애프터마켓에서의 시장지배력 남용행위

This paper examines competition law issues in the aftermarket for parts and repair, maintenance, and overhaul (MRO) services, reviews precedents from the United States, the European Union, France, and Japan, and analyzes the Siemens case—the first Supreme Court decision in Korea concerning abuse of dominance in the medical device MRO aftermarket. Cases of abuse of dominance in aftermarkets are characterized by the interplay between two markets—the foremarket and the aftermarket—which are closely interconnected. However, the Siemens judgment is somewhat unsatisfactory in that it appears to focus narrowly on the question of whether providing service keys free of charge or for a fee is closer to “normal trade practice,” rather than engaging with the broader characteristics of aftermarkets. In addition, this study explores alternative regulatory responses beyond administrative sanctions by competition authorities. In particular, commitment decisions may be worth actively considering in aftermarket monopoly cases where the illegality of conduct is uncertain, as they allow for prompt, flexible, and effective remedies. By contrast, legislative intervention through a statutory “right to repair” requires careful consideration, since the scope of such obligations could easily become excessively broad. Through a comparative analysis of abuse of dominance in aftermarkets, this study seeks to draw balanced implications that ensure fair competition while preserving incentives for innovation.