공정거래법상 가격담합사건에 있어서 손해배상액 산정

In this paper, I take a general overview on the relevant doctrines regarding antitrust damages inprice collusion cases along with economic methods for quantifying damages employed in thelitigation. I also introduce and analyze recent Korean Supreme Court cases extensively dealing withthe issue. Based on the general observation, I present my view on the relationship between economicanalysis by experts and normative analysis by judges. As the significance of antitrust damages heightens, accurate assessment of damages comes intoquestion. This is not an issue solely reserved for antitrust cases. However, this becomes even thornierissue due to nature of antitrust cases where impact of the collusion on the relevant market asa whole matters. An economic analysis is essential in many antitrust cases. However, its relationshipneeds to be well-adjusted against normative evaluation of the court. I suggest followings. The importance of economic analysis in antitrust cases cannot beunderestimated. Courts should generally respect its outcome given its lack of specialty. At the sametime, courts should focus on what courts can do, such as fortifying normative control by scrutinizingreliability of the expert, verifying appropriateness of the employed method, checking on theaccurateness of the premise and factual data. In particular, the procedure should be designed andoperated so as to maximize the capacity of expert groups as a whole in a just and fair way. Courts,when it is too costly to carry out economic analysis especially in the case of multiple consumerssuing companies involved in price collusion, should consider utilizing Article 57 of the Fair TradeAct in Korea where courts are given discretion in assessing damages if assessment of damages isextremely difficult. Allocating burden of proof so as to alleviate the burden of plaintiffs in antitrustdamages cases is also important. These measures will substantially facilitate adequate reinforcement of legal remedies.