유통법적 관점에서 대형마트 규제 검토

The regulation of large-scale retailers under Korea’s Distribution Industry Development Act was introduced as an emergency legislative response to concerns over the erosion of traditional markets and the decline of local commerce. The Constitutional Court and Supreme Court of Korea have continuously affirmed the constitutionality and legality of such measures, deferring to the legislature and administrative authorities on matters of policy design and predictive judgment. Consequently, despite repeated challenges in practice, the regulation has persisted for over a decade, often renewed without substantive institutional review of its effectiveness or proportionality. Yet, the retail ecosystem has undergone a profound structural transformation driven by digital platforms, rendering a regulation that targets only one offline retail format increasingly disconnected from the realities of distribution chains. From a legal perspective rooted in distribution law, which focuses on the balanced development and coordination of the entire distribution process, this calls for a fundamental reexamination of the regulation’s continued relevance. This study traces the legislative evolution and content of the Act, analyzes the judicial reasoning underlying the Constitutional Court and Supreme Court’s validation of the regulation, and examines comparative developments in the United States, Japan, the United Kingdom, France, and Germany. While those jurisdictions also face socio-economic frictions stemming from market concentration by major retailers, their regulatory responses tend to be sector-specific—targeting urban planning, labor rights, environmental standards, or competitive dynamics—rather than imposing blanket operational restrictions on a particular retail format. Where operational limitations do exist, they are typically justified not by anti-monopoly concerns alone, but by higher-ranking normative values such as workers’ right to rest or consumer protection, and applied across retail sectors more generally. Recent amendments to the Act have introduced procedural mechanisms such as ex post impact assessments and mandatory reporting to the National Assembly. These instruments may serve to prompt future policy recalibration, though their efficacy in guiding substantive regulatory adjustment remains to be seen. From a functional standpoint, regulatory intervention in retail should be approached with restraint, premised on demonstrable market failures rather than speculative harms. Preemptive behavioral regulation imposed without clear empirical foundations risks distorting the market itself. Ultimately, restrictions on large-scale retailers should be reconsidered through a broader framework that accounts for the full value chain of distribution and acknowledges the interdependence of various legal domains. The Act should realign itself with its original legislative purpose—not as a mechanism of rigid constraint, but as a structural support for the dynamic and balanced advancement of the distribution industry.