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
주진열 (부산대학교)
저널정보
한국경쟁법학회 경쟁법연구 경쟁법연구 제32권
발행연도
2015.11
수록면
181 - 227 (47page)

이용수

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

초록· 키워드

오류제보하기
In October 2011, the Supreme Court affirmed the Seoul High Court’s 2007Nu8623 decision which recognized that the plaintiff SK Telecommunication (SKT) which provides mobile telecommunication service as well as online music service Melon, neither abused its market dominant position in mobile telecommunication market to restrain competition, nor undermined consumers’ benefit in online music service market, by its closed Digital Right Management (DRM) policy. First of all, although SKT asked mobile phone makers to provide SKT MP3 phones with can play DRM MP3 music files provided by Melon (Melon files), it did never force its telecommunication serve customers who uses SKT MP3 phones to buy Melon files. There was no tying arrangement. However, the lower court erroneously accepted the Korean Fair Trade Commission (KFTC)’s argument that SKT did force its users to buy Melon files by de facto tying. In addition, KFTC never proved that SKT occurred any anti-competitive effect or adverse effect of consumers in the Online music market through SKT MP3 phones. Instead, KFTC just argued that the rapid growth of Melon in the Online music market was the result of abuse of dominant position of SKT in the mobile telecommunication market through SKT MP3 phones. Again, the lower court erroneously decided that the rapid growth of Melon was the result of leveraging dominant position of SKT through SKT MP3 phones. But the lower court rightly denied ‘abuse’ of dominant position of SKT. The Melon Court just affirmed the main part of the lower court’s decision: denying abuse of dominant position of SKT. Therefore, contrary to some commentaries on the Melon case, it cannot be said that the Court affirmed theories of de facto tying as well as monopoly leveraging acknowledged by the lower. To avoid any misunderstanding with the meaning of the Melon case, of course, the Court should have appointed that the lower court’s theories of de facto tying and monopoly leveraging was absurd and unacceptable under Korean competition law.

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