부당한 공동행위 합의 입증의 문제

Korean Antitrust law, “MONOPOLY REGULATION AND FAIR TRADE ACT”regulates cartels. This dissertation mainly analyzes legislations, scholarly works and precedents re proving cartels through indirect evidences. Proving cartels through indirect evidence is related to defining plus factors in conscious parallelism. There are also many recent cartel cases of EU discussing indirect evidences. Indirect evidences may be categorized as ①parallel behaviors, ② communications, ③ firm conducts, and ④ market structures. Generally speaking, parallel behavior and communication evidences are more important than firm conduct or market structure evidences. Among firm conduct or market structure evidences, evidences of (i) motivation for agreement, (ii) parallelism too close for coincidence, (iii) actions against self interest but giving collective benefits, and (iv) absence of independent reasons are important. The evidentiary values of economic evidences can not be easily generalized. Economic evidences of firm conduct is more important than those of market structure. Evidences of facilitating practices or furtive behaviors are less important than others.