Open Decision Ledger · Competition & fair trade
Limits on Resale Price Maintenance and Promotional Support in Pharmaceutical Distribution and Criteria for Calculating Administrative Fines
Translated from the Korean original. Read the Korean
Supreme Court, Nov. 25, 2010, 2009Du9543 (judgment)
Case name: 시정명령처분등취소
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Do a pharmaceutical company's maintenance of reimbursed drug prices and its support provided to hospitals, clinics, and others constitute a violation of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act?
Holding
The Supreme Court held that even minimum resale price maintenance may exceptionally be permitted where there is a justifiable reason, such as promoting inter-brand competition and thereby increasing consumer welfare. Whether a justifiable reason exists is determined by considering, comprehensively, the revitalization of inter-brand competition, the promotion of non-price service competition, the diversification of product choice, and the ease of market entry for new entrants, and the burden of proof lies with the business operator. The Court held that the plaintiff's conduct of maintaining reimbursed drug prices lacked a justifiable reason even under the actual transaction price reimbursement system, and that the support provided to hospitals, clinics, and others exceeded Article 4 paragraph (1) of the Fair Competition Regulations and constituted unfair inducement of customers. However, as to the administrative fine for unfair inducement of customers, the Court pointed out that where the conduct amounts to the implementation of a company-wide promotional plan, the total sales of all trading partners for the relevant pharmaceutical product must be treated as the relevant sales amount.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
[1] 독점규제 및 공정거래에 관한 법률 제2조 제6호, 제29조 제1항 등 독점규제 및 공정거래에 관한 법률의 입법 목적과 재판매가격유지행위를 금지하는 취지에 비추어 볼 때, 최저재판매가격유지행위가 당해 상표 내의 경쟁을 제한하는 것으로 보이는 경우라 할지라도, 시장의 구체적 상황에 따라 그 행위가 관련 상품시장에서의 상표 간 경쟁을 촉진하여 결과적으로 소비자후생을 증대하는 등 정당한 이유가 있는 경우에는 이를 예외적으로 허용하여야 할 필요가 있다
Unofficial English translation
[1] In light of the legislative purpose of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act, such as Article 2 (6) and Article 29 (1) of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act, and the purport of prohibiting resale price maintenance conduct, even where minimum resale price maintenance conduct appears to restrict competition within the relevant trademark, where, depending on the specific circumstances of the market, that conduct promotes inter-brand competition in the relevant product market and thereby increases consumer welfare, etc., and thus there is a justifiable reason, there is a need to exceptionally permit it
Disposition
Partly reversed and remanded Stated in the decision
원심판결 중 피고 패소 부분을 파기하고, 이 부분 사건을 서울고등법원에 환송한다
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed insofar as it ruled against the defendant, and this part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court
Form of the test
Elements stated Stated in the decision
[1] 독점규제 및 공정거래에 관한 법률 제2조 제6호, 제29조 제1항 등 독점규제 및 공정거래에 관한 법률의 입법 목적과 재판매가격유지행위를 금지하는 취지에 비추어 볼 때, 최저재판매가격유지행위가 당해 상표 내의
Unofficial English translation
[1] In light of the legislative purpose of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act, such as Article 2 (6) and Article 29 (1) of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act, and the purport of prohibiting resale price maintenance conduct, minimum resale price maintenance conduct is within the relevant trademark
Factors
- 시장의 구체적 상황에 따라 그 행위가 관련 상품시장에서의 상표 간 경쟁을 촉진하여 결과적으로 소비자후생을 증대하는 등 정당한 이유가 있는 경우에는 이를 예외적으로 허용하여야 할 필요가 있다
