공정거래 법제 40년사의 전환점으로 기록될 지난 2020.12월 「독점규제 및 공정거래에 관한 법률」(“공정거래법”) 전부개정은 그동안 공정거래법의 적용과 집행에 있어 입법적 미비점으로 지적되어 온 분야에 대한 보완사항을 상당 부분 포함하고 있다. 대표적인 규제공백의 개선 분야로는, 실체법 분야에서는 정보교환을 통한 우회적인 담합행위의 규제 실효성 강화, 절차법 분야에서는 사인의 금지청구제 도입을 통한 민사적 구제수단의 확충을 들 수 있을 것이다.
개정법 제40조는 그동안 ‘합의의 도그마’에 갇혀있던 대법원 판례의 해석적 한계를 넘어 정보교환 행위에 대한 공정위의 적극적인 법 집행을 가능하게 할 것으로 전망된다. 다만, 기업의 효율성제고에 기여하는 일상적 경영활동의 일부로 행해지는 정보교환에 대한 과잉규제 우려를 해소하고 예측가능성을 확보하기 위한 관련 지침의 마련이 되어야 함께 이루어져야 할 것으로 보인다. 개정법 제108조에 따라 도입된 금지청구제는 공정위의 한정된 자원에 따른 신고사건 처리의 어려움을 사적집행의 영역에서 보완해줄 수 있을 것이라는 점에서 긍정적 효과가 기대되며, 당사자 간 증거편재 문제 개선, 금지명령의 실효성 확보 등의 입법적 보완에 대해 추후 고려해 볼 수 있을 것이다.
December 9, 2020, the date of the Korean antitrust overhaul first time ever in Korea, was marked by the Korean antitrust community a milestone in the 40-year legislative history of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act(“MRFTA”). The New MRFTA is expected to be an effective gap filler, as the amended provisions are likely to cure many, if not all, loopholes existing in the current law. The two most notable gap fillers among the recent amendmenets will probably be the cartelization of the information exchanges(in substantive law) and the newly introduced injunctive reliefs(in procedural law). New Article 40 of the MRFTA will fuel the KFTC’s more rigorous law enforcement of the anticompetitive stand-alone information exchanges, freeing the KFTC from the Supreme Court precedents’narrow interpretation of the meaning of the ‘agreement’called the “Dogma of ‘Agreement’”. Concerns about false positives and predictability are still lingering, as it is unclear how the KFTC can draw the line between efficient information exchanges conducted as part of daily business activities and disguised form of harmful cartels. The introduction of injunctions under new Article 108 will provide a previously unavailable form of private remedy for antitrust plaintiffs who were left with no institutions to listen to their grievences if the KFTC either dismissed or closed the case with no finding of antitrust violation. An effectiveness of this new injunctive reliefs will depend on, however, further legislations such as introducing discovery tools to cure the parties’information asymmetry and making clearer the permitted boundaries of the court’s orders.
December 9, 2020, the date of the Korean antitrust overhaul first time ever in Korea, was marked by the Korean antitrust community a milestone in the 40-year legislative history of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act(“MRFTA”). The New MRFTA is expected to be an effective gap filler, as the amended provisions are likely to cure many, if not all, loopholes existing in the current law. The two most notable gap fillers among the recent amendmenets will probably be the cartelization of the information exchanges(in substantive law) and the newly introduced injunctive reliefs(in procedural law). New Article 40 of the MRFTA will fuel the KFTC’s more rigorous law enforcement of the anticompetitive stand-alone information exchanges, freeing the KFTC from the Supreme Court precedents’narrow interpretation of the meaning of the ‘agreement’called the “Dogma of ‘Agreement’”. Concerns about false positives and predictability are still lingering, as it is unclear how the KFTC can draw the line between efficient information exchanges conducted as part of daily business activities and disguised form of harmful cartels. The introduction of injunctions under new Article 108 will provide a previously unavailable form of private remedy for antitrust plaintiffs who were left with no institutions to listen to their grievences if the KFTC either dismissed or closed the case with no finding of antitrust violation. An effectiveness of this new injunctive reliefs will depend on, however, further legislations such as introducing discovery tools to cure the parties’information asymmetry and making clearer the permitted boundaries of the court’s orders.
