지원사업
학술연구/단체지원/교육 등 연구자 활동을 지속하도록 DBpia가 지원하고 있어요.
커뮤니티
연구자들이 자신의 연구와 전문성을 널리 알리고, 새로운 협력의 기회를 만들 수 있는 네트워킹 공간이에요.
이용수
초록· 키워드
오류제보하기
For the purposes of fair competition and user protection in the telecommunication market, Article 36-3 of the Telecommunication Business Act (the ‘Act’) prescribes certain acts as ‘prohibited acts’ and Article 37 authorizes the Korea Communications Commission to impose various administrative sanctions against such acts. However, the controversy still continues over interpretation and legislative purpose surrounding the ‘prohibited acts’ of Article 36-3. The fundamental underlying reason is because of its characteristic of being a special provision for the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act, which affects the division of authority between the Korea Communications Commission and Korea Fair Trade Commission.
First, a controversy exists over whether the types of acts listed in Paragraph 1, Article 42 and Appendix 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act are specific and exclusive or representative and inclusive. In principle, they should be read as the latter in order to fill a regulatory vacuum and to overcome the limitation of the legislative technique, but there is a need to adopt an abstract and comprehensive regulatory approach. Second, for the concept of user under the protection of the Act, it should be interpreted to include both the actual users and other carriers’ contracting parties or any potential contracting parties. Third, for the nature of the acts which reduce benefits of users, the problem lies on whether it is about hampering fair competition or reducing user benefits. Since the current law describes the two as a separate equal legal interest as optional protective legal interests, the problem can be seen to have been solved to some degree. Therefore, notwithstanding that bundling sales are one of the types of the acts reducing user benefits, in considering such sales, taking into account of a fair competition policy perspective would be a logical contradiction under the regulatory policy. Lastly, the prohibition against individually-negotiated contracts is the embodiment of the prohibition against user discrimination, an important legal principle of the communications law, but since carriers may not always be necessarily in a superior position, such contracts should be allowed in principle to the extent that they do not ignore the purpose of the rate permit system.
Finally, various measures exist to ultimately solve the above-mentioned problems: (ⅰ) establish of a general ground provision for acts hampering fair competition or types of such acts; (ⅱ) by categorizing the ‘prohibited acts’ into two groups - those hampering fair competition and those reducing user benefits, specify detailed types of acts for the each group; (ⅲ) specify of representative types of the ‘prohibited acts’ without distinguishing the two; or (ⅳ) establish comprehensive regulation.
First, a controversy exists over whether the types of acts listed in Paragraph 1, Article 42 and Appendix 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act are specific and exclusive or representative and inclusive. In principle, they should be read as the latter in order to fill a regulatory vacuum and to overcome the limitation of the legislative technique, but there is a need to adopt an abstract and comprehensive regulatory approach. Second, for the concept of user under the protection of the Act, it should be interpreted to include both the actual users and other carriers’ contracting parties or any potential contracting parties. Third, for the nature of the acts which reduce benefits of users, the problem lies on whether it is about hampering fair competition or reducing user benefits. Since the current law describes the two as a separate equal legal interest as optional protective legal interests, the problem can be seen to have been solved to some degree. Therefore, notwithstanding that bundling sales are one of the types of the acts reducing user benefits, in considering such sales, taking into account of a fair competition policy perspective would be a logical contradiction under the regulatory policy. Lastly, the prohibition against individually-negotiated contracts is the embodiment of the prohibition against user discrimination, an important legal principle of the communications law, but since carriers may not always be necessarily in a superior position, such contracts should be allowed in principle to the extent that they do not ignore the purpose of the rate permit system.
Finally, various measures exist to ultimately solve the above-mentioned problems: (ⅰ) establish of a general ground provision for acts hampering fair competition or types of such acts; (ⅱ) by categorizing the ‘prohibited acts’ into two groups - those hampering fair competition and those reducing user benefits, specify detailed types of acts for the each group; (ⅲ) specify of representative types of the ‘prohibited acts’ without distinguishing the two; or (ⅳ) establish comprehensive regulation.
목차
Ⅰ. 서론
Ⅱ. 사업법시행령 별표3.에 의한 유형 및 기준의 개방성문제(한정적 열거규정 v. 예시규정)
Ⅲ. 이용자의 개념 문제
Ⅳ. 결합판매의 문제점과 개선방안
Ⅴ. 개별약정금지
Ⅵ. 맺음말
〈ABSTRACT〉
참고문헌 (0)
참고문헌 신청함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문
논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!
-
통신법상 금지행위 제도의 개선방향 : 규제경제학의 관점
행정법연구
2010 .12
-
업체탐방-(주)ACTS
프린팅코리아
2002 .01
-
전기통신사업법상 이용자이익 저해행위의 금지 再論
경제규제와 법
2017 .05
-
전기통신사업법 제36조의3상 금지행위에 관한 법적 고찰
행정법연구
2007 .08
-
전기통신사업법상 금지행위 규제의 개선 : 이용자이익 저해행위를 중심으로
행정법연구
2008 .04
-
중소기업공동사업에 대한 공정거래법의 적용 : 공정거래법상 적용제외를 중심으로
기업법연구
2007 .06
-
법령상 부작위의무(금지행위)의 반복적 위반과 시정명령 위반의 판단기준
경제규제와 법
2008 .05
-
방송ㆍ통신융합과 이용자보호제도의 개선 : 총론적 고찰
행정법연구
2009 .12
-
영국 상사법의 개별입법화 동향
기업법연구
2009 .12
-
계약자유와 공정거래
경쟁법연구
2019 .01
-
商法上의 立法錯誤의 是正을 위한 연구⑵ : 會社編을 중심으로
비교사법
2010 .09
-
자동화 컨테이너터미널 개발 전략에 관한 연구
해운물류연구
2005 .01
-
부정경쟁행위에 대한 손해배상책임 법리의 고찰
한양법학
2013 .05
-
會社整理制度에 관한 硏究: 會社整理法上「訴訟의 受繼」와 法理解釋의 限界
기업법연구
2004 .03
-
방송법 개정 동향 : 방송사업자에 대한 금지행위규제 도입을 중심으로
경제규제와 법
2011 .11
-
행정법령의 경과규정 흠결사례에 대한 해석
행정법연구
2007 .12
-
경쟁과 경쟁의 실질적 제한의 의의
경쟁법연구
2018 .01
-
공정거래법상 수직적 공동행위의 규제에 관한 연구
경영법률
2011 .01
-
「지방자치법」과 「지방교육자치에 관한 법률」의 관계 고찰
교육정치학연구
2019 .01
이 논문의 저자 정보
이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문
전기통신사업법 제36조의3상 금지행위에 관한 법적 고찰
한기정
행정법연구
2007
.08
통신법상 금지행위 제도의 개선방향 : 규제경제학의 관점
김정현
행정법연구
2010
.12
전기통신사업법상 이용자이익 저해행위의 금지 再論
이호영
경제규제와 법
2017
.05
방송통신위원회의 법집행절차 개선방향에 관한 연구 : 행정절차에 대한 對審主義접목의 의의와 방식을 중심으로
이희정
경제규제와 법
2010
.05
방송통신위원회의 제재처분을 위한 조사 및 심의절차의 법률적 쟁점 : 전기통신사업법을 중심으로
조성국
경제규제와 법
2010
.11
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0