학술논문
보험사들의 부당한 공동행위에 대한 판례평석 - 대법원 2006.11.23선고 2004두8323판결
이용수 242
- 영문명
- Case Review on Improper Concerted Acts by Insurance Companies
- 발행기관
- 중앙대학교 법학연구원
- 저자명
- 조성국(Cho Sung-Kuk)
- 간행물 정보
- 『법학논문집』法學論文集 第30輯 第2號, 285~304쪽, 전체 20쪽
- 주제분류
- 법학 > 법학
- 파일형태
- 발행일자
- 2006.12.30
5,200원
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
Ten domestic insurance companies decided to abolish some free “emergency services” from Jan. 1, 1998 and implemented the plan. Then they abolished five other free services one after the other and charged for them one after the other. Korea Fair Trade Commission(KFTC) investigated the matter and issued a cease and desist order and imposed surcharges on the companies. The companies brought the case before Seoul High Court, which rejected it. They appealed to the Supreme Court.
Sec. 19(5) of Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act prescribes “where two or more enterprisers are committing any of the acts listed in each subparagraph of paragraph (1) which practically restrict competition in a particular business area, they shall be presumed to have committed an improper concerted act despite the absence of an express agreement to engage in such act.” This legislation was affected by conscious parallelism developed in the United States cases. Parallel acts in the United States are one element of circumstantial evidences which agreement can be inferred from. Those are about factual inference. However, Korean Supreme Court ruled Sec. 19(5) is about legal presumption. For it, KFTC should prove two points; parallel acts and anticompetitiveness. The Supreme Court ruled KFTC succeeded in proving them. The companies resorted to the Sec. 58 of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act. According to it, “[t]his Act shall not apply to lawful acts of an enterprise or an trade association conducted in accordance with other Acts and subordinate statutes.” They argued they followed administrative guidances by the competent authorities. However, the Supreme Court did not accept the argument to the effect that the section should be read narrowly.
The ruling by Supreme Court is meaningful in that it clarified the meaning of the Sec. 19(5) and Sec. 58 and applied stringent standards to the cartel case.
Sec. 19(5) of Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act prescribes “where two or more enterprisers are committing any of the acts listed in each subparagraph of paragraph (1) which practically restrict competition in a particular business area, they shall be presumed to have committed an improper concerted act despite the absence of an express agreement to engage in such act.” This legislation was affected by conscious parallelism developed in the United States cases. Parallel acts in the United States are one element of circumstantial evidences which agreement can be inferred from. Those are about factual inference. However, Korean Supreme Court ruled Sec. 19(5) is about legal presumption. For it, KFTC should prove two points; parallel acts and anticompetitiveness. The Supreme Court ruled KFTC succeeded in proving them. The companies resorted to the Sec. 58 of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act. According to it, “[t]his Act shall not apply to lawful acts of an enterprise or an trade association conducted in accordance with other Acts and subordinate statutes.” They argued they followed administrative guidances by the competent authorities. However, the Supreme Court did not accept the argument to the effect that the section should be read narrowly.
The ruling by Supreme Court is meaningful in that it clarified the meaning of the Sec. 19(5) and Sec. 58 and applied stringent standards to the cartel case.
목차
Ⅰ. 사건의 개요
Ⅱ. 공정거래법 제19조 제5항 부당한 공동행위 추정조항의 법리
Ⅲ. 대상 판결의 평석
Ⅳ. 결어
〈Summary〉
Ⅱ. 공정거래법 제19조 제5항 부당한 공동행위 추정조항의 법리
Ⅲ. 대상 판결의 평석
Ⅳ. 결어
〈Summary〉
키워드
해당간행물 수록 논문
- 중앙대학교 법학연구소 문화예술법센터 “문화예술과 법” 세미나 외
- 공적연금 법제와 실질적 평등
- 우리나라 예술가의 지위에 관한 보호법제 - 방송작가의 단결권을 중심으로
- 미국 독점금지법 준수를 위한 “반독점법 준수프로그램(Antitrust Compliance Program)”의 효용성과 그 내용에 대한 실무적 고찰
- 船主責任相互保險(P&I Insurance)의 法的 性質
- 금융기관 적기시정조치 제도에 대한 소고
- 계약교섭의 일방파기와 손해배상책임 - 대상판결 : 대법원 2003. 4. 11. 선고 2001다53059 판결
- 캐나다 예술가지위법에 관한 연구
- 차임증액청구가 인용된 경우 증액된 차임부분에 대한 지체책임의 시기에 관하여
- 전시 계엄법제의 합리적 운용에 관한 고찰
- 21세기 패러다임으로서의 지속가능한 개발개념
- 주상복합건축물의 개념과 특례(特例)
- 刊行辭
- 예술인 정책의 필요성 및 기본 방향
- 저작권 제한원리의 헌법적 해석
- 보험사들의 부당한 공동행위에 대한 판례평석 - 대법원 2006.11.23선고 2004두8323판결
- 유네스코 예술가지위에 관한 권고의 배경과 시사점
참고문헌
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!