• Korean Journal of Legislative Studies
• /
• v.25 no.2
• /
• pp.69-101
• /
• 2019

The purpose of this study is to verify that voting behavior of congressmen can vary depending on the different candidate selection methods of political parties. Specifically, this paper examines whether congressmen elected through a primary tend to deviate from the party line vote in the floor voting, compared to those who did not. As a result, it was founded that congressmen who went through competition of the primary are more likely to defect from the party line vote than who did not. This empirical evidence suggests that if the introduction of the open primary system is further expanded in the future, it may lead to weakening of party cohesion and reinforcing lawmakers' autonomy.

• 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 Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.30 no.1
• /
• pp.117-149
• /
• 2015

On May 16, 2014 the Supreme Court of Korea rendered its decision with respect to litigation filed by All Nippon Airways Co., Ltd. ("ANA") for revocation of an order of correction and payment of a penalty imposed by the Korea Fair Trade Commission ("KFTC"). On or around September 2002, ANA and various airlines operating air cargo service from Japan to Korea were allegedly to have agree to introduce of fuel surcharge into their rates on cargo fares in an attempt to recoup falling profits from rising of oil price. As this hard core cartel was per se prohibited under Korean competition law (The Monopoly Regulation And Fair Trade Act), KFTC began an investigation and consequently with fruitful results imposed an amount of penalty and issued an order of prohibition. ANA protested against this imposition by filing suit against KFTC under the reasons that (1) their agreement was simply pursuant to the relevant laws and regulations including Air Transport Agreement between Korea and Japan, (2) there was an administrative guidance from Japanese government to allow this agreement, (3) extraterritorial application of Korean competition law to the agreement in this matter was improper as it was made within Japan and targeted only for the shipment from Japan to Korea: accordingly there is not a direct and serious effect between the agreement and any result of anti-competitive. This article aims to review ANA's allegation and the judgement delivered by Korean court under some issues respectively; (1) whether there is an effectively actual anti-competitive cartel between airlines including plaintiff, (2) whether filed rate doctrine is reasonable and applicable in this case for precluding wrongfulness, (3) what is the reasonable limitation of boundaries in extraterritorial application of Korean competition law. Additionally, this article also suggests to concern particular features of air transport business as an regulated industry in judging the unfair restrain on competition.