초록 close

부당한 지원행위에 대한 규제조항은 공정한 거래질서의 확립과 경제력 집중을 억제하기 위한 목적으로 1996년 공정거래법에 신설되어 1997년 4월 1일부터 시행되어 왔다. 부당한 지원행위를 금지하는 제도는 비교법적으로 유래를 찾기 어려운 우리나라의 독특한 입법이지만, 경제법 분야에서 중요한 역할을 수행하여 왔다. 특히 최근 대규모 기업집단 계열사들간의 일감몰아주기를 통한 지원행위가 경제력의 유지․강화나 시장 내에서 경쟁사업자를 배제하는 등 국민경제의 폐해를 야기할 뿐 아니라, 지배주주의 편법적인 경영권 승계 및 부당한 부의 이전의 수단으로 활용되어짐에 따라 지난해 이후 대규모 기업집단 계열사간 일감몰아주기에 대한 규제 강화를 추진하고 있다. 그러나 일감몰아주기를 통한 부당지원행위 규제에 대한 현행 공정거래법과 시행령 및 심사지침에 제시된 판단기준은 실제 활용하기에는 다소 부족한 측면이 있으며, 위법성 기준이 명확하지 않아 법위반 판단이 어려울 뿐 아니라 수범자들의 예측가능성이 낮은 실정이다. 더욱이 공정거래위원회와 법원은 아직 일감몰아주기에 대한 판단기준도 명확하게 정리하고 있지 않다. 이러한 상황 속에서 대규모 기업집단 계열사들 간의 일감몰아주기를 통한 부당지원행위의 규제는 몇몇 쟁점들을 둘러싸고 적지 않은 논란이 지속적으로 발생할 것으로 예상된다. 본 글에서는 일감몰아주기를 통한 부당지원행위의 규제법리와 관련 사례들을 검토한 후, 쟁점이 되는 사안을 중심으로 현행 부당지원행위 규제제도를 재해석하고, 부당지원행위 규제가 나아가야 할 방향을 제시하고자 한다.


Currently, as the problem that significant shareholders of large-sized companies succeed the management rights and strengthen their control expediently by gathering supply and by misappropriating the company's opportunities comes to the fore as a social problem, interest in the regulation of supporting behavior between firms by the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act. The Article 23 §1(ⅶ) of the Act stipulates supporting behavior between firms, and it is a unique constitution in Korea. Supporting behavior between firms means to support those with a special relationship or other companies by providing provisional payment, loans, labor forces, real estate, marketable securities,products, services, intangible property right and etc. to those with a special relationship or other companies or by trading with them under a considerably beneficial condition, and to provide excessive economic income by providing or trading capitals, assets and human resources at significantly low or high cost or by providing or trading them in substantial volumes. Until now, the Fair Trade Commission has regulated supporting behavior between firms focusing on 'the behavior to provide excessive economic income by transacting assets at significantly low or high cost' in trading products or services. However, it regulated supporting behavior between firms by considering the practice to gather large volume of assets among affiliates of the Hyundai Motors Group as 'a behavior to provide excessive economic income by transacting assets in substantial volumes,' and the Seoul High Court supported it. Also, as the Fair Trade Commission expresses its position to strengthen the regulation on supporting with volumes of trade(Il-Gam-Mol-Ah-Joo-Gi) to a certain company by large-sized companies, “a behavior to provide excessive economic income by transacting assets in substantial volumes” is emerging as one type supporting behavior between firms. However, there are some matters of debate about regulation on supporting with volumes of trade as follows. It’s a problem about whether supporting behavior between firms is defined only with “substantial volumes” of transacting behavior, a standard of judgment about whether it provides “excessive economic income”, whether it is possible to protest with the efficiency in management, and whether supporting behavior between firms is defined about tunneling effects. The guide to evaluation does not stipulates a clear standard of judgment on the behavior to provide excessive economic income by transacting products and services in substantial volume, and as well, it has not collected enough relevant cases yet. If the Fair Trade Commission starts to regulate transaction of products and services in substantial volumes among affiliates of large-sized companies as a kind of unfair supporting behavior with volumes of trade under such a circumstance, it is expect to cause not a few debates about above issues. Therefore, first, it should arrange the standard of judgment on behaviors to provide excessive economic income by transacting assets in substantial volumes, and carefully consider to prepare an additional standard for judging whether supporting behaviors to gather assets as well as to make an effort to actualize and subdivide the standard of judgment.