Abuse of Market Dominance in Korea: Competition Law in Korea

The Seoul Central District Court ruled earlier this year that Namyang Dairy Products Co. (“Namyang”) was in violation of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act of Korea by abusing its market dominance and “unfairly taking advantage” of retailers. For more Antitrust/Competition Law articles please click on the labels noted Antitrust Law on the right. Namyang, a major Korean dairy company, was accused by retailers of, among other things, forcing retailers to purchase expired or soon to expire products and purchase unpopular products.  The Seoul Central District Court in 2014GaHab592238 ruled the company was in violation of Article 23 of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act of Korea and awarded damages to the plaintiffs. Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act of Korea Article 23(1), no. 4 prohibits a company or individual from: “Trading with a certain transacting partner by unfairly taking advantage of his/her position in trade.” The Court

Continue reading

Korean Price-Fixing Law: Defining the Relevant Market in Korea Antitrust Law

The Seoul High Court (2009 NU 1930, May 19, 2010) has overruled a decision of the Korean Fair Trade Commission (KFTC) in a case concerning price-fixing by luxury car importers. The KFTC has appealed the this pivotal price-fixing case.  We shall update the reader. The High Court ruled that a price-fixing arrangement (restriction on discounts from MSRP) between Lexus car dealers was not an “unfair collective act” under Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act Art. 19 (1) thus overruling the decision of the KFTC that imposed a fine and ordered the dealers not to engage in the price-fixing arrangement. The KFTC has also imposed a fine on other luxury car importers. The KFTC opined that the relevant market was the market for the particular car and not the entire car or luxury car market. Thus, the Commission ruled that the act restrained trade absolutely within the relevant particular car luxury

Continue reading