공정거래법상 차별남용과 자사우대에 관한 연구

In the sample case related to self-preferencing, comparative shopping service providers entered the open market and discriminated against whoever has the position of comparative shopping service customers and competitors in the open market concurrently. Prior to the sample case analysis, it was examined that the type of discrimination abuse, differences in establishment requirements, and unfairness where the foreclosure effect can be used as a major judgment indicator. Since the sample case is an exclusionary type of discrimination abuse, discrimination between the comparative shopping service provider itself and one competitive open market alone constitutes an objective requirement for discrimination abuse. In addition, the proportion of the default search results to the open market and the proportion of Internet users to the open market after editing can be considered. The foreclosure effect can be used as an indicator of anti-competitive effect by examining the alternative access path, that is, the proportion of comparative shopping service access paths among all access paths to the open market. At this time, it can be considered based on sales or traffic, and it should also be considered that the open market has an alternative access path called an exclusive app, not a comparative shopping service. In the case of the EU Google Shopping case, as Google, which has the market dominant position in the general search service market, entered the comparative shopping service market, Googleʼs entry to this market and self-preferencing was issued. In terms of replaceability General search services differ from comparative shopping services in sample cases. In this regard, the Google Shopping case has implications for the sample case. The sample case is said to be leveraging the dominance of the comparative shopping service market to the open market, which on the contrary cannot be an abuse type or an anti-competitive effect indicator and unfairness cannot be recognized only by leveraging. The sample case is that market dominant position and abuse occurred in the comparative shopping service market and the anti-competitive effect occurred in the open market, and according to the POSCO standard, anti-competitve effect can be judged. In order to cope with the diversification of platforms and self-preferencing, we analyzed how the act of self-preferencing can be categorized by the interpretation of discriminative abuse under the Fair Trade Act. It is hoped that through the correct interpretation of the Fair Trade Act, it will be possible to respond appropriately to the new economy.