공정거래법의 과징금 부과에 대한 헌법적 고찰

Article 15 of the Constitution stipulates restrictions on the exercise of property rights, and Article 23 (2) of the current Constitution stipulates the obligation to suit the public welfare of the exercise of property rights in 1987. Article 119 (2) of the Constitution stipulates that “the regulation and adjustment of the economy may be made to prevent market dominance and abuse of economic power, and to democratize the economy through harmony among economic actors,” making the state's regulation and adjustment of fair competition by abuse of property rights a constitutional obligation. Article 119 (2) of the Constitution stipulates the state's obligation to democratize the economy. Article 37 (2) of the Constitution stipulates that the freedom and rights of all citizens may be limited by law for public welfare, and the State may restrict the exercise of property rights based on the law based on the public welfare provisions of Article 37 (2) of the Constitution for economic democratization of Article 119 (2) of the Constitution. Article 1 of the Fair Trade Act stipulates that ① abuse of market dominant position ② unfair joint behavior ③ unfair trade practices. The Fair Trade Act aims to promote fair competition, balanced development of the national economy, and improve consumer welfare. The Fair Trade Act is a law intended to realize the state's regulatory and coordination obligations for economic democratization under Article 119 (2) of the Constitution. The Fair Trade Act is a law intended to realize state obligations to prevent market dominance and abuse of economic power under Article 119 (2) of the Constitution. The Fair Trade Commission's penalty provisions for violations of the Fair Trade Act have the nature of not only forcing the implementation of violations of the Fair Trade Act, but also recovering unfair gains from violations of the Fair Trade Act. Even if the Fair Trade Commission, which is an administrative agency, imposes fines pursuant to the Fair Trade Act's penalty provisions, it has the nature of administrative sanctions as an administrative punishment for administrative purposes. Since the Fair Trade Act's penalty provisions are administrative sanctions and cannot be recognized as the exercise of the right to punish by state power, they cannot be said to violate the principle of prohibiting double punishment under Article 13 (1) of the Constitution. The Constitutional Court decided on the constitutionality of the Fair Trade Act in the case of requesting unconstitutionality for the provisions of Article 24-2 of the former Fair Trade Act, saying that the provisions of fines under the Fair Trade Act have the nature of administrative sanctions for administrative purposes, because fines only have the nature of administrative sanctions as administrative penalties for administrative purposes, not the exercise of the right to punish the state. The Fair Trade Act can be justified in that it is a specific law for realizing state obligations for economic democratization under Article 119 (2) of the Constitution.