독점규제법상 재판매가격유지행위의 성격과 규제체계에 관한 소고

Abstract

, RPM, 브랜드 내 경쟁, 브랜드간 경쟁제한, 수직적 거래제한, 당연위법, , 강제성, 구속조건, 비교형량, RPM약정, 경쟁촉진효과, resale price maintenance, intrabrand competition, interbrand competition, vertical restraints of trade, per se illegal, rule of reason, coersion, restrictive con

This article aims to clarify the status of Resale Price Maintenance (hereafter

RPM) in the Korean Anti-Monopoly Act (hereafter the Act) and to analyse

some regulatory issues of RPM. The Act prohibits vertical non-price restraints

like exclusive dealership, geographic market division, and vertical price fixing

(RPM) in some separated provisions and therefore any common approach to

assess their illegality has not been found yet.

Above all, in case of RPM, the Act defines it as the act whereby an

Enterprise which manufactures and sells certain goods fixes the resale price of

such goods and coerces other Enterprises, which purchase and resell such goods,

to resell the said goods at such fixed price, or imposes on such other

Enterprises restrictions on the transaction to achieve such end. The definition

focuses, unlike U.S. per se approach emphasing the restraint of intrabrand

competition in the Act, on the coersion and restriction similar to some other

unfair trade practices. In this regard, the Act doesnt adopt per se rule against

RPM and allows no room for balancing interests.

Contrary to de facto unilateral coersion of resail price, RPM agreement should

be assessed in terms of interbrand competition or competition on the relevant

market and be subject to the prohibition of abusive conducts by a market

dominant undertaking. In this case, the Competition Authority should take market

structure, intent and/or effect of that RPM, size and market share of competitors,

efficiency-enhancing character etc. into full account. Whether the intrabrand...