본문 바로가기
비정규논문

The Countervailing Power Defense for Cartels Under the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act

Journal of Korean Law
약어 : JKL
2021 vol.20, no.2, pp.465 - 496
DOI : 10.23110/jkl.2021.20.2.004
발행기관 : 서울대학교 아시아태평양법연구소
연구분야 : 법학
Copyright © 서울대학교 아시아태평양법연구소
인용한 논문 수 :   -  
3 회 열람

Despite being often raised by respondents being investigated by competition authorities, the countervailing power defense for collusive behavior under the Monopoly Regulation & Fair Trade Act has received relatively little attention so far. Two strands of thought continue to this day, one being that such collusion would increase market concentration by introducing newly minted market power into the market by virtue of the cartel. Another stand of thought is that all or part of the benefits garnered through the countervailing power created by the cartel will be passed on to consumers, thereby increasing their welfare. A closer look at the theory shows that indeed as the market moves from a monopoly to a bilateral monopoly (where the input seller and buyer are a monopoly and monopsony, respectively), consumers may be better off than before as output increases to more optimal levels. There are, however, important caveats to this observation, as various factors may weaken or even reverse the welfare gains mentioned above. Examples include a breakdown in negotiations between the monopolist and monopsonist, and an increase in market power or collusion on the part of the cartelists in the downstream market or other markets where they are present. Indeed, the theory of the second best teaches us that the welfare effects of both inserting and removing the countervailing cartel will be indeterminate, making it difficult for authorities to properly judge the legality of such cartels. Some have argued that a countervailing power defense should be allowed, albeit restrictively and only under certain conditions such as the lack of market power in the downstream market. However, the likelihood of high administrative costs, and concerns of underdeterrence gives one pause in allowing such a defense even in its restricted form from a policy perspective. In any event, even if one were to allow for such a defense, the cartelist(s) should have the burden of proof of showing that their behavior had actually increased consumer welfare. Proving such, however, will likely be a daunting task.

Countervailing Cartel, Countervailing Power, Collusion, Monopoly, Monopsony, Bilateral Monopoly, Theory of the Second Best, Soju Cartel

