부당한 공동행위에서의 관련시장 획정− 음료 담합사건을 중심으로 −

The beverages are differentiated products, which depend mostly on the price, taste and trend. Therefore SSNIP analysis shows its limit with the market definition. The non-alcohol beverage market has these characteristics:(ⅰ) price substitutability is not so decisive (ⅱ) consumer preference varies with tastes and trend (ⅲ) potential supplier can easily enter the market (product supply is not only self-manufacturing but also selling imported goods) (ⅳ) function and utiltity is not quite different among beverages. The market delineation is especially meaningful when we evaluate the market dominant position with anti-competitive abuse and regulate the merger. The outcome of the market definition in market power case od merger case needs not exactly apply for the cartel case because the relavant market should be defined as related practices. Being estimated the anti- competitiveness of the concerted action or agreement among undertakings, KFTC or courts should consider the substance or the object of the agree- ment as such. They should not always define the market through the detailed economic research, then evaluate anti-competitiveness in every cases. On this beverage cartel, 5 beverage producer, who shares mostly the non-alcohol beverage market, had many meeting, had exchanged informations about prices or amounts and had raised each products. 2 participants had cooperated with KFTC in invastigating all things about the cartel and had become the leniency benefit. Therefore I think it is misunderstanding about the meaning of the relevant market in judging the anticompetitiveness of the hardcore cartel.