학술논문
경쟁질서와 사법상의 법률관계
이용수 161
- 영문명
- Restraints of Competition in the Private Law Perspective
- 발행기관
- 한국사법학회(구 한국비교사법학회)
- 저자명
- 권오승(Oh-Seung Kwon) 이민호(Min-Ho Lee)
- 간행물 정보
- 『비교사법』比較私法 제14권 제1호, 77~107쪽, 전체 31쪽
- 주제분류
- 법학 > 법학
- 파일형태
- 발행일자
- 2007.03.30
6,520원
구매일시로부터 72시간 이내에 다운로드 가능합니다.
이 학술논문 정보는 (주)교보문고와 각 발행기관 사이에 저작물 이용 계약이 체결된 것으로, 교보문고를 통해 제공되고 있습니다.
국문 초록
영문 초록
The enforcement of the Monopoly Regulations and Fair Trade Act (hereinafter the “MRFTA") has been ensured primarily by public enforcement such as corrective measures and administrative penalties imposed by the Korea Fair Trade Commission (hereinafter the “KFTC"). However, such public enforcement may not cover all the violation of the MRFTA. Thus, it is important to activate private enforcement to enhance the effectiveness of the MRFTA. Private persons may argue the invalidity of a contract, claim damages or seek injunctive reliefs against practices violating the MRFTA.
As the MRFTA is the fundamental law to secure the economic system, the practices violating the MRFTA should be null and void under the Article 103 of the Civil Act because they contravene the good morals and public policy, in particular the economic policy. However, the practices may be acknowledged as valid in spite of their illegality where the declaration of invalidity significantly impedes the assurance of trade or invokes excessive harm to the violating party though the violation is insignificant. It may also be improper to declare invalidity depending on the characteristic of the contravened provision.
Damage claims based on the MRFTA is expected to increase in the future since the relevant provisions of the MRFTA were significantly modified in favor of plaintiff by the 2004 amendment. Further, the legislation of treble damages and class action would be necessary to activate private damage claims under the MRFTA. However, current damage claim system and civil procedure are not familiar with such legislations. Therefore, they should be reviewed carefully before introducing to our legal system, considering the entire frame of damage claim system and civil procedure.
However, the damage claim may be an insufficient remedy for the injured party. Thus, the legislation of injunctive relief, by which a private person is entitled to file a suit to seek prohibition of practices contravening the MRFTA, should be considered positively. The injunctive relief should be allowed against abusive behaviors of dominant position and cartels as well as unfair trade practices, whereas it should not be allowed on the basis of violations in connection with mergers and concentration of economic power. In the event that injunctive relief is legislated, legislation of system for cooperation between courts and the KFTC is also necessary.
As the MRFTA is the fundamental law to secure the economic system, the practices violating the MRFTA should be null and void under the Article 103 of the Civil Act because they contravene the good morals and public policy, in particular the economic policy. However, the practices may be acknowledged as valid in spite of their illegality where the declaration of invalidity significantly impedes the assurance of trade or invokes excessive harm to the violating party though the violation is insignificant. It may also be improper to declare invalidity depending on the characteristic of the contravened provision.
Damage claims based on the MRFTA is expected to increase in the future since the relevant provisions of the MRFTA were significantly modified in favor of plaintiff by the 2004 amendment. Further, the legislation of treble damages and class action would be necessary to activate private damage claims under the MRFTA. However, current damage claim system and civil procedure are not familiar with such legislations. Therefore, they should be reviewed carefully before introducing to our legal system, considering the entire frame of damage claim system and civil procedure.
However, the damage claim may be an insufficient remedy for the injured party. Thus, the legislation of injunctive relief, by which a private person is entitled to file a suit to seek prohibition of practices contravening the MRFTA, should be considered positively. The injunctive relief should be allowed against abusive behaviors of dominant position and cartels as well as unfair trade practices, whereas it should not be allowed on the basis of violations in connection with mergers and concentration of economic power. In the event that injunctive relief is legislated, legislation of system for cooperation between courts and the KFTC is also necessary.
목차
Ⅰ. 서론
Ⅱ. 공적 집행
Ⅲ. 경쟁질서 위반행위의 사법상 효력
Ⅳ. 독점규제법 위반행위와 사인의 손해배상청구
Ⅴ. 독점규제법 위반행위에 대한 금지청구
Ⅵ. 결론
【참고문헌】
【Abstract】
Ⅱ. 공적 집행
Ⅲ. 경쟁질서 위반행위의 사법상 효력
Ⅳ. 독점규제법 위반행위와 사인의 손해배상청구
Ⅴ. 독점규제법 위반행위에 대한 금지청구
Ⅵ. 결론
【참고문헌】
【Abstract】
키워드
독점규제법
경제질서
공정하고 자유로운 경쟁
시장지배 적지위 남용행위
부당한 공동행위
불공정거래행위
무효
손해배상청구
금지청구
3배배상제도
집단소송
Monopoly Regulations and Fair Trade Act
Public Policy for Economy
Fair and Free Competition
Abuse of Dominant Position
Cartel
Unfair Trade Practice
Invalidity
Damage Claims
Injunctive Relief
Tremble Damages
Class Action
해당간행물 수록 논문
- 학회활동 현황(2007.1.1 - 2007.3.31) 외
- 단시간근로관련 일본의 최근 제도와 우리나라와의 비교고찰
- 증권투자권유규제에 대한 소고 - 자본시장통합법(안)과 관련하여
- 증권거래법상 불공정거래행위 금지규정에 관한 연구 - 사모증권에 대한 적용가능성을 중심으로
- 독점규제법상 기업결합의 규제체계와 효율성 항변에 대한 고찰
- 부동산 증권화에서의 공유ㆍ단체법리 - 일본의 부동산 증권화 사례와 관련하여
- 片面的 獨立當事者參加
- 지주회사의 현대적 의의
- 시장지배적 지위의 남용
- 파생상품과 도박규제
- 패러디의 法理的 근거와 허용범위
- 저당권의 물상대위와 채권양도ㆍ전부명령
- Rethinking Kintner - Foreign Law Impact on the U.S. Check-the-Box Regime
- 미국 U.C.C. 하에서의 진정 리스와 리스가장 금융거래의 구분
- 불공정거래행위와 공서양속
- 獨占規制法上 損害賠償請求訴訟의 諸問題
- 유럽회사법의 발전동향 - 영업소의 설치ㆍ이전의 자유와 회사조직형식을 중심으로
- 美國法上 理事의 責任과 義務 - Fiduciary Duty를 중심으로
- 도산절차에서의 쌍무계약의 처리와 관련한 두 가지 의문
- 사해신탁에 대한 취소와 원상회복
- 競爭秩序 違反行爲에 대한 不法行爲責任
- 프랑스 民法上 契約의 目的 - 信義則에 基한 確定의 制限
- 의료과오소송의 입증책임전환론
- 刊行辭
- 경쟁질서와 사법상의 법률관계
참고문헌
관련논문
최근 이용한 논문
교보eBook 첫 방문을 환영 합니다!
신규가입 혜택 지급이 완료 되었습니다.
바로 사용 가능한 교보e캐시 1,000원 (유효기간 7일)
지금 바로 교보eBook의 다양한 콘텐츠를 이용해 보세요!