공정거래법상 일감 몰아주기 규제에 관한 검토 = Review about the Regulation on Favoritism in Trade Volume under the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

So-called “favoritism in trade volume” can be defined as the broadest, broad and narrow concept. The prohibition of unfair assistance under the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act (“MRFTA”) is aimed at the broad form of favoritism, while the prohibition of provision of undue benefits is aimed at the narrow form of favoritism that involved illicit wealth transfer.
The economic theories of the internal assistance hypothesis, the tunneling hypothesis, and the rational transaction hypothesis have been proposed to explain favoritism in trade volume, and these theories have influenced the legislation and enforcement of the prohibition of unfair assistance and provision of undue benefits. Article 45(1)(9) of the MRFTA prohibits unfair assistance based on the internal assistance hypothesis, and Article 47(1) of the MRFTA prohibits provision of undue benefits based on the tunneling hypothesis. In addition, Article 47(2) of the MRFTA excludes the application of the MRFTA to certain transactions that are inevitable to achieve the purpose of the transaction, such as increasing the efficiency, security, and urgency of the enterprise, and the court recognizes justification in the case of unfair assistance, which is understood to be a partial acceptance of the position of the reasonable transaction hypothesis.
Due to the use of indeterminate concepts in the prohibition of unfair assistance clause, there were discussions on whether favoritism in trade volume is subject to regulation and whether tunneling type transactions within a business group can be regulated by the same clause, and the courts took a positive stance on the former and a negative stance on the latter. In response, the National Assembly enacted a new clause prohibiting provision of undue benefits to related parties to directly respond to the problem such as favoritism in trade volume within a business group.
As mentioned above, the requirements for establishing the unfair assistance and the provision of undue benefits are different. Specifically, the actor requirement is broader in the case of unfair assistance, the scale of the assistance, i.e., the excessive economic benefits, must be examined in the conduct requirement, and the unfairness requirement must be reviewed in relation to inhibition of market competition or concentration of economic power, but the illicit transfer of wealth is not considered. In the case of the provision of undue benefits, the MRFTA limited the scope of application to transactions within the business group subject to disclosure through the actor requirement, and requires the existence of an internal decision-making process, such as the existence of a process of rational consideration or comparison, through the conduct requirement, while the unfairness requirement does not consider concerns about inhibition of market competition or concentration of economic power, but focuses on whether there is an illicit transfer of wealth. Therefore, the prohibition of unfair assistance the prohibition of provision of undue benefits should be viewed as a parallel relationship, and the scope of the benefit of undue benefit provision is not limited to tangible or financial, nor is the existence of excessive benefit required.

참고문헌 (Reference)

• 1 최난설헌, "한진그룹의 ‘특수관계인에 대한 부당한 이익제공행위’ 사건 대법원 판례 검토" 35 : 2022
• 2 최정표, "재벌체제의 시장경쟁제한효과" 16 : 2006
• 3 이호영, "입법의지를 무너뜨린 입법 부주의-공정거래법상 사익편취의 ‘부당한 이익’ 요건관련-" 41 : 2022
• 4 정준혁, "일감몰아주기 법제에 대한 입법 평가" 19 (19): 2020
• 5 신영수, "일감몰아주기 문제의 접근방식과 규제개선의 방향" (163) : 2012
• 6 김성훈, "유럽연합 경쟁법상 봉쇄효과에 관한 연구" 22 : 2010
• 7 박해식, "상품용역거래와 부당지원행위의 성부" (52) : 2004
• 8 정재훈, "상당한 규모의 거래를 이용한 특수관계인에 대한 이익제공행위의 판단 기준" 43 : 2021
• 9 서정, "부당한 지원행위 규제에 관한 연구" 서울대학교 2008
• 10 최승재, "부당지원행위와 터널링 규제에 대한 연구" 18 (18): 2009
• 11 한현옥, "부당지원행위(내부거래)규제의 타당성 검토 및 개선방안" 한국경제연구원 2003
• 12 임영철, "물량몰아주기 어떻게 접근할 것인가?" (149) : 2010
• 13 권오승, "독점규제법-이론과 실무" 법문사 2023
• 14 이승철, "내부거래의 경제분석과 경쟁정책" 한국경제연구원 1999
• 15 신영수, "공정거래법상 현저한 규모에 의한 지원행위(물량몰아주기)의 위법성 판단기준" (64) : 2012
• 16 이선희, "공정거래법상 특수관계인에 대한 부당한 이익제공행위 금지규정에 있어서 입증책임 : 대법원 2022. 5. 12. 선고 2017두63993 판결" (212) : 2022
• 17 백승엽, "공정거래법상 일감몰아주기에 관한 연구" 서울대학교 2017
• 18 조혜신, "공정거래법상 부당한 이익제공행위의 ‘부당성’ 판단에 관한 판례 분석-‘경제력집중’ 개념의 의의 및 위상을 중심으로 –" 49 : 2024
• 19 서동원, "財閥의 過去, 現在, 未來" 15 (15): 1996
• 20 이호영, "經濟力集中抑制를 위한 競爭法的規制의 有用性과 限界" 24 (24): 2007
• 21 강정희, "‘특수관계인에 대한 부당한 이익제공 금지’에 관한 대법원 판례 분석" 13 (13): 2023
• 22 Johnson, Simon, "Tunneling" 90 (90): 2000
• 23 T. Khanna, "Business Groups and Social Welfare in Emerging Markets: Existing Evidence and Unanswered Questions" 44 : 2000
• 24 이승재, "2020년 개정 공정거래법의 분석 1 : 사익편취 규제" (106) : 2021