대리점법 제정 의의와 규제대상에 관한 검토

Right before the Fair Transaction in Authorized Retail Trade Act was passed in the National Assembly in December 2015, the dominant outlook was that its enactment would be difficult due to existing different views. However, it was dramatically passed as opposing parties came through via political negotiations. Consequently, sufficient examinations and discussions about law enactment failed to be conducted on every level, and the Fair Trade Commission responsible for the law held the position that unfair practices regarding authorized retail store transactions could be regulated through the Fair Trade Act and its enactment ordinance. Therefore, the present dissertation considers the significance of the Fair Transaction in Authorized Retail Trade Act and the several issues surrounding the regulatory range of the law, which was raised as the greatest obstacle to its enactment. Despite being very similar to transactions included in the Franchise Trade Law, the Fair Subcontract Transactions Act, and the Large-Scale Retailers` Fair Trade Practices Act, which regulate the abuse of superior bargaining positions, authorized retail store transactions failed to be included in the regulatory range of these individual laws, so that they were only regulated ex post facto by the Fair Trade Act, although even this failed to sufficiently regulate them. Therefore, the present study examined the significance of the Fair Transaction in Authorized Retail Trade Act in that it introduced proactive regulations on contract delivery by considering regulatory fairness with similar transaction industries, that it strengthened the effectiveness of actual damage relief by grievance mediations, and that it introduced a treble damages compensation system for guaranteeing the risk of transaction severance during a grievance. Also, an examination of the application subjects of the Fair Transaction in Authorized Retail Trade Act raises a few issues including the interpretation of consignment sale, the inclusion of middle managers, and the excluded range of providers. This implies the possibility that the subject application may be operated on a limited basis, and such a limited enforcement damages the significance of the law’s enactment and causes a problem of regulatory fairness with other laws. Therefore, the law might be supplemented in the future and such issues should be considered in the process of enacting its enforcement ordinances.