- 독점규제 및 공정거래에 관한 법률 제23조 제1항 제3호에서 정한 부당한 고객유인행위에 해당한다고 한 사례
- 제약회사의 당해 의약품에 대한 거래처 전체의 매출액을 위반행위로 인하여 영향을 받는 관련상품의 매출액, 즉 관련매출액으로 봄이 상당하다
Unofficial English translation
• Where, depending on the specific circumstances of the market, that conduct promotes inter-brand competition in the relevant product market and thereby increases consumer welfare, etc., and thus there is a justifiable reason, there is a need to exceptionally permit it
• A case where it was held to constitute an unfair inducement of customers provided in Article 23 (1) 3 of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act
• It is reasonable to regard the total sales amount of the pharmaceutical company's business partners for the relevant pharmaceuticals as the sales amount of the relevant products affected by the violation, that is, as the relevant sales amount
Relation to precedent
States a new standard Stated in the decision
[1] 독점규제 및 공정거래에 관한 법률 제2조 제6호, 제29조 제1항 등 독점규제 및 공정거래에 관한 법률의 입법 목적과 재판매가격유지행위를 금지하는 취지에 비추어 볼 때, 최저재판매가격유지행위가 당해 상표 내의 경쟁을 제한하는 것으로 보이는 경우라 할지라도, 시장의 구체적 상황에 따라 그 행위가 관련 상품시장에서의 상표 간 경쟁을 촉진하여 결과적으로 소비자후생을 증대하는 등 정당한 이유가 있는 경우에는 이를 예외적으로 허용하여야 할 필요가 있다
Unofficial English translation
[1] In light of the legislative purpose of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act, such as Article 2 (6) and Article 29 (1) of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act, and the purport of prohibiting resale price maintenance conduct, even where minimum resale price maintenance conduct appears to restrict competition within the relevant trademark, where, depending on the specific circumstances of the market, that conduct promotes inter-brand competition in the relevant product market and thereby increases consumer welfare, etc., and thus there is a justifiable reason, there is a need to exceptionally permit it
Decisions referred to
해당 본문 참조
Burden of proof
The party asserting Stated in the decision
그리고 그와 같은 정당한 이유가 있는지 여부는 관련시장에서 상표 간 경쟁이 활성화되어 있는지 여부, 그 행위로 인하여 유통업자들의 소비자에 대한 가격 이외의 서비스 경쟁이 촉진되는지 여부, 소비자의 상품 선택이 다양화되는지 여부, 신규사업자로 하여금 유통망을 원활히 확보함으로써 관련 상품시장에 쉽게 진입할 수 있도록 하는지 여부 등을 종합적으로 고려하여야 할 것이며, 이에 관한 증명책임은 관련 규정의 취지상 사업자에게 있다고 보아야 한다.
Unofficial English translation
And whether there is such a justifiable reason must be comprehensively considered in light of whether inter-brand competition in the relevant market is active, whether that conduct promotes competition among distributors in services other than price toward consumers, whether consumers' choice of goods is diversified, whether it enables new business operators to readily secure distribution networks and thereby enter the relevant product market with ease, etc., and the burden of proof in this regard must be regarded as resting on the business operator in light of the purport of the relevant provisions.
Open question and revisit condition
Where the existence of a company-wide promotional plan is confirmed, where lies the boundary of the trading partners whose sales, even if unverified, may be counted as the relevant sales amount?
If the state of inter-brand competition is found to be different, the justifiable reason is re-examined; if the extent to which the promotional plan was implemented nationwide is found to be different, the scope of the relevant sales amount is re-examined.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
8 of 8 axes matched Gemini 3.1 Pro · 2026-10-16
The independent cross-model AI reading results match the first reading on all 8 axes. The disposition, the direct quotation of the original text of the Summary of Decision, the Form of the test, the Factors, the Relation to precedent, and the classification of the Burden of proof are consistent with the wording of the original text.
