• Journal of Legislation Research
• /
• no.53
• /
• pp.525-551
• /
• 2017

This Article discusses the current trend of European competition damage actions focused on the recent Damage Directive and its transposition by the United Kingdom and Germany. The relevant Directive was signed into law in November 2014, and it requires the EU Member States to adopt certain measures to support competition damage actions. The required measures and principles by the Directive include right to full compensation, rebuttable presumption of harm, extensive disclosure of evidence, use of pass-on for defense and indirect purchaser suits. Although many Member States did not meet the deadline to transpose the Directive, the end of 2016, it is reported that 23 Member States have now, as of September 2017, made enactments according to the Directive. When we look at the transposition done by the United Kingdom and Germany, the revisions on their competition laws closely follow the contents of the Directive. However, it will take quite a long time before the amended provisions apply to actual cases since most of the new provisions apply to the infringement that take place after the date of the amendment. A similar situation regarding application time may happen in some other Member States. Furthermore, even if the terms of the competition laws of the Member States become similar following the Directive, the interpretations of the laws may differ by the courts of different countries. EU also does not have a tool to coordinate the litigations that are brought in different Member States under the same facts. It is true that the EU made a big step to enhance competition damage actions by enacting Damage Directive. However, it needs to take more time and resources to have settled system of competition private litigation throughout the Member States. Korea has also experienced increase in competition damage actions during the last fifteen years, and there have been some revisions of the relevant fair trade law as well as development of relevant legal principles by court decisions. Although there are some suggestions that Korea should have more enactments similar to the EU Directive, its seems wiser for Korea to take time to observe how EU countries actually operate competition damage actions after they transposed the Directive. Then, it will be able to gain some wisdom to adopt competition action measures that are suitable for Korean legal system and culture.

• Journal of Korea Fair Competition Federation
• /
• no.98
• /
• pp.10-16
• /
• 2003

손해배상제도가 활성화되면 공정거래법 위반행위로 피해를 입었다고 주장하는 당사자들은 공정위에 시정조치의 발동을 촉구하는 것과 별도로 법원에 손해배상청구를 하여 신속한 권리 구제를 받을 수 있고, 동일한 사안에 대하여 공정위와 법원이 관여하게 되는 기회가 확대됨에 따라 현재와 같은 양 기관 사이의 판단 과정의 괴리도 좁혀질 수 있을 것으로 기대된다. 다만 개정안에도 불구하고 손해배상소송에서 입증이 어려운 영역인 인과관계와 손해액에 관한 피해자의 실질적인 입증부담은 여전히 남아 있으므로 개정안에 따른 제도개선이 소 제기 활성화라는 효과를 얼마나 가져 올 것인지는 더 지켜볼 문제이다.

• Journal of Korea Fair Competition Federation
• /
• no.98
• /
• pp.2-9
• /
• 2003

이번의 손해배상제도 개편은 사법적 구제의 확대를 통한 경쟁법 집행구조의 근본적 개편을 위한 하나의 계기에 불과하다. 이번 개정안에서 반영되지 아니한 금지청구제도 도입, 독일법제에서 보는 바와 같은 불공정거래행위 사건의 순수한 민사사건화와 같이 공정거래법 위반사안의 성질과 효과를 감안한 민형사 및 행정적 구제수단의 차별화, 공정거래법 위반사건에 대한 검찰의 원고 적격 부여 등은 시장에 미칠 충격을 감안하면서 지속적으로 검토되어야 할 남은 과제라고 할 것이다.

• Journal of Korea Fair Competition Federation
• /
• no.96
• /
• pp.2-7
• /
• 2003

실익이 없는 무리한 강제 조사권의 도입보다는 혐의가 드러난 담합의 경우 직접 검찰에 고발하거나 내부밀고자 보호 및 보상 강화를 통하여 절차적 정당성 및 정책 실효성을 동시에 확보할 필요가 있다. 각 국의 경쟁당국이 압수$\cdot$수색권을 행사하여 부당한 공동행위를 적발한 경우는 극히 일부분이기 때문이다. 그리고, 유사사례에 대해 향후 엄격하게 공정거래법을 집행함으로써 부당한 공동행위에 대한 사전적인 억제력을 제고해야 한다. 한편으로는 공정위의 시정조치가 있기 전에도 부당한 공동행위의 결과 피해를 본 사적 당사자가 법원에 직접 손해배상을 청구할 수 있도록 하고, 전문가들을 활용하여 담합으로 인한 손해발생 입증과 손해배상액을 추정하여 부당이득을 환수할 수 있어야 한다.

