본문 바로가기 주메뉴로 바로가기
All
TITLE 【Syllabus of Latest Opinion】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 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 aforesaid standard of determining illegality
[4] Matters to be considered in determining illegality of the act of offering conditional rebates by deeming it as exclusive dealing
Whether the standard of determining illegality applied to so-called predatory pricing is likewise applicable to the act of offering conditional rebates (negative) and whether verification that rebates were offered in a case where products were sold for practically below the cost by such means as accounting and economic analysis is a mandatory prerequisite for the recognition of illegality (negative)
Whether a business entity may denounce the Fair Trade Commission’s reasonable verification 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 by issuing a single notice for payment of a penalty surcharge imposed for multiple violations; (b) imposition of a penalty surcharge is partly illegal for some violations; and (c) there exist documents with which the amount of a penalty surcharge on that partial violations is able to be calculated in litigations, whether only the part on the amount of a penalty surcharge for the pertinent partial violations is subject to revocation (affirmative)
Prev 【Syllabus of Latest Opinion】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