Lower-court contrast & scope of application
Lower-court reading vs. Supreme Court holding
Lower-court context: The court below found this to be a resale price maintenance act under Article 29 paragraph (1) of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act, relying on the resale price maintenance clause in the wholesale transaction agreements that the plaintiff concluded with wholesalers, and on the sanctions imposed on wholesalers that breached those clauses, including the termination of transactions, the taking of written pledges, and promises to prevent recurrence. The court below held that the conduct of providing such benefits as goods, cash, and gift certificates to hospitals, clinics, pharmacies, and others, entertainment including golf, surcharge support, support for expenses of events such as seminars, manpower support, and post-marketing surveillance did not fall within the provision of money and goods exceptionally permitted under Article 4 paragraph (1) of the Fair Competition Regulations, and that the amount and scale also exceeded normal trade practices and constituted unfair inducement of customers, and it further held that the restriction to designated suppliers constituted a transaction subject to restraint conditions. However, as regards the calculation of the administrative fine, the court below held that it was appropriate to take as the relevant sales amount only the sales from each individual trading partner with respect to which the unfair inducement of customers was carried out.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court held that the judgment of the court below on the resale price maintenance act, the unfair inducement of customers, and the transactions subject to restraint conditions was proper, and dismissed the plaintiff's final appeal. However, the Court held that where the provision of benefits constituted an act of implementing a company-wide promotional plan for each pharmaceutical product, carried out generally toward trading partners, the total sales of all trading partners for the relevant pharmaceutical product must be treated as the relevant sales amount, and pointed out that the judgment of the court below, which, without considering this, calculated the relevant sales amount on the basis of the sales of each individual trading partner alone, was erroneous for having misapprehended the legal principle concerning the calculation of administrative fines. The Supreme Court reversed the portion of the judgment of the court below in which Defendant lost and remanded that portion of the case to the Seoul High Court, and dismissed the plaintiff's final appeal.
Distinguishing conditions
- A case where a justifiable reason, such as the promotion of inter-brand competition, is recognized for minimum resale price maintenance
- Where the provision of benefits falls within the money and goods permitted by the Fair Competition Regulations or does not exceed the normal range
- Where the confirmed provision of benefits is limited to individual provision that cannot be regarded as the implementation of a company-wide promotional plan
Record verification notes
When applying the legal principle of Supreme Court Decision 2009Du9543 to another case, one first confirms whether there is a justifiable reason for the resale price maintenance act, such as the promotion of inter-brand competition, and whether the business operator has adduced proof of it, and whether the provision of benefits exceeds the scope permitted by the Fair Competition Regulations and exceeds the normal range. If an administrative fine is at issue, one confirms together whether the confirmed provision may be regarded as the implementation of a company-wide promotional plan and whether the total sales of all trading partners for the relevant pharmaceutical product correspond to the relevant sales amount.
From the official text
Points at issue