• Journal of Legislation Research
• /
• no.44
• /
• pp.801-828
• /
• 2013

This essay provides a legislative perspective on conflict-of-laws issues in the area of antitrust law. A consistent focus on the affected market question of applicable law is possible and yields content and acceptable results. The law applicable to damages claims should follow the law applicable to the antitrust relation itself. It is problematic, however, where more than one market is affected. In my view, the European perspective provides one general lesson for us. We are not yet prepared to accept american-style of class action in the field of antitrust law, at least until the european have made their legislative decision. Nevertheless we should make our antitrust system more effective, so that it would have strong deterrence to anti-competitive conducts. In this paper I present a proposal for adoption of a international conflict of law instrument, possibly a regulation, on damages actions for breach of art. 32 Korean Anti-trust Law.

• Journal of Legislation Research
• /
• no.44
• /
• pp.571-610
• /
• 2013

The current patent system is more often used for defensive purposes to exclude others' use or as a means to hold unfair strong positions in negotiations rather than for the original purpose as the dissemination and active use of useful technology. An injunction together with a damage is an important remedy for patent infringements. However, unlike a claim for damages, injunctions do not require the subjective requirement of intent and negligence or the occurrence of loss. If the validity of the patent and the fact of infringement are confirmed, automatically injunctions are issued without consideration of other circumstances. So a patent holder would exclude others' use and have a powerful position in negotiations because of injunctions for patent infringements. Therefore, those injunctions for patent infringements should be flexibly restricted according to cases under the premise to ensure fair compensation for the patent owner, rather than absolutely admitting injunctions for patent infringements like now. If then, it would serve the use of a useful technology and industrial development as the purpose of the patent system. First of all, judgments for preliminary injunctions should be strict and by deliberate decision on the merits permanent injunctions should be determined. In addition, it is needed that court's discretion possible to considerate 'the need for an injunction'. When the courts judge 'the need for an injunction', 'whether a patent holder has implemented a patent invention, the possibility of monetary compensation and the ability of the infringer for damages, a patent holder's intent to license and whether an injunction has been used as a weapon of negotiation, the proportion of patent technology in the entire products, the characteristics of patent technology and the possibility of patent invalidity, the competitive relationship for market share, the public interests and gains and losses between the parties and so on' should be considered. After these judgements, if 'the need for an injunction' is not approved, a patent owner would be protected by post-monetary compensation. However, because damages are related to illegal conducts in the past, in the case that an injunction is restrained, measures to ensure the legal implementation in the future are needed. It is primarily desirable that reasonable royalty is estimated throughout private negotiations between parties, but if agreement between the parties does not occur, patent owner should be able to claim the royalty for future.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.25 no.2
• /
• pp.163-199
• /
• 2010

A frequent flyer program is a loyalty program offered by many airlines. Typically, airline customers enrolled in the program accumulate frequent flyer miles corresponding to the distance flown on that airline or its partners. There are other ways to accumulate miles. In recent years, more miles were awarded for using co-branded credit and debit cards than for air travel. Acquired miles can be redeemed for free air travel; for other goods or services, such as travel class upgrades, airport lounge access or priority bookings. The first modern frequent flyer program was created Texas International Airlines in 1979. This program was also adopted in Korean Air in 1984. Since then, the mileage programs have grown enormously. As of June 2009, the total member of two national airlines in Korea had been over thirty million. However, accumulated miles could be burden of airlines, because the korean corporations should record the annual financial report the accumulate mileage on a liability account by 'the international financial report standards(IFRS)' next year. The korean airlines need to minimize the accumulated miles, so that for instance Korean Airlines SKYPASS-miles expire 5 years after being earned. It means that miles earned on or after July 2008 will expire after five years if unredeemed. Thus, this paper attempt to analyze the unfairness of the mileage rules of korean airlines by examining a specific portion of the conditions relating to consumer protection, because many mileage users has difficulties using mileage programs and complained the amendment of the mileage rules. In conclusion, the contemporary mileage rules in Korea are rather unsatisfactory, because airlines is not only recognizing a mileage into a kind of benefit but also denying inheritance of mileage and the legal nature of mileage as a property right. It is necessary to amend relevant mileage rules in view of consumer protection, because air mileage is not simple benefit but a right of mileage user.