온라인 플랫폼 사업자의 독과점행위 규제에 관한 연구 － 카카오모빌리티의 자사우대 사건을 중심으로 －

In 2023, the Korea Fair Trade Commission imposed a fine along with a correction order on Kakao Mobility for manipulating the medium-sized taxi dispatch algorithm of ‘Kakao T App’ to give preferential treatment to affiliated taxis of ‘Kakao T Blue’ operated by its subsidiaries. In this case, the Fair Trade Commission judged Kakao Mobility's actions to be an abuse of its market dominant position under the Korean Fair Trade Act. In other words, Kakao Mobility abused its overwhelming market dominance in the general hailing market and gave preferential treatment to its affiliated drivers (an act of discrimi- nation), thereby transferring its dominance to the taxi franchise service market and limiting competition in that market, which in turn This resulted in limiting competition in the general call market. In 2020, Naver was judged to have abused its dominance in the online comparison shopping service market and interfered with the business activities of competitors in the open market market by giving preferential treatment to companies in the Naver open market market, and imposed a fine on the monopoly status of the online platform. It can be said to be a representative regulatory example of abuse of the monopoly status of online platforms. These two cases can be meaning- ful in that regulations under the Fair Trade Act have recently begun for rapidly growing online platform companies, but whether the Fair Trade Commission's judgment is so logical and reasonable as to leave no room for question in terms of competition law theory leaves much to be desired. It is also a reality that questions are being raised. Looking at this issue broadly, there are two issues related to the recognition of market power, the recognition of market delimitation and transfer to adjacent markets, whether the company's preferential treatment is subject to regulation as an act of discrimination under the Fair Trade Act, and the judgment of unfairness. It includes issues that have not yet been clearly established theoretically even in academia, such as proof of whether the company's algorithm adjustment was aimed at main- taining and strengthening its monopoly position and proof of causality. The competition law debate surrounding online platforms is an area that is fiercely fought around the world. It would be no exaggeration to say that there are no clearly resolved issues surrounding dynamic and innovative markets, such as the problem of market definition, recognition of market power, and the problem of transfer of domin- ance. Nevertheless, Korea's Fair Trade Commission imposed sanctions on two representative companies with monopoly positions in the search and SNS fields based on their preferential treatment. However, regarding these results, questions have been raised and continue to be raised about the basis and legal principles of the judgment, both by the parties and academics. I believe that continuous improvement work on this is necessary.