독점규제법상 방해남용의 부당성 판단기준 - 경쟁저해성 판단기준을 중심으로 -

The abuse control against the market-dominant undertaking's abusive conduct under Article 3-2 in the Korean Competition Law aims not only at maintaining the remaining competition in the market where there is only the limited competition because of the existence of market-dominant undertaking but also letting other participants compete on the merits' of them, so that the competition in the market may be encouraged more. In order that, the prevention against dangerousness(Gefährdung) lies at the root of abuse control, in that abuse control would respond to the conduct which has the objective possibility to harm the competition through exerting marketdominant position. Then the illegality of hindering abuse under Article 3-2could be structured as two judgement elements: one is assessing the objective dangerousness to impede maintainance and encouragement of remaining competition and competition on the merit in the market according to its type,the other is balancing the interests of the allegedly harmed concerned specifically. This paper focuses on the first elements in which the results or effects of the conduct will be judged. Considering the purpose and nature of abuse control in the competition law,illegality of hindering abuse in the aspect of effect could be described as ‘the effects or results of hindering competition in the relevant market with recourse to the methods which is not correspond to market-dominant undertaking’s performance,’ for which the concept of ‘Hindered Competition(Wettbewerbsverzerrung)’ in GWB can stand. Referring to the criteria for judging the abusiveness in EU Competition Law, the hindered competition could be understood as ‘the effect to impede the maintainance and encouragement of the level of remaining competition in the market,’ the degree of which would be the extent to affect the structure of the market in which competition has been weakened already because of the existence of market-dominant undertaking itself. It can be sufficed when either the existing level of competition is weakened or decreased, or the encouragement of existing level of competition is hampered. The hindered competition could be assessed in concrete, through examining whether the dangerousness of the conduct is not only ‘nontrivial’ concerning the degree of it, but also ‘non-temporary’ concerning the consistency of it, as we see in the case Rama-Werbeaktion(1978) by Kammergericht in Germany. The dangerousness need not be proved as an actual results with concrete evidences, rather the corelation between conduct and result is enough to assumed with the inductive rule of experiences. Surely any hindering abuse cannot be banned directly without considering various business justifications.