본문 바로가기 주메뉴로 바로가기
All
TITLE Supreme Court Decision 2013Du14726 Decided January 31, 2019 【Claim for Revocation of Corrective Measure, etc.】 [full Text]
Summary
[1] Whether the “condition that the transaction partner does not make any transaction with a competitor business entity” under Article 5(5)2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act includes not only a case where such condition is unilaterally and forcibly imposed on by a market-dominant business entity, but also a case where it is introduced by an arrangement with the transaction partner (affirmative), and whether the “act of making a transaction on the condition that the transaction partner does not make any transaction with a competitor business entity” includes a case where compliance with the conditions is de facto enforceable or binding (affirmative)
[2] In determining whether a certain business entity is deemed a market-dominant business entity, the meaning of the “relevant regional market” and method of determining the scope thereof
[3] Requirements for the recognition of the illegality of the “act of making a transaction to exclude a competitor” as stipulated in the forepart of Article 3-2(1)5 of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act, and standard of determining illegality
Matters to be considered in determining whether exclusive dealing is deemed illegal pursuant to the foregoing standard of determining illegality
[4] Matters to be considered in determining the illegality of the act of offering conditional rebates by deeming it as an exclusive dealing
Whether the standard of determining illegality applied to the so-called predatory pricing is likewise applicable to the act of offering conditional rebates (negative), and whether the fact that rebates were offered in a case where products were sold for practically below the cost has to be verified by means of an accounting and economic analysis, etc. conducted by the Fair Trade Commission is a mandatory prerequisite for the recognition of illegality (negative)
Whether a business entity may denounce the Fair Trade Commission’s reasonable verification made in regard to the de facto binding force or illegality of the act of offering conditional rebates by verifying the credibility of the basic documents or the method of analysis pertaining to the aforementioned economic analysis (affirmative)
[5] In a case where: (a) the Fair Trade Commission levied a penalty surcharge for multiple violations through the issuance of a single notice for payment of a penalty surcharge imposed for multiple violations; (b) imposition of a penalty surcharge for some violations is illegal; and (c) there exist documents with which the amount of the penalty surcharge on that partial violations is computable in a litigation, whether only the part on the amount of the penalty surcharge for the pertinent partial violations is ought to be subject to revocation (affirmative)
Prev Supreme Court Decision 2016Hu502 Decided January 31, 2019 【Invalidation of Registration (Patent)】
Next Supreme Court Decision 2016Du50488 Decided January 31, 2019【Revocation of Customs Duty Assessment, etc.】
219 Seocho-ro,Seocho-gu,Seoul 06590,Republic of Korea 02-3480-1100