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
최창수 (국회도서관)
저널정보
한국경쟁법학회 경쟁법연구 경쟁법연구 제31권
발행연도
2015.5
수록면
239 - 267 (29page)

이용수

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

초록· 키워드

오류제보하기
To the extent that our international society finds that international cartel conduct is strictly deemed to be illegal per se, relevant prescriptive and enforcement jurisdictions of antitrust laws have been expanded and strengthened as of now. On the other hand, as a legal tool to offset the reinforced jurisdictions of the world’s competition authorities, the principle of “international comity” is increasing its presence theoretically and practically. In the year 2014 international cartel case of air cargoes, the Korean Supreme Court seems to have indirectly recognized the principle of international comity by explicitly limiting the scope of Article 2-2 of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act (“MRFTA”). For purposes of application of the MRFTA to certain foreign conduct, with respect to the effect that foreign conduct may have on the domestic market and the antitrust injury resulting therefrom, the current substantive laws and the practical criteria for burden of proof should be enacted and enforced more strictly and restrictively. This article took the example of the U.S.’ antitrust laws considered one of the most active enforcer of its domestic laws extraterritorially, discussing the Foreign Trade Antitrust Improvements Act (“FTAIA”) together with the Sherman Act, and the practical implications that may be observed from the discussions. In the future, if Article 2-2 of MRFTA is amended by limiting the cases where foreign conduct may have an effect on the domestic market to those where foreign conduct may have a direct, substantial, and reasonably foreseeable effect on the domestic market, the U.S.’ FTAIA should be of help to Korea in terms of legislation and legal practice of antitrust laws. The Fair Trade Commission (“FTC”) and courts should establish internationally accepted proper and reasonably legal standards, and interpret and apply Article 2-2 of MRFTA within the standards. Further technical analysis is required in handling the burden of proof for the causation between a foreign conduct in question, its direct, substantial, and reasonably foreseeable effect on the domestic market, and the resultant antitrust injury. In particular, when the FTC is to impose fines against price-fixing conduct among international cartel activities, solid and systematic standards for application and legal reasoning should be developed, whereas although there is a hurdle to enforcement of antitrust laws, as for criminal prosecution or injunctive actions, it appears necessary to consider whether to apply our domestic laws positively with the good cause for protecting domestic consumers. As a practical matter, starting from the U.S. Supreme Court’s finding in the 2006 Arbaugh case and in particular after the 2010 Morrison case, the U.S. federal courts have a strong tendency to hold that the FTAIA is not for jurisdictional issues but for elements for the Sherman Act based claims. Therefore, domestic market players who have business places in the U.S. or have the intention to export goods into the U.S. are required to take proper countermeasures taking into consideration transaction costs resulting from the rapid change in the U.S. federal courts’ findings for the FTAIA.

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

이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문

최근 본 자료

전체보기

댓글(0)

0