• Journal of Digital Convergence
• /
• v.19 no.9
• /
• pp.19-31
• /
• 2021

The influence of online platforms has become even more powerful than ever and there has been growing calls to regulate its enormous market power. Issues relating to platform monopolies have been discussed in Korea and recently the Online Platform Intermediary Transactions Fairness Bill has passed the Cabinet Council. Thus, we aim to analyze online platform regulations from stakeholder perspective and then address the regulatory direction. We first investigate the consequences of platform strategies including mergers that platform owners take. In addition, we inspect the possible effects of online platform regulations on its stakeholders. Our research can contribute to having a more balanced view on the online platform regulation that is somewhat in the favor of protecting platform complementors and consumers.

• Journal of Korea Fair Competition Federation
• /
• no.25
• /
• pp.41-46
• /
• 1997

헝가리는 1983년 공산주의 정권의 붕괴와 함께 소련으로부터 독립, 자유경제체제를 도입하므로써 괄목할 만한 경제성장을 이룩하고 동구권 국가 중에서 교역량이 비교적 크게 증가하였으며 우리 나라보다 한발 앞서 OECD회원국이 되었다. 헝가리에 공정거래제도가 처음 도입된 것은 아주 오래전인 1923년으로서, 당시 헝가리 경쟁법에서는 카르텔 부분이 담겨있지 않았다고 한다. 1931년에 와서 경쟁법의 개정으로 비로소 카르텔이 금지되고 위반행위에 대해서 민사소송에 의하여 구제되어 왔던 제도가 국가가 직접 집행권을 행사하게 된다. 그러나 1945년 제2차 세계대전의 종결과 함께 사회주의 정권 하에서 오랜 기간 경쟁법의 정당성을 인정받지 못하다가 1984년에 와서 카르텔, 불공정한 시장관행 및 지배적 지위의 남용을 금지하는 헝가리 최초의 현대적 의미의 포괄적인 ''경쟁법''이 도입되었으나 이 때에도 합병규제에 대한 내용은 없었다. 이러한 과정에서 경제발전과 함께 1990년에 와서야 합병규제 조항을 경쟁법에 반영하고 경쟁정책의 종합적인 집행기관으로 ''경제 경쟁청''이 설치되었다. 그 후 EU 경쟁법과의 법체계상 조화를 이루도록 개정하여 1997년 1월 1일부터 현행 ''헝가리 경쟁법''을 시행하여 오고 있다. 헝가리 경쟁법의 특징은 선진외국법을 모방하기보다는 헝가리의 경제발전 단계에 맞도록 발전시켜 온 독창성에서 찾아볼 수 있다. 본 고는 경쟁법 연구에 참고가 되도록 헝가리 경쟁법의 독특한 내용을 요약하여 소개하는 것이다.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.20 no.3
• /
• pp.175-209
• /
• 2019

The bundled discounting which the dominant undertakings engage in is problematic in terms of competition restraint. Bundled discounts generally benefit not only buyers but also sellers. Specifically, bundled discounts usually costs a firm less to sell multiple products. In addition, Bundled discounts always provide some immediate consumer benefit in the form of lower prices. Therefore, competition authorities and courts should not be too quick to condemn bundled discounts and apply the neutral and objective standard in bundled discounting cases. Cascade Health v. Peacehealth decision starts ruling from this prerequisite. This decision pointed out that the dominant undertaking can exclude rivals through bundled discounting without pricing its products below its cost when rivals do not sell as great a number of product lines. So bundled discounting may have the anticompetitive impact by excluding less diversified but more efficient producers. This decision did not adopt Lepage case's standard which does not require the court to consider whether the competitor was at least as efficient of a producer as the bundled discounter. Instead of that, based on cost based approach, this decision said that the exclusionary element can not be satisfied unless the discounts result in prices that are below an appropriate measures of the defendant's costs. By adopting a discount attribution standard, this decision said that the full amount of the discounts should be allocated to the competitive products. As the seller can easily ascertain its own prices and costs of production and calculate whether its discounting practices exclude competitors, not the competitor's costs but the dominant undertaking's costs should be considered in applying discount attribution standard. This case deals with bundled discounting practice of multiple healthcare services by the dominant undertaking in healthcare market. Under the Korean healthcare system and public health insurance system, the price competition primarily exists in non-medical care benefits because public healthcare insurance in Korea is in combination with the compulsory medical care institution system. The cases that Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Law deals with, such as cartel and the abuse of monopoly power, also mainly exist in non-medical care benefits. The dominant undertaking's exclusionary bundled discounting in Korean healthcare markets may be practiced in the contracts between the dominant undertaking and private insurance companies with regards to non-medical care benefits.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.32 no.2
• /
• pp.129-153
• /
• 2017

Fair Competition policy in aviation field has been discussed since open skies policy began in 1970s. This issue has been also the main topic in the ICAO's Worldwide Air Transport Conference, the Air Transport Symposium, etc. ICAO defines competition as the existent or potential rivalry between two or more operators, carriers or groups, striving for advantages in the same market based on different prices, qualities and services. In a broader sense, the definition includes more various meanings; reasonable, fair, effective, and unrestricted competitions. Nowadays, competition laws and regulations to air transportation have been applied more frequently and the issues varies from antitrust immunity, mergers and alliances, abuse of dominant positions, capacity dumping and predatory pricing, sales and marketing, to airport charges and fees, state aid and loan guarantees. Now, the competition among the airlines or nations in aviation industry is changing to cooperation level. A lot of airlines try to survive by various cooperation methods. Therefore the policy of Korean aviation industry should be developed, taking so-called "the viewpoint of national aviation industry ecosystem" into consideration and Korean government should prepare a policy of fair competition to cope with it. First, in the process of open skies policy with neighboring countries such as China, Japan and the Middle East, it is necessary to apply the fair competition act and prepare laws and regulations to implement it. Second, the standards of effective ownership and control of air transportation business should be reviewed. Third, in preparation for aviation agreements and liberalization, the Korean aviation industry needs to study and review competition and cooperation issues through the analysis of strict aviation market structure for airlines and airport operations. Fourth, it is necessary to create a fair air transportation environment for the development of air transportation and competitiveness through preemptive policies such as the approval of mergers, acquisitions, JV and the ripple effects analysis.