1 / 21

Regulations on Abuse of Market Dominance in Korea (Analysis & Case Study)

Regulations on Abuse of Market Dominance in Korea (Analysis & Case Study). Jaeho Moon Korea Fair Trade Commission. Market Dominant Enterprises. Definition

azize
Download Presentation

Regulations on Abuse of Market Dominance in Korea (Analysis & Case Study)

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Regulations onAbuse of Market Dominancein Korea(Analysis & Case Study) Jaeho Moon Korea Fair Trade Commission

  2. Market Dominant Enterprises Definition - Any enterpriser holding market dominance who can determine, maintain, or change the prices, quantity or quality of commodities or services or other terms and conditions of business as a supplier or customer in a particular business area individually or jointly with other enterprisers.

  3. Market Dominance • A firm’s capability to determine, maintain, or change the prices, quantity or quality of commodities or services or other terms and conditions of business as a supplier or customer. • Factors to Consider - market share - entry barriers - relative size of competitive firms - possibility of collaboration between competitors - existence of adjacent market - market foreclosure - other factors

  4. Market Dominance • Presumption of Market Dominance It is presumed that an enterprise has market dominance if the presumption requirement is satisfied even in the absence of substantial evidence * Presumption requirements - Annual turnover or purchasing volume worth 4 billion won or more - Market share of one enterprise exceeding 50% - Market share of 3 or less enterprises exceeding 75% (less than 10% of market share would be excluded)

  5. Particular Business Area • The term "particular business area" means an area in which any competitive relation exists or may exist, by the subject, stage, or geographical area of such trade. ⇒ defining “Relevant Market”

  6. Prohibited Activities 1. Unreasonably fix, maintain or alter the price of a good or service fees 2. Unreasonably control the sale of goods or the rendering of services, which is referred as “inventory control” 3. Unreasonably interfere in the business activities of other enterprises 4. Unreasonably interfere the entry of new competitors 5. Engage in unreasonable transaction to eliminate competitors or harm the interest of consumers

  7. Remedies and Sanctions 1) Corrective order －To reduce price, to discontinue violating act, to announce the fact that the firm was punished, and to take other measures necessary for correction 2) Surcharge －Impose surcharge upon a violating firm not exceeding an amount equivalent to 3 % of the annual turnover 3) Criminal Penalty －Imprisonment up to 3 years or fine up to 200 Million Korean Won

  8. Case Study Following slides introduce cases of abuse of market dominance in Korea by prohibited activities.

  9. Abuse of Pricing • Article 5-2 Clause 1 of the ENFORCEMENT DECREE OF THE MONOPOLY REGULATION AND FAIR TRADE ACT (the Decree) • The act unreasonably fix, maintain or alter the price of a good or service fees means a sharp increase or only slight decrease, without justifiable reason, in the price of goods or services relative to changes in the supply and demand or in supply cost (limited to the general level of the like or similar businesses).

  10. Abuse of Pricing < A case of Haitai & 2 Companies (’91) > • Facts - The examined companies (M/S 78%) maintained the price of their biscuits but reduced the weight of the same product, thereby actually raising the price of the good • Analysis - The KFTC compared the price increase and the cost increase. • Decision by the Commission 1. Lower the price or increase the amount of the product 2. Announce that the companies violated the law and were subject to corrective measures.

  11. Inventory Control • Article 5-2 Clause 2 of the Decree. 1. significantly decreasing, without justifiable reason, the supply of goods or services in light of recent trends; or - “Recent trends”: Study & identify trends of supply volume by product, region, client, and season over a long period 2. decreasing, without justifiable reason, the supply of goods or services despite a supply shortage in distribution. 

  12. Inventory Control • < A case of ShinDongBang (’97) > • Facts - The examined company decided to raise the selling price of soybean oil according to the exchange rate hike during the Asian Financial Crisis of 1997. - Immediately prior to the price increase (’97.12.18), the company significantly reduced the sale of soybean oil products during(’97.12. 8.~12.16.) • Analysis - Demand jumped with the possibility of a price rise of soybean oil which mainly uses imported raw materials - There was enough inventory of raw materials needed for production, and there were no inevitable circumstances to limit the delivery of goods - By adjusting the delivery of soybean oil, the company managed to accumulate greater profits than normal with higher prices

  13. Inventory Control • Decision by the Commission - Prohibit adjustment of delivery, and order to announce the violation of the law and that it was subject to corrective measures - Levy penalties: 315 million won surcharge & prosecution

  14. Interfere in the business activities of other enterprises • Article 5 Clause 3 of the Decree 1. Hindering without justifiable reason, the purchase of raw materials needed for the other Enterprise's production 2. Employing human capital indispensable to the business activities of another firm by granting or promising excessive economic compensation compared to normal practices 3. Refusing discontinuing, or limiting, without justifiable reason, the use of or the access to essential facilities for the manufacturing, providing, selling of the products or services of other Enterprises 4. Engaging in other unreasonable Acts hindering the business activities of other Enterprises.

  15. Interfere in the entry of new competitors • Article 5 Clause 4 of the Decree 1. Entering into an exclusive agreement with distributors without justifiable reason 2. Purchasing of rights necessary to enter the business of incumbent companies without justifiable reason 3. Denying, suspending or limiting the use or access of elements essential for the production, supply, or sale of a good or service of another business without justifiable reason 4. Engaging in other activities that impair the entrance of new competitors

  16. Excluding Competitors & Impairing Consumer Interests • Article 5 Clause 5 of the Decree 1. Cases where a competitor could be excluded by the unjust supply of goods or services at a price lower than normal costs or procurement of goods or services at a price higher than normal costs 2. Cases where a company unjustly agrees to do business on the condition that the corresponding party does not do business with the company’s competitor

  17. Excluding Competitors & Impairing Consumer Interests • < Microsoft’s Impairment of Consumer Interests(’06) > • Facts - Microsoft (MS) bundled its WMS in its Windows Server O/S bundled its WMP in its Windows PC O/S bundled its Instant Messenger in its Windows PC O/S • Tying products (Server OS & PC OS) : Core products in SW industry • Tied products (WMS, WMP and IM) : Increasing importance in New Economy - MS has Market dominance power in Server OS and PC OS market • 78% in PC server OS market • 99% in PC OS market - MS made late entry into tied product market

  18. Excluding Competitors & Impairing Consumer Interests • Standard of Analysis It is illegal to condition the sale of a “tying” product upon the purchase of a “tied” product. • Dominance in tying product market • Tying vs. tied products : distinct • Coercion : purchase against will • Restraining competition (Weighing anti-competitive effects against efficiency)

  19. Excluding Competitors & Impairing Consumer Interests • Analysis 1. MS abused its market dominance in the OS market by forcing consumers to purchase its separate product WMS, WMP, IM raised concerns over the possibility of limiting the competition in the media server program market 2. Such actions infringed upon consumers’ rights in choosing media server programs 3. The bundling affects competition, hinders technological innovation and hurts consumer benefits

  20. Excluding Competitors & Impairing Consumer Interests • Decision by the Commission 1. Corrective Orders - to separate the WMS from the Window server OS - to provide 2 versions of PC OS • Another Windows PC OS without WMP & IM • Current OS w/ competing MP & IM download icon 2. Surcharge - 33billion won (approximately US$33million)

  21. Thank You

More Related