한국캘러웨이 판결에 나타난 재판매가격유지행위 해석방법론의 문제점과 입법적 개선방안

This article aims to clarify the status of Resale Price Maintenance (hereafter“ RPM”) in the Korean Anti-Monopoly Act (hereafter“ the Act”) and to analyse some interpretative issues of RPM in case of Callaway Golf Korea. The Act defines RPM as the act whereby an enterprise fixes the resale price of goods and coerces other enterprises, which purchase and resell such goods, to resell the said goods at such fixed price, or imposes on such other enterprises restrictions on the transaction to achieve such end. Then the Act prohibits minimum RPM without considering any objective justifications. The Korea Supreme Court (hereafter“ the Court”) held, however, that minimum RPM could be exceptionally allowed, if objective justifications are proven, although there is any explicit room for such consideration. This article criticizes such legislative interpretation of the Court and tries dogmatic approach focusing on the factors “coercion”or “harm to purchasers ’freedom”, the main illegal factor of most unfair trade practices. In this regard, the article suggests some legislative proposals. Whether the intra-brand competition itself deserves unique status to be protected by the Act, seems skeptical and needs further analysis.