반덤핑법과 경쟁법의 조화 방안

• 영문명: How to Harmonize the Anti-dumping Law and the Anti-trust Law? - Paper Cases and Soybean Oil Cases
• 발행기관: 경희법학연구소
• 저자명: 엄준현(Eom, Jun-Hyeon)
• 간행물 정보: 『KHU 글로벌 기업법무 리뷰』제2권 제2호, 43~78쪽, 전체 36쪽
• 주제분류: 법학 > 민법
• 파일형태: PDF
• 발행일자: 2009.12.30

영문 초록

The anti-dumping law (hereinafter referred to as “AD”) and the anti-trust law (hereinafter referred to as “AT”) have their own objectives, so they are different issue areas. The most fundamental distinction is the nature of price discrimination. Price comparison under AD is made on an ex-factory basis. However, price comparison under AT focuses on differences between the actual selling prices charged to customers. The injury standards are also different. AD is intended to protect domestic industry. In contrast, AT is designed to protect customers. Lastly, AT requires the specific intention of companies to form cartel and this fact is sometimes assumed to be true. But AD does not. At the same time, however, it is also true that the two areas sometimes conflict with each other. In other words, imposing the anti-dumping duty can support the domestic cartel by shutting off imports. In this study, cases involving paper and soybean crude oil were analyzed. As for paper cases, the Korea Trade Commission (hereinafter referred to as “KTC”) imposed the anti-dumping duties on the exporters of Southeast-Asia. As a price fixing cartel, the exporters placed the burden on the Korean consumers’ shoulders. But the Korea Fair Trade Commission (hereinafter referred to as “KFTC”) fined Southeast Asian paper manufacturers. The implication of these two paper cases is that AD and AT cannot but influence each other. With regards to the soybean crude oil, KFTC fined a domestic company for unfair business practice. After a few years, the application of anti-dumping investigation was submitted by domestic companies. The lesson of soybean crude oil is that imposing the anti-dumping duty may reinforce the domestic cartel by shutting off imports. To harmonize AD and AT, on one hand, the side effect of anti-dumping duty on competition in domestic market should be removed. Several suggestions were proposed: to expand meaning of “to protect the domestic industry” in Art. 51 of the CUSTOMS ACT to include protecting competition, to make use of lesser duty rule, to legislate regarding public interest clause, and to bridge AD investigation authority with AT authority. These suggestions were over interpretation, ineffective, or burdensome except for the last one. Art. 52(2) of the CUSTOMS ACT states that “price stability” can be considered. Based on this article, AD authority may consider AT issues in the AD investigation process. On the other hand, AD can help AT as well. In the paper case, KTC prevented Southeast Asian exporters from dumping to their third country (South Korea) by imposing AD duties. This caused the exporters to fail to control the sale of products in their domestic markets. Competition among them was inevitable. If this situation is prolonged, the cartel will collapse.

목차

Ⅰ. 서론

Ⅱ. 반덤핑법과 경쟁법의 규범충돌

Ⅲ. 복사용지 사건

Ⅳ. 대두유 사건

Ⅴ. 반덤핑법과 경쟁법의 조화로운 적용 방안

Ⅵ. 결론