[1] 독점규제 및 공정거래에 관한 법률 제29조 제1항에서 정한 사업자의 최저재판매가격유지행위도 정당한 이유가 있는 경우 예외적으로 허용되는지 여부 및 ‘정당한 이유’가 있는지 여부의 판단 기준과 그에 관한 증명책임자(=사업자) [2] 제약회사가 의약품의 판매를 촉진하기 위하여 병·의원, 약국 등에 물품·현금·상품권 등 지원, 골프 등 접대, 할증 지원, 세미나 등 행사경비 지원, 인력 지원, 시판 후 조사 등의 이익을 제공한 행위가 독점규제 및 공정거래에 관한 법률상 부당한 고객유인행위에 해당한다고 한 사례 [3] 제약회사가 의약품의 판매를 증진하기 위하여 의료기관 등을 상대로 한 독점규제 및 공정거래에 관한 법률 제23조 제1항 제3호의 부당한 고객유인행위에 대하여 과징금을 부과하는 경우, 과징금 산정의 기준이 되는 관련매출액의 범위
Unofficial English translation
[1] Whether a business operator's minimum resale price maintenance conduct provided in Article 29 (1) of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act may also be exceptionally permitted where there is a justifiable reason, and the criteria for determining whether there is a 'justifiable reason' and the party bearing the burden of proof (=the business operator) in that regard [2] A case where it was held that an act of a pharmaceutical company providing benefits, such as support in goods, cash, and gift certificates to hospitals, clinics, pharmacies, etc., entertainment such as golf, surcharge support, support for expenses of events such as seminars, manpower support, and post-marketing surveys, in order to promote the sale of pharmaceuticals, constitutes an unfair inducement of customers under the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act [3] Where a fine is imposed for an unfair inducement of customers under Article 23 (1) 3 of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act committed by a pharmaceutical company against medical institutions, etc. in order to increase the sale of pharmaceuticals, the scope of the relevant sales amount serving as the basis for calculating the fine
Summary of the holding
[1] 독점규제 및 공정거래에 관한 법률 제2조 제6호, 제29조 제1항 등 독점규제 및 공정거래에 관한 법률의 입법 목적과 재판매가격유지행위를 금지하는 취지에 비추어 볼 때, 최저재판매가격유지행위가 당해 상표 내의 경쟁을 제한하는 것으로 보이는 경우라 할지라도, 시장의 구체적 상황에 따라 그 행위가 관련 상품시장에서의 상표 간 경쟁을 촉진하여 결과적으로 소비자후생을 증대하는 등 정당한 이유가 있는 경우에는 이를 예외적으로 허용하여야 할 필요가 있다. 그리고 그와 같은 정당한 이유가 있는지 여부는 관련시장에서 상표 간 경쟁이 활성화되어 있는지 여부, 그 행위로 인하여 유통업자들의 소비자에 대한 가격 이외의 서비스 경쟁이 촉진되는지 여부, 소비자의 상품 선택이 다양화되는지 여부, 신규사업자로 하여금 유통망을 원활히 확보함으로써 관련 상품시장에 쉽게 진입할 수 있도록 하는지 여부 등을 종합적으로 고려하여야 할 것이며, 이에 관한 증명책임은 관련 규정의 취지상 사업자에게 있다고 보아야 한다. [2] 제약회사가 의약품의 판매를 촉진하기 위하여 병·의원, 약국 등에 물품·현금·상품권 등 지원, 골프 등 접대, 할증 지원, 세미나 등 행사경비 지원, 인력 지원, 시판 후 조사 등의 이익을 제공한 행위가 한국제약협회에서 제정한 보험용 의약품의 거래에 관한 공정경쟁규약 제4조 제1항에서 예외적으로 허용하는 금품류 제공 행위에 해당하지 않고, 그 금액 또는 규모도 사회통념상 정상적인 상관행 또는 정당한 영업활동으로 인정될 수 있는 범위를 초과한 것으로 보아, 독점규제 및 공정거래에 관한 법률 제23조 제1항 제3호에서 정한 부당한 고객유인행위에 해당한다고 한 사례. [3] 제약회사가 의약품의 판매를 증진하기 위하여 의료기관 등에 제공한 물품·현금·상품권 등 지급, 골프 등 접대, 할증 지원, 세미나 등 행사경비 지원, 인력 지원, 시판 후 조사 등과 같은 유형의 독점규제 및 공정거래에 관한 법률 위반행위에서는, 판촉계획 및 실제 이루어진 이익제공 행위의 대상·내용·액수·기간·지속성 및 관련성 등에 비추어 본사 차원에서 의약품별 판촉계획을 수립하여 전국적으로 시행한 것으로 볼 수 있는지 여부, 이익제공 행위의 구체적인 태양이 다르더라도 의약품 판매 증진을 위한 경제적 이익의 제공이라는 점에서 판촉계획의 실행행위 일부로 볼 수 있는지 여부, 이익제공을 위한 비용이 상품가격에 전가될 우려 및 정도, 판촉계획 및 이익제공 행위 적발의 난이도, 법 위반행위 당시의 거래관행 등을 종합적으로 고려하여, 구체적으로 확인된 이익제공 행위가 본사 차원에서 수립된 거래처 일반에 대한 판촉계획의 실행행위로서 이루어진 것으로 볼 수 있으면, 제약회사의 당해 의약품에 대한 거래처 전체의 매출액을 위반행위로 인하여 영향을 받는 관련상품의 매출액, 즉 관련매출액으로 봄이 상당하다.
Order
원심판결 중 피고 패소 부분을 파기하고, 이 부분 사건을 서울고등법원에 환송한다. 원고의 상고를 기각한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed insofar as it ruled against the defendant, and this part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court. The plaintiff's final appeal is dismissed.
Provisions referred to
[1] 독점규제 및 공정거래에 관한 법률 제2조 제6호, 제29조 제1항 [2] 독점규제 및 공정거래에 관한 법률 제23조 제1항 제3호 [3] 독점규제 및 공정거래에 관한 법률 제24조의2
Read 2026-10-15 · Cross-read 2026-10-16. All quotes matched against the official text. The Chinese-character placeholders the court used for anonymised parties are given in their Korean readings, and parenthetical Chinese-character glosses are omitted.
Every entry is published only after all quotes have been matched character by character against the official text, and audited by an independent second reading from a different model family across all eight axes. Both agreed axes and text-grounded interpretive divergences are recorded openly. The ledger is a research record, not an assessment of the court or advice on any matter.
Back to the ledger