獨占規制法 違反行爲者를 被告로 하는 間接購買者 損害賠償請求訴訟의 法的 問題 = Legal Issues related to Indirect Purchasers Damages Actions for Breach of Competition Law

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

An indirect purchaser action is where a person forced to pay the passed on overcharge seeks to recover as an indirect purchaser against the defendant. Anticompetitive practices damage the economic interests of private parties, especially consumers by eliminating the consumers’ right to choose effectively among competitive products. The question of indirect purchaser’s standing is an important one and will probably have the biggest influence on the development of private competition enforcement. As far as the breadth of the definition of indirect purchaser is concerned, one critical issue is how far indirect purchaser rights of action should extend. Should the right of action be limited to indirect purchasers of only the actual product that was the subject of the anticompetitive activity? Or should it include purchasers of derivative products, for example, other products containing the overcharged product as an ingredient? It is not clear what should count as a derivative product. If all indirect purchasers’ right of actions are recognized, it can be argued that it impairs the efficient and effective private enforcement because of difficulty of bringing damages actions such as calculating and distributing damage. However, it is submitted that for full compensation, it is desirable all indirect purchasers have right to bring actions. With regard to indirect litigation, US case law is crucial because there has been critical case law of indirect purchaser litigation such as Illinois Brick and there have been much discussion of it. Therefore in this chapter, first, I introduce the case and rationaleof indirect purchaser actions in the US and then discuss those in the EU, UK and Korea. For effective private enforcement, it is important to ensure the capacity of indirect purchasers to bring proceedings.

국문 초록 (Abstract)

손해전가항변을 부정할 경우에는 민법 제750조 또는 독점규제법 제56조 1항에 의하여 보호되는 자의 범위에서 간접구매자를 배제해야 한다는 주장이 설득력을 가질 수 있으나, 손해전가항변을 인정한다면 동조의 보호범위에서 간접구매자를 배제해야 한다는 주장은 성립되기 어렵다. 그런데 우리의 경우 다음과 같은 이유에서 손해전가 항변이 인정되어야 마땅하기 때문에 간접구매자가 민법 제750조 또는 독점규제법 제56조 1항에 의한 구제를 원용할 수 없다고 해석하기는 어렵다고 본다. 첫째, 우리의 손해배상제도는 배상의 대상인 ‘손해’를 불법행위로 인하여 발생한 ‘재산의 감소분’으로 이해하고 있는데 독점규제법 위반행위에 대한 손해배상청구의 소에서 피고가 손해전가 항변을 주장할 수 없어 최초 손해액 전부를 배상해야 한다면 실손보상이라는 우리 손해배상의 원칙과 모순된다고 할 것이다. 둘째, 손해전가의 항변은 그 취지상 원고가 피고의 행위로 인하여 입은 손해를 판매가격을 인상하여 이익을 보았으므로 그 부분만큼 손해액에서 배제하자는 주장이므로 민법상 널리 인정되고 있는 손익상계의 항변과 다를 바 없으므로 허용되는 것이 옳다. 셋째, 손해전가의 항변을 부정하여 손해배상제도의 예방적, 징벌적 기능이 강화되는 효과를 추구할 수도 있겠으나 우리의 경우 손해배상제도에 징벌적 기능을 미미하게 인정하고 있는 것이 그동안의 실무관행이기 때문에 그 효과 또한 제한적일 수 밖에 없다. 넷째, 독점규제법 위반행위에 대한 억제기능이나 징벌기능은 공정거래위원회에 의한 공적 집행에서 주로 담당하고 있다는 사정도 고려해야 마땅하다.107)攀 손해전가 항변에 관한 자세한 논의는 장혜림, “손해의 전가와 독점규제법 제56조 1항 ‘손해’의 개념과 범위”, 비교사법 제14권 4호 , 2007.攀攀간접구매자가 민법 제750조 또는 독점규제법 제56조 1항에 기초하여 손해배상청구를 할 수 없도록 할 필연성이 없고, 헌법상 재판청구권을 최대한 보장한다는 측면에서 간접구매자의 손해배상청구를 허용하는 것이 타당하다고 생각한다.

참고문헌 (Reference)

