술저널
저자정보
이봉의 (서울대학교)
저널정보
한국경쟁법학회 경쟁법연구 경쟁법연구 제31권
발행연도
2015.5
수록면
207 - 238 (32page)

이용수

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

초록· 키워드

오류제보하기
Regulatory purpose or legislative history is a starting point for proper interpretation of the Korea Anti-Monopoly Act(hereafter “the Act”) containing many vague terminologies. So-called teleologic interpretation cannot, however, totally rule out the written law; otherwise the interpretative power of the KFTC or the courts threatens legislative power of the Congress and the division of powers would be impaired. Notwithstanding the legislative intent that the in 2013 newly adopted prohibition of unfair profits provision to the affiliated person of Chaebols(§23-2 of the Act) shall be applied de facto per se, the de-coupling between §23 I No.7 and §23-2 seems to be far. According to the systematic understanding of the Act as a whole, the term “unfair” should be given any unique role in order to differentiate various form of profit transfers from affiliated companies to the owners and their families. The prohibition of unfair profits provision under the Act should be assessed in terms of control of economic overall concentration, the very value of national economy. From this perspective, the “unfairness” in §23-2 should unfold two distinct functions: first, interpretation of reasonable reduction, which enables the KFTC to take into account the motive and size of the transferred profits and other objective justifications; second, differentiation from §23 I No.7, which affords within §23-2 room for considering unsound ownership concentration or expedient wealth transfer between chaebol generations.

목차

등록된 정보가 없습니다.

참고문헌 (0)

참고문헌 신청

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