  • 1. [기타] / 2005 / Fair Trade Commission Resolution No. 2005-013, Aug. 11, 2005, 2004Sim-I2019
  • 2. [기타] / 2010 / Fair Trade Commission Resolution No. 2010-059, June 16, 2010, 2009Ka-Chong2722
  • 3. [인터넷자료] Vauhini Vara / Did Apple Fix E-Book Prices for the Greater Good? / New Yorker
  • 4. [단행본] Einer Elhauge / 2011 / Global Competition Law and Economics : 261
  • 5. [단행본] Alison Jones / 2010 / EU Competition Law : 349 ~
  • 6. [기타] / 2005 / Fair Trade Commission Resolution No. 2005-013, 2004Sim-I2019
  • 7. [기타] / Seoul High Court [Seoul High Ct.]
  • 8. [보고서] Young-Dae Lee / 2010 / Legal Regulation of Monopsony, Issues and Tasks in the Fair Trade Act : 76 ~
  • 9. [학술지] Oh-Seung Kwon / 1990 / Jungsogieobui Hyeopdonghwawa Dokjeomgyujebeop [Cooperation of Small Businesses and the Monopoly Regulation Act] / Kyung Hee L. J / 89 : 89
  • 10. [학술지] 조혜신 / 2014 / 경쟁정책과 중소기업정책의 조화를 위한 독점규제법의 과제 / 경쟁법연구 / 29 : 464 ~ kci
  • 11. [기타] / Supreme Court [S. Ct.]
  • 12. [단행본] Seung-Han Oh / 2010 / Issues and Tasks of the Fair Trade Act : 166
  • 13. [학술지] Warren S. Grimes / 2001 / The Sherman Act's Unintended Bias Against Lilliputians: Small Players' Collective Action as a Counter to Relational Market Power / Antitrust L. J / 69 : 195
  • 14. [학술지] Laura Alexander / 2007 / Monopsony and the Consumer Harm Standard / Geo. L. J / 95 : 1640 ~
  • 15. [학술지] Seung-Yeop Baek / 2012 / Gyeongseoungcarteleui Gyeongwooaedo geu Wibeobseong Pandane Isseoseo Gwanryeon Sijangui Hwoekjeongyi Pilyohanji Yeobu Deung [Whether Demarcation of Related Markets is Needed in Assessing Legality Even in the Case of Hard Cartels] / Supr eme Court Cases / 91 : 755
  • 16. [학술지] Jae-Hun Jeong / 2013 / Boodanghan Gongdonghaengwiwa Gwanryeonshijangui Hwoekjeong [Unfair Collusion and Demarcation of Related Markets] / Beopjo / 686 : 305 ~
  • 17. [단행본] Young-Cheol Im / 2007 / Gongjeonggeolaebeob [Fair Trade Act] : 222
  • 18. [학술지] Tae-Won Song / 2013 / Necessity to Consider Factors of Unfairness when Executing Penalty Surcharges for Collaborative Acts / Dong-A L. R / 60 : 232
  • 19. [단행본] Myung-Jo Yang / 2015 / Gyeongjebeob [Economic Law] : 329
  • 20. [기타] / Examination Standards for Joint Act V.1.(b)
  • 21. [단행본] R. G. Lipsey / 2011 / United States Antitrust Law and Economics : 175
  • 22. [단행본] Phillip Areeda / 2004 / Antitrust Analysis : 28
  • 23. [학술지] John B. Kirkwood / 2012 / Powerful Buyers and Merger Enforcement / Bos. U. L. Rev / 92 : 1483
  • 24. [학술지] Hillary Greene / 2011 / Non-Per Se Treatment of Buyer Price-Fixing in Intellectual Property Settings / Duke L. & Tech. Rev / 10 : 1
  • 25. [기타] / U.S. Supreme Court [S. Ct.], Mandeville Island Farms v. American Crystal Sugar, 334 U.S. 219
  • 26. [단행본] Roger D. Blair / 2011 / Monopsony in Law and Economics : 45 ~
  • 27. [기타] / 1989 / In the U.S., Balmoral Cinema v. Allied Artists Pictures Corp., 885 F.2d 313
  • 28. [학술지] Paul L. Yde / 1996 / Merger Efficiencies: Reconsidering the “Passing-On”Requirement / Antitrust L. J / 64 : 735
  • 29. [단행본] Phillip E. Areeda / 2012 / 3A Antitrust Law: an Analysis of Antitrust Principl es and their Appl ication : 27 ~
  • 30. [학술지] Roger D. Blair / 1989 / A Pedagogical Treatment of Bilateral Monopoly / Southern Econ. J / 55 : 831
  • 31. [학술지] Peter J. Hamer / 2004 / Monopsony as an Agency and Regulatory Problem in Health Care / Antitrust L. J / 71 : 949
  • 32. [학술지] Jonathan B. Baker / 2008 / Merger to Monopoly to Serve a Single Buyer: Comment / Antitrust L. J / 75 : 637
  • 33. [단행본] Phillip E. Areeda / 2012 / 12 Antitrust Law: an Analysis of Antitrust Principl es and their Application : 163
  • 34. [학술지] Tom Campbell / 2007 / Bilateral Monopoly in Mergers / Antitrust L. J / 74 : 521
  • 35. [학술지] John B. Kirkwood / 2014 / Collusion to Control a Powerful Customer: Amazon, E-Books, and Antitrust Policy / U. Miami L. Rev / 69 : 1
  • 36. [기타] Chris Sagers / 2012 / United States v. Apple and the Contemporary Legitimacy of Antitrust, 6 CPI Antitrust Chronicl e 1, 3