담합·불공정거래 손해배상 소송 현황 및 개선방안 - 왜 국내에는 징벌적 손해배상 사례가 없는가 = Lawsuit against Cartel and Unfair Trade – Why there is no punitive damages case in Korea?

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

In the field of fair trade, punitive damages have been introduced in the Subcontracting Act, which is a special law of unfair trade practices, and have recently been enacted for cartels. However, despite the fact that the Subcontracting Act has been operating for punitive damages for more than 15 years, there have been only few cases where actual judgments have been made based on this (there seems to be only one case of a lower court ordering a 1.5 multiplied compensation). The punitive damages provisions related to the cartel are also expected to be rarely applied in the future.
The reason is as follows. First, in Korea, the system of classifying civil and criminal liability, that is, retribution for violations of law is punished by the government, and the damages is compensated by a civil lawsuit. Therefore, imposing liability in excess of actual damages instead of punishment is not familiar in Korea.
Second, in cases where law enforcement is heavily dependent on the administrative measures of the Fair Trade Commission, the total amount of liability may be excessive if a punitive damage is imposed on a law violator who has already received punishment such as fines. Therefore, civil courts are reluctant to make judgments to compensate for damages in excess.
Third, in the cartel sector, especially in the bid rigging sector, the benefits are concentrated on 'powerful buyers' such as the government, public institutions, and large corporations, while consumers who lack the ability to carry out lawsuits do not enjoy the benefits, and the polarization phenomenon is aggravated. It is also likely to deepen the imbalance in law enforcement between bid rigging and other types of cartels.
This paper points out the problems of the current punitive damages system based on the cartel and Subcontracting Act and proposes measures for improvement.

참고문헌 (Reference)

• 1 서정, "한국의 사적 집행 사례와 시사점" 한국경쟁법학회 28 : 144-175, 2013
• 2 주진열, "최근 공정거래관련 집단소송제 도입을 위한 공정거래법개정안에 대한 고찰" 법학연구소 29 (29): 555-577, 2012
• 3 김차동, "징벌적 손해배상제도 도입방안에 관한 연구" 한국법경제학회 13 (13): 365-398, 2016
• 4 대법원 사법정책연구원, "징벌적 손해배상의 적정한 운영방안에 관한 연구" 2019
• 5 김차동, "집단소송제 및 징벌적 손해배상제도 도입시 증가될 것으로 예상되는 공정거래법 위반행위 억지효과에 관한 실증적 분석" 한국경쟁법학회 29 : 359-400, 2014
• 6 전승재, "입찰담합 유형별 과징금 산정방식의 제문제 - 공정거래법 시행령 제9조 제1항 단서의 해석론 및 관련매출액 중복 산입 쟁점을 중심으로" 한국경쟁법학회 39 : 300-332, 2019
• 7 매일경제, "시민단체, 교복3사 담합행위 집단 손배소 제기"
• 8 공정거래위원회, "시멘트 업체들의 시장점유율 등 담합 행위 제재"
• 9 법률신문, "소송실무 간과 ‘징벌적 배상제’… ‘제도정비’ 목소리 높다"
• 10 김차동, "민사적 구제수단(私的執行)의 행정·형사적 구제수단(公的執行)에 대한 비교우위" 법학연구소 31 (31): 447-470, 2014
• 11 이정아, "담합으로 인한 손해배상액의 산정에 관한 경제학적 분석방법 및 규범적 통제" 한국법학원 166 : 344-391, 2018
• 12 신영수, "공정거래법상 징벌적 손해배상제도 도입의 쟁점과 전망" 한국법학원 163 : 36-63, 2017
• 13 최난설헌, "공정거래법상 집단소송제 도입을 위한 논의와 최근 동향" 법무부 (63) : 80-110, 2013
• 14 공정거래위원회, "공정거래 법집행체계 개선 TF 논의결과 최종보고서" 2018
• 15 Harrington, J., "Post-Cartel Pricing during Litigation" LII (LII): 2004
• 16 공정거래위원회, "2018년도 통계연보"