• 1 김형배, "채권총론(2판)" 박영사 1999
• 2 곽윤직, "채권총론" 박영사 2001
• 3 이시윤, "신민사소송법" 박영사 2003
• 4 장혜림, "손해의 전가와 독점규제법 제56조 1항 ‘손해’의 개념과 범위" 14 (14): 328-, 2007
• 5 호문혁, "민사소송법(제3판)" 법문사 2004
• 6 지원림, "민법강의" 홍문사 2002
• 7 권오승, "경제법(5판)" 법문사 2005
• 8 Denis Waelbroeck, "“Study on the conditions of claims for damages in case of infringement of EC competition rules - comparative report”, 2004, Asurst 작성을 위하여 제출된 독일편 보고서 Germany report(by Karl Wach, Manja Epping, Ute Zinsmei"
• 9 Immenga, "Wettbewerbsrecht Gesamtwerk: GWB: Bd 2 (Gebundene Ausgabe)" 2007
• 10 Ulf Boge, "Up and Running, or Is It? Private Enforcement? The Situation in Germany and Policy Perspectives" 27 (27): 2006
• 11 Mark J. Bennett, "Testimony of Concerning Indirect Purchaser Actions before the Antirust Modernization Commission" 2005
• 12 Denis Waelbroeck, "Study on the conditions of claims for damages in case of infringement of EC competition rules - comparative report, 2004, Ashurst 작성을 위하여 제출된 영국편 보고서 UK? report(by Mark Clough QC and Arundel Mcdougall)"
• 13 Andrew I.Gavil, "State Indirect Purchaser Actions:Proposals for Reform" 2005
• 14 Landes, W. M, "Should Indirect Purchasers have Standing to Sue under the Antitrust Laws? An Economic Analysis of the Rule of Illinois Brick" 46 University of Chicago Law Review 1977
• 15 Ehlermann, "Robert Schuman Centre Annual of European Competition Law" Kluwer Law International 1996
• 16 Andrew I. Gavil, "Reconstructing the Jurisdictional Foundation of Antitrust Federalism, 61 George Washington Law Review 657" 1993
• 17 John Pheasant, "Private Antitrust Damages in Europe:The Policy Debate and Judicial Developments" 21 Fall Antitrust 2006
• 18 Harris, R. G, "Passing on the Monopoly Overcharge: A Comprehensive Policy Analysis" 128 University of Pennsylvania Law Review 269 1979
• 19 Foad Hoseinian, "Passing on Damages and Community Antitrust Policy : An Economic Background" 28 (28): 2005
• 20 Joel M. Cohen, "Navigating Multistate Indirect Purchase Lawsuits" 2001
• 21 Oetker, "Munchener Kommentar zum BGB" Auflage 2007
• 22 Larue, P. H, "Legislative Progress in Responding to the Illinois Brick Decision" Antitrust Bulletin 23 1978
• 23 Heuston, R. F. V, "Law of Torts (21st ed.)" Sweet & Maxwell 1996
• 24 Musielak, "Kommentar zur Zivilprozessordnung" Vahl 2007
• 25 Taylor, "Indirect Damages from Price Fixing: The Alabama Lysine Case" 18 (18): 2001
• 26 Sneeden,E.M, "Illinois Brick? Do We Look to the Courts or Congress" Antitrust Bulletin 24 1979
• 27 Robert L. Hubbard, "How the Antitrust Modernization Commission Should View State Antitrust Enforcement" 17 Loyola Consumer Law Review 497 2005
• 28 Donald I.Baker, "Federalism and Futility : Hitting the Potholes on the Illinois Brick Road" 2002
• 29 Gregory P.Olsen, "Enhancing Private Antitrust Litigation in the EU" 20 Fall Antitrust 2005
• 30 Snyder,E.A, "Efficient Assignment of rights to Sue for Antitrust Damages" 28 (28): 1985
• 31 OECD, "Directorate for Financial and Enterprise Affairs, Competition Committee, “Working Party No. 3 on Co-operation and Enforcement - Roundtable Discussion on Private Remedies: Passing On Defence; Indirect Purchaser Standing; Definition of Damages - Unite"
• 32 OECD, "Directorate for Financial and Enterprise Affairs, Competition Committee, “Working Party No. 3 on Co-operation and Enforcement - Roundtable Discussion on Private Remedies: Passing On Defence; Indirect Purchaser Standing; Definition of Damages - Unite"
• 33 Charles E. Koob, "Developments in Private Enforcement of Competition Laws - Introduction" Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP 2004
• 34 Patricia Hahn Rosochowicz, "Deterrence and the relationship between public and private enforcement of competition law" 2005
• 35 M. Hellwig, "Das allgemeine Wettbewerbsrecht in der Siebten GWB-Novelle" Sondergutachten 41 der Monopolkommission 2004
• 36 Douglas H.Ginsburg, "Comparing Antitrust Enforcement in the United States and Europe" 2005
• 37 "Commission Staff Working Paper(COM(2005) 672 final) - Annex to the GREEN PAPER? “Damages actions for breach of the EC antitrust rules”"
• 38 Paul Friedman, "Comments of the Section of Antitrust Law and the Section of International Law of the American Bar Association in Response to the Request for Public Comment of the Commission of the European Com"
• 39 Cotterill, Egan, Buckhold, "Beyond Illinois Brick: The Law and Economics of Cost Pass-through in the ADM Price Fixing Case" 18 (18): 2001
• 40 Joyce, J.M, "Assignment of Rights to Sue under Illinois Brick: An Empirical Assessment" 31 (31): 1986
• 41 Andrew I. Gavil, "Antitrust Remedy Wars Episode I: Illinois Brick from Inside the Supreme Court" 2005