애스크로AIPublic Preview
← 학술논문 검색
학술논문산업재산권2015.04 발행KCI 피인용 3

우리나라 부정경쟁행위 유형의 한계에 대한 고찰 -우버(UBER) 서비스 사례를 중심으로-

A Study on Limitations of Korean Unfair Competition Forms - Focused on Uber Case -

박윤석(고려대학교 ICR 센터)

46호, 159~199쪽

초록

Uber is a mobile-app-based transportation network. Uber provide a service which allows consumers to submit a trip request, which is routed to crowd-sourced taxi drivers. It is sometimes more useful than Taxi, so Uber expanded internationally. Meanwhile, Uber meet with resistance. While taxi drivers are regulated by administrative regulation like the license system, drivers using Uber app are able to avoid some regulations in providing similar service like taxi. By ignoring the law, Uber is putting at risk the livelihoods taxi drivers who drive safely and follow the rules. some lawsuits filed against Uber in several countries for unfair competition, because Uber took competition advantage by breach of law against competitors who follow the law. Especially, Berlin district court make a decision Uber is an unfair competition because Uber violated PASSENGER TRANSPORT SERVICE ACT. There are many arguments about Uber’s unfair competition in the world but there is no arguments about Uber’s unfair competition in Korea. The Korean Unfair Competition Law(KUCL) has recognised only ten types of acts as unfair competition. When some acts outside of KUCL are regarded as unfair competition, they are just de facto unfair competition acts. They are allowed, if they are not prohibited by civil law(tort) or other special laws. Ten types of acts in KUCL protect mostly an individual competitor. KUCL do not aim to protect consumer and public interest by comparison with unfair competition law of foreign country, for instance Germany. Unfair competition acts which infringe the consumer or public interest are not covered by KUCL but they exist as de facto unfair competition acts outside of it. A typical unfair competition act infringing public interest is the breach of law. The breach of law means that the violation of a law is used for method of competition. In comparison with EU countries and US, the breach of law has been recognized as unfair competition. In particular, the breach of law was codified Article 4 Nr.11(Rechtsbruch) in Unfair competition Act of Germany. According to Rechtsbruch, the infringement of regulation outside of Unfair competition Act of Germany can be considered as unfair competition if the infringed regulation is intended to regulate market conduct in the interest of market participants. But it is just de facto unfair competition act in KUCL. Tradespeople violates provisons outside of KUCL to gain an advantage in competition. This unfair competition infringes public consensus that competitor must compliance with all rules and be lawful. It is general requirements for commercial behavior. If the breach of law as an unfair competition happens frequently, public oder is threatened in the worst case. So, KUCL have to regulate the breach of law.

Abstract

Uber is a mobile-app-based transportation network. Uber provide a service which allows consumers to submit a trip request, which is routed to crowd-sourced taxi drivers. It is sometimes more useful than Taxi, so Uber expanded internationally. Meanwhile, Uber meet with resistance. While taxi drivers are regulated by administrative regulation like the license system, drivers using Uber app are able to avoid some regulations in providing similar service like taxi. By ignoring the law, Uber is putting at risk the livelihoods taxi drivers who drive safely and follow the rules. some lawsuits filed against Uber in several countries for unfair competition, because Uber took competition advantage by breach of law against competitors who follow the law. Especially, Berlin district court make a decision Uber is an unfair competition because Uber violated PASSENGER TRANSPORT SERVICE ACT. There are many arguments about Uber’s unfair competition in the world but there is no arguments about Uber’s unfair competition in Korea. The Korean Unfair Competition Law(KUCL) has recognised only ten types of acts as unfair competition. When some acts outside of KUCL are regarded as unfair competition, they are just de facto unfair competition acts. They are allowed, if they are not prohibited by civil law(tort) or other special laws. Ten types of acts in KUCL protect mostly an individual competitor. KUCL do not aim to protect consumer and public interest by comparison with unfair competition law of foreign country, for instance Germany. Unfair competition acts which infringe the consumer or public interest are not covered by KUCL but they exist as de facto unfair competition acts outside of it. A typical unfair competition act infringing public interest is the breach of law. The breach of law means that the violation of a law is used for method of competition. In comparison with EU countries and US, the breach of law has been recognized as unfair competition. In particular, the breach of law was codified Article 4 Nr.11(Rechtsbruch) in Unfair competition Act of Germany. According to Rechtsbruch, the infringement of regulation outside of Unfair competition Act of Germany can be considered as unfair competition if the infringed regulation is intended to regulate market conduct in the interest of market participants. But it is just de facto unfair competition act in KUCL. Tradespeople violates provisons outside of KUCL to gain an advantage in competition. This unfair competition infringes public consensus that competitor must compliance with all rules and be lawful. It is general requirements for commercial behavior. If the breach of law as an unfair competition happens frequently, public oder is threatened in the worst case. So, KUCL have to regulate the breach of law.

발행기관:
한국지식재산학회
분류:
법학

AI 법률 상담

이 논문의 주제에 대해 더 알고 싶으신가요?

460만+ 법률 자료에서 관련 판례·법령·해석례를 찾아 답변합니다

AI 상담 시작
우리나라 부정경쟁행위 유형의 한계에 대한 고찰 -우버(UBER) 서비스 사례를 중심으로- | 산업재산권 2015 | AskLaw | 애스크로 AI