An Analysis of the Korean Competition Law Regarding Collective Dominance: A Comparative Perspective An Analysis of the Korean Competition Law Regarding Collective Dominance: A Comparative Perspective
One of the important objectives of competition law is to prevent anti-competitive effects arising from agreements or abusive conducts by monopolies or oligopolies. In some jurisdictions, a competition rule regarding collective dominance is a useful legal technique to counteract the abuse of oligopolistic market dominance; such a rule is relatively popular in the EU. Legal provisions regarding collective dominance which are, in effect, similar to the EU rule on collective dominance also exist in Korea. In contrast to the EU, the relevant case law addressing collective dominance has not developed significantly in Korea. One of the main reasons for the lack of case law in Korea was the failure of the first collective dominance case, the so-called BC Card judgment in 2005. Since the courts’ judgments on collective dominance, there has been no challenge against abuses by oligopolistic or collectively dominant undertakings, although the Korean competition act provides a relevant provision.Therefore, this article aims to discuss the Korean legal provision regarding collective dominance through a comparative study. In addition, it suggests proposals for further development of the implementation of the Korean competition act to address collective dominance. In effect, there are a number of Korean works on this issue; however, it is time for another review of the overall problem with the relevant case law and for improvement in the application of the law. In conclusion, although there have been a number of failures in the courtroom in important competition law cases, the Korean competition agency needs to enthusiastically implement competition law by developing the necessary criteria and tests for scrutiny, which will eventually be tested in the courts and settled as the assessment standards.
One of the important objectives of competition law is to prevent anti-competitive effects arising from agreements or abusive conducts by monopolies or oligopolies. In some jurisdictions, a competition rule regarding collective dominance is a useful legal technique to counteract the abuse of oligopolistic market dominance; such a rule is relatively popular in the EU. Legal provisions regarding collective dominance which are, in effect, similar to the EU rule on collective dominance also exist in Korea. In contrast to the EU, the relevant case law addressing collective dominance has not developed significantly in Korea. One of the main reasons for the lack of case law in Korea was the failure of the first collective dominance case, the so-called BC Card judgment in 2005. Since the courts’ judgments on collective dominance, there has been no challenge against abuses by oligopolistic or collectively dominant undertakings, although the Korean competition act provides a relevant provision.Therefore, this article aims to discuss the Korean legal provision regarding collective dominance through a comparative study. In addition, it suggests proposals for further development of the implementation of the Korean competition act to address collective dominance. In effect, there are a number of Korean works on this issue; however, it is time for another review of the overall problem with the relevant case law and for improvement in the application of the law. In conclusion, although there have been a number of failures in the courtroom in important competition law cases, the Korean competition agency needs to enthusiastically implement competition law by developing the necessary criteria and tests for scrutiny, which will eventually be tested in the courts and settled as the assessment standards.
※ AI-Helper는 부적절한 답변을 할 수 있습니다.