LCD 국제카르텔과 손해배상 - 서울중앙지방법원 2023.11.23. 선고 2014가합504385 판결을 중심으로 -

In order to regulate international cartels that bring effects to Korean market, Korean Fair Trade Commission has applied the Korea’s Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act (“the MRFTA”) against foreign entities on their actions outside of Korea. This was carried out even before the extraterritorial application provision was inserted in the MRFTA in 2004. Afterwards, Korean Supreme Court decided in 2014 judgment(2012doo13689) that this provision can be applied only when the effect to Korean market is direct, substantial and reasonably foreseeable. While many civil actions for damage compensation have been filed against international cartel participants in the United States, it was often ended with administrative fines and orders without civil actions in Korea. However, there was a civil lawsuit filed in 2014 by LG Electronics and its overseas subsidiaries against Taiwanese LCD manufacturers who participated in international cartel to raise LCD price. The Seoul Central District Court rendered a judgment on this civil damage lawsuit on November 23, 2023 ordering the defendants to compensate damages to the plaintiffs. This article analyzed the above judgment focusing on three important issues. First is whether Korean court has international jurisdiction to decide this case. Second is how to decide governing law in the civil matter where extraterritorial application of the MRFTA was already carried out in the previous administrative proceeding. In this regard, it becomes an issue to resolve the relationship between the MRFTA and the governing law that should be decided under the Private International Law. Third is how to apply pass-on theory in calculating damage amount in civil damage actions. In the judgment, the court decided that there was international jurisdiction in Korean court to try this case, and the governing law should be Korean law. The court’s reasoning and conclusion on these issues seem proper, but it should develop more concrete principle to decide a governing law in a matter where extraterritorial application of the MRFTA was already carried out. For the third issue, the court decided that the defendants did not prove that the damage was passed on from the plaintiffs to the final consumers, but still limited the damage amount saying that there was a possibility of pass-on. This reasoning can be accepted when direct purchasers bring civil actions and pass-on theory is used as a defense. However, a more concrete legal principle should be developed when indirect purchasers bring actions based on pass-on theory since calculation of overcharged amount will be an essential element in the proceeding.