포스코 거래거절 판례에 대한 연구

Posco is a monopolistic supplier in the domestic hot rolled steel coil market. Hysco Co. Ltd — Posco’s competitor in the cold rolled steel sheet market — requested Posco to provide it with hot rolled steel coils, an essential material in producing cold rolled steel sheets. Posco declined the request. The KFTC found Posco’s refusal to supply Hysco Co. Ltd with hot rolled steel coil as constituting an obstruction of the competitor’s business activities that undermines competition in the market. In the end, the KFTC imposed corrective measures and a penalty surcharge on Posco. The Seoul High Court confirmed the KFTC’s decision. However, the Supreme Court quashed the decision, citing that regardless of Posco’s refusal to provide hot rolled steel coils, Hysco could produce cold rolled steel sheets by importing hot rolled steel coils from Japan. Furthermore, the court took note of the fact that Hysco earned a good profit, and therefore, there was no competition-restricting effect and no intent to restrict competition or eliminate competitors. This case has great significance that the Supreme Court clarified the criterion for the illegality of the dominant firm's refusal to deal for the first time. The court held that the effect of restriction on the competition should be considered in determining whether the dominant firm's refusal to deal constitutes the violation of the antitrust law. The court stated that refusal to deal is not presumed to be illegal just because the firm has dominant position. Therefore in order to prohibit the dominant firm's conduct, the KFTC should establish not only that the company is in a market dominant position in having a market share exceeding a certain percentage(50% or more), but also that the alleged refusal to deal causes anti-competitive effect. Under the principle of freedom of contracts, the refusal itself is not in violation of the antitrust law. Only the 'unreasonable' refusals are regarded as violating the MRFTA. However, there has been debates over what the 'unreasonable' refusal means. The court declared that it is not sufficient to determine abuse of a market power on the bases that a specific competitor has some difficulties to manage its business activities or suffers from disadvantages because of the refusal. The court stated that when distinguishing abuses of dominant power from unfair practices, the former would require anti-competitiveness while simple unfairness of means would be enough for the latter. Therefore, to satisfy the 'unreasonable' requirement in determining abuse of a dominant position, the KFTC should prove anti-competitive effects that include price increase, output reduction, hampering innovation, eliminating important competitors etc. The decision, however, has some problems. The court said that the KFTC should prove the specific 'intent' to monopolize and restrict competition. This is incompatible with the Korea antitrust law since we have no provision which stipulates 'intent'. Even in the U.S., the motherland of intent requirement, the intent to restrict competition can be presumed only if dominant firm's conduct causes anti-competitive effect today. Therefore, this should be reconsidered in the following cases. In addition, there are some problems regarding the definition of the relevant market. It is favorable that supply substitution as well as demand substitution should be considered in defining the relevant product market. Regarding geographical market, however, while the court admitted the possibility of foreign inflows, it limited the relevant market to the domestic area and did not expand the market to the international market. It deserves criticism.