독점규제법상 경제적 제재의 체계적 조망 - 부당이득환수의 관점에서 -

Every legal sanction including economic ones has ultimately a general preventive effect against violations of law. So does the surcharge under the Korean Anti-Monopoly and Fair Trade Act. A surcharge imposed by the Korea Fair Trade Commission, infringing private property more severely than criminal fine, cannot be allowed without any limit, just for the reason that it has proven to be effective for deterrence of illegal acts by undertakings. Therefore, it is more of importance to perceive some limits of traditional perspective of optimal sanction and explore a new surcharge system as a legal sanction, which is to be consistent to the goal and system of the Act. For this purpose, it should be noted that surcharge, damage and fine have in common a function to restitute illegal profits. Such economic sanctions should be harmonized primarily for that purpose; first, criteria for calculating and imposing surcharge should be strengthened to the extent that illegal profits of the challenged undertakings be fully exhausted; second, damage action should be facilitated than ever in order to pursue a subsidiary role of restitution of illegal profits; third, damage and surcharge should be considered each other in the civil and administrative procedures. Finally, fine has its unique role in that it is effective economic sanction to board members and other employees of the challenged undertaking, whereas fines to the undertaking itself as a legal person should be reconsidered in the negative.