독점규제법의 역외적용 이론은 자국의 독점규제법 적용을 원하는 정부 당국 및 법원이 속지주의 및 속인주의 원칙에 따르면 본래 타 당사국의 사법관할권에 속하는 외국의 사업자에게 자신의 관할권을 확대하여 자국법을 적용하기 위한 이론이다. 1945년 미국 Alcoa 사건에서, 미국 연방대법원은 특정 경쟁제한행위가 자국 산업에 대해 영향을 미치는 경우에 역외적용이 허용되는 것으로 판결하였고, 한국 역시 이와 같은 소위 ‘영향력’ 이론을 ‘독점규제 및 공정거래 등에 관한 법률(이하, “공정거래법”)’ 제2조의2로 입법화하여 시행해 오고 있다.
그런데 현행 한국 공정거래법 제2조의2는 “외국에서 실행된 행위가 국내산업에 영향을 미치는 경우에 동법을 적용한다”고 규정하여, 구체적으로 영향의 범위가 어디까지 인정되어야 하는 지가 불분명하다. 특히, 최근 해외 표준개발 과정에서 필수특허(SEP)로 인정받기 위해 FRAND 확약을 제출하였음에도 그 확약을 위반하여 비합리적 실시조건을 한국 사업자들에게 강제한 외국 특허권자들을 한국 공정거래위원회가 조사를 진행하는 과정에서 역외적용 가능성이 논란되고 있다.
이와 관련해, 미국의 경우 FTAIA법이 1982년에 제정되어, Alcoa 사건에서 제시된 ‘영향력’을 인정하기 위한 구체적 요건으로, “직접성, 상당성, 합리적 예견가능성”을 규정하고 있다. 2014년 한국 대법원 역시 미국의 FTAIA법과 동일한 요건을 갖추어야 영향력이 인정될 수 있음을 설시하고 있다. 그런데 여기서 다시 그 ‘직접성’이 행위의 ‘즉각적인 결과’를 의미하는 좁은 범위로 해석되어야 하는지, 아니면 ‘합리적 인과관계가 인정되는 주요 요인’으로 넓게 해석되어야 하는지 등이 여전히 문제가 된다. 이 연구는 이와 같은 역외적용의 구체적인 요건을 해석하기 위한 것으로써, 특히 다국적 특허권자로 구성된 해외의 SEP 권리행사 사례와 관련한 구체적인 논의를 진행한다.
In antitrust law principles, extraterritorial jurisdiction can be understood as the work of defining the scope of government authorities or courts to apply the law of particular nation on legal persons based in another jurisdiction. Since Alcoa case in the U.S. 1945, ‘effect doctrine’ has been upheld also in Korea, and Article 2-2(Application to Overseas Act) in Monopoly Regulation and Fair-Trade Act (MRAFTA) stipulates that “This Act shall also apply to acts done outside Korea, if such acts affect the domestic market.”The Article, however, is too ambiguous to find that which acts abroad can be regulated by MRAFTA. In particular, KFTC (Korea Fair Trade Commission) has investigated several foreign proprietors of SEP (Standard Essential Patent), who are supposed to violate the law by breaking the FRAND commitments to Korea Handset OEM businesses. The problem is whether KAFTC could perform its jurisdiction under MRAFTA when all products, which had been made under the unreasonable license terms by the foreign entity even in Korea, was exported to abroad without distribution in Korean territory for Korean consumers. In the U.S., the Foreign Trade Antitrust Improvements Act of 1982 permits U.S. antitrust agencies’ jurisdiction under antitrust laws only when the act causes a “direct, substantial, and reasonably foreseeable” effect on the U.S. domestic commerce or import trade. The Supreme Court of Korea in 2014 also decided almost the same rule for extraterritorial jurisdiction requiring “direct, substantial, and reasonably foreseeable effect to Korea market”. Unfortunately, there are still ambiguousness, such as, whether ‘the direct’ means ‘immediate consequence’, or only ‘a reasonably proximate causal nexus.’ This essay will discuss the appropriate understanding for requirements for extraterritorial jurisdiction, in relation to the multinational SEP owner’s violation of Korea antitrust law.
In antitrust law principles, extraterritorial jurisdiction can be understood as the work of defining the scope of government authorities or courts to apply the law of particular nation on legal persons based in another jurisdiction. Since Alcoa case in the U.S. 1945, ‘effect doctrine’ has been upheld also in Korea, and Article 2-2(Application to Overseas Act) in Monopoly Regulation and Fair-Trade Act (MRAFTA) stipulates that “This Act shall also apply to acts done outside Korea, if such acts affect the domestic market.”The Article, however, is too ambiguous to find that which acts abroad can be regulated by MRAFTA. In particular, KFTC (Korea Fair Trade Commission) has investigated several foreign proprietors of SEP (Standard Essential Patent), who are supposed to violate the law by breaking the FRAND commitments to Korea Handset OEM businesses. The problem is whether KAFTC could perform its jurisdiction under MRAFTA when all products, which had been made under the unreasonable license terms by the foreign entity even in Korea, was exported to abroad without distribution in Korean territory for Korean consumers. In the U.S., the Foreign Trade Antitrust Improvements Act of 1982 permits U.S. antitrust agencies’ jurisdiction under antitrust laws only when the act causes a “direct, substantial, and reasonably foreseeable” effect on the U.S. domestic commerce or import trade. The Supreme Court of Korea in 2014 also decided almost the same rule for extraterritorial jurisdiction requiring “direct, substantial, and reasonably foreseeable effect to Korea market”. Unfortunately, there are still ambiguousness, such as, whether ‘the direct’ means ‘immediate consequence’, or only ‘a reasonably proximate causal nexus.’ This essay will discuss the appropriate understanding for requirements for extraterritorial jurisdiction, in relation to the multinational SEP owner’s violation of Korea antitrust law.
