공정거래 2024년 주요 판례 회고

Among the 2023 and 2024 anit-trust law-related precedents, some of the cases that needed to be discussed and were of interest to the academic community were subject to commentary. The case of interfering with businesse by the obstruction of fair business practices in the after market is related to Siemens’ CT and MRI repair service markets. If a hospital needs the above services, there is a way to receive services from Siemens or from an independent repair undertaking. It has a substantially margin-squeez character, and the Supreme Court focused on whether Siemens’ action violates fair business practices. This approach of the Court based on fair trading practices can be pointed out the risks that may arise in case of the interpretation of unfairness. In the case of Terms and Conditions Regulation Act on the non-refundable clause of the accommodation reservation platform, the issue was whether Booking Dotcom was regulated as an undertaking under the above Act. The Supreme Court determined that corrective measures was impossible because the accommodation reservation platform was difficult to regard as a undertaking under the above Act. It was also pointed out that if the interpretation is based on textual interpretation but attempts teleological interpretation and systematic interpretation, the accommodation reservation platform can be included in the person proposing the contract and that the effectiveness of abstract normative control under the above Act can be enhanced by systematic interpretation with expanding the responsible entity under the Electronic Commerce Act. In the LS Business Group’s unfair assisting case, the unnecessary intermediary transaction and scale assisting behavior were the focus and while supporting the Supreme Court’s attitude that normal prices are not required as in the compensatory assisting, it can be pointed out that more sophisticated standards are needed in determining scale assisting requirements and unfairness requirements. It was questioned whether corrective measures could be taken to the new company after division, which succeeded the business part, due to reasons for violation of the subcontracting law before the division of the company. According to the formenr precedents, rights and obligations are inherited by the division, so if a disposition is imposed due to a violation, the obligation is generated, but it is not inherited because only factual acts exist before disposal. In this case, where the company division was made in the presence of non-payment of subcontract payments, it was determined that it was not possible to order payment to the new company after division under the Subcontracting Act. Although acceptable, it can be pointed out the risks of following the somewhat unusual above precedent in light of the partial comprehensive succession effect of the company division, concerns over the loss of responsibility of the undertaking, the attitude of administrative case precedents regarding the succession of the existing sanctions and effects.