미국 연방거래위원회(FTC)의 법집행방식에 관한 연구 - 피해구제를 중심으로 -

초록

In Korea, the competition law is primarily enforced by Korea Fair Trade Commission(KFTC) through the cease and desist order to prohibit the violations. Even if the surcharge is imposed to the violator, it would be attributed to the national treasury. So the problem is that a number of injured victims have trouble getting remedies for their harms by unlawful conduct. In contrast, in the United States, the antitrust victims can be compensated through private enforcement and public enforcement as well. In the early 1970s, The Federal Trade Commission(FTC) asserted that the cease and desist authority had the power to order restitution to injured consumers. It was rejected by the Ninth Circuit Court in Heater v. F.T.C., however, FTC tried to expand its restitutionary authorities. Finally section 13(b) and section 19 were enacted by the 1973 and 1975 amendments and these sections enable the FTC to seek redress including restitution in the federal court. It is notable that FTC is authorized to bring a suit for injured victims and suggests that the competition authority should have to concern about the redress. Antitrust remedies not only punish or sanction the violators but also should compensate to the victims and enhance deterrence effect. This could contribute to the restoration of competition to the hampered market. There are differences in the legal systems between the U.S. and Korea. However, Korea needs to consider the idea for remedies through experiences by the FTC.

키워드