Open Decision Ledger · Competition & fair trade
Territory and customer restrictions as tied transactions
Supreme Court, Aug. 25, 2022, 2020Du35219 (judgment)
Case name: 시정명령등취소청구의소
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Under Article 23(1)(5) and (2) of the former Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act and Article 36(1) of its Enforcement Decree, Table 1-2, 7(n), what is a restriction on a trading counterparty's trading territory or trading partners in a tied transaction, and how is it decided whether such conduct is likely to impede fair trade?
Holding
It is conduct in which goods or services are traded on conditions that unduly restrain the counterparty's trading territory or trading partners, and it is an act likely to impede fair trade. Whether that likelihood exists must be judged by weighing together the concrete features of the conduct, such as its intent, purpose, effects and influence, the form of the trade, the characteristics of the goods or services, market conditions, the market position of the business and its counterparty, the content and degree of the restriction, its effect on competition, and whether it is used together with, or as a means of, another act pursuing an unlawful purpose under the Act.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
불공정거래행위의 한 유형으로 규정한 구속조건부 거래 중 거래지역 또는 거래상대방의 제한은 상품 또는 용역을 거래함에 있어서 그 거래상대방의 거래지역 또는 거래상대방을 부당하게 구속하는 조건으로 거래하는 행위로서 ‘공정한 거래를 저해할 우려가 있는 행위’를 말한다.
Unofficial English translation
The restriction on trading areas or counterparties among tied transactions with restrictions, prescribed as a type of unfair trade practice, means an act of transacting on the condition of unreasonably restraining the counterparty's trading area or counterparty in transacting goods or services, which constitutes 'an act that is likely to impede fair trade.'
Disposition
Dismissed Stated in the decision
상고를 모두 기각한다. 상고비용은 피고가 부담한다.
Unofficial English translation
All appeals are dismissed. The appeal costs shall be borne by the defendant.
Form of the test
Circumstances weighed Stated in the decision
여기에서 공정한 거래를 저해할 우려가 있는지는 해당 행위의 의도와 목적, 효과와 영향 등 구체적 태양과 거래의 형태, 상품 또는 용역의 특성, 시장 상황, 사업자 및 거래상대방의 시장에서의 지위, 제한의 내용과 정도, 경쟁에 미치는 영향, 구 공정거래법상 위법한 목적 달성을 위한 다른 행위와 함께 또는 그 수단으로 사용되는지 등을 종합적으로 고려하여 판단하여야 한다
Unofficial English translation
Here, whether there is a risk of impeding fair trade must be determined by comprehensively considering the specific circumstances of the relevant act, such as its intent and purpose, effects and impact, the form of the transaction, the characteristics of the goods or services, market conditions, the positions of the business operator and the counterparty in the market, the content and extent of the restriction, its impact on competition, whether it is used together with, or as a means of, other acts to achieve an unlawful purpose under the former Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act, and the like
Factors
- 상품 또는 용역을 거래함에 있어서 그 거래상대방의 거래지역 또는 거래상대방을 부당하게 구속하는 조건으로 거래하는 행위로서
- 해당 행위의 의도와 목적, 효과와 영향 등 구체적 태양과 거래의 형태
- 시장 상황, 사업자 및 거래상대방의 시장에서의 지위
- 제한의 내용과 정도, 경쟁에 미치는 영향
- 구 공정거래법상 위법한 목적 달성을 위한 다른 행위와 함께 또는 그 수단으로 사용되는지
Unofficial English translation
• an act of transacting on the condition of unreasonably restraining the counterparty's trading area or counterparty in transacting goods or services, which constitutes
• the specific circumstances of the relevant act, such as its intent and purpose, effects and impact, and the form of the transaction
• market conditions, and the positions of the business operator and the counterparty in the market
• the content and extent of the restriction, and its impact on competition
• whether it is used together with, or as a means of, other acts to achieve an unlawful purpose under the former Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 2017. 6. 19. 선고 2013두17435 판결
Unofficial English translation
Supreme Court Decision 2013Du17435 decided June 19, 2017
Decisions referred to
대법원 2017. 6. 19. 선고 2013두17435 판결
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
When a supplier restricts a distribution channel as well as controlling the resale price of finished products, how does the comprehensive assessment weigh those two restraints together?
Any later decision applying the same multi-factor test to a supplier that did control resale prices, or an amendment to Article 45(1)(7) and (3) of the Act or to Table 2, 7(n) of the Enforcement Decree, would require this entry to be read again.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
7 of 8 axes matched GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI, codex CLI) · 2026-10-25
A reader from another model family (GPT-6 Astra), given the official text but not the primary reading, agreed on 7 of the 8 axes; the readings differed on axis 8 (open question and revisit condition).
Axis 8 (Open question and revisit condition): Primary “When a supplier restricts a distribution channel as well as controlling the resale price of finished products, how does the comprehensive assessment weigh those two restraints together?” vs Independent “How should conflicting indications of competitive harm and legitimate commercial purpose be weighed in a particular market?”
The primary asks how to assess a channel restriction combined with resale price control, while the independent asks how to weigh competitive harm against legitimate commercial purpose.
불공정거래행위의 한 유형으로 규정한 구속조건부 거래 중 거래지역 또는 거래상대방의 제한은 상품 또는 용역을 거래함에 있어서 그 거래상대방의 거래지역 또는 거래상대방을 부당하게 구속하는 조건으로 거래하는 행위로서 ‘공정한 거래를 저해할 우려가 있는 행위’를 말한다.Raw responses and comparison record: Protocol · Blind readings (JSONL) · Axis comparison (JSONL) · SHA-256 (JSON)
Lower-court contrast & scope of application
Lower-court reading vs. Supreme Court holding
Lower-court context: The Seoul High Court, in its judgment of 23 January 2020 (2017Nu76786), set aside the Commission's corrective order. It held that the conduct of the plaintiffs, W. L. Gore & Associates, Inc. and others, who sold GORE-TEX functional fabric to domestic outdoor product makers from 31 March 2009 to 21 December 2012 on condition that finished products of that material not be sold in hypermarkets, was not conduct likely to impede fair trade.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court noted that parts of the reasoning below were somewhat inappropriate, but held that the conclusion that the conduct was not unlawful to the point of impeding fair trade was proper. It found no error such as misapprehending the law on the competition-restraining character of tied transactions restricting a counterparty, and dismissed the appeals in full by the unanimous opinion of the participating Justices.
Distinguishing conditions
- A restriction on trading territory or trading partners that operates as a condition of trade and unduly restrains the counterparty, so that it is not confined to a reasonable range.
- A case in which the restriction accompanies other conduct pursuing an unlawful purpose under the Act, or is used as a means of it.
- Restrictions assessed under Article 45(1)(7) and (3) of the current Act and Table 2, 7(n) of the current Enforcement Decree, since the decision applied the pre-amendment provisions.
Record verification notes
Check first which version of the Act and the Enforcement Decree governed the conduct, since Article 23 was succeeded by Article 45 and Article 36(1) by Table 2. Then collect what the parties say about the intent and purpose of the restriction, its share of distribution channels, its effect on competition between brands and after it ended, and the market position of the supplier and its customers, because the Court weighed all of these.
From the official text
Points at issue
구 독점규제 및 공정거래에 관한 법률 제23조 제1항 제5호, 제2항, 구 독점규제 및 공정거래에 관한 법률 시행령 제36조 제1항 [별표 1의2] 제7호 (나)목에서 불공정거래행위의 한 유형으로 규정한 구속조건부 거래 중 거래지역 또는 거래상대방 제한의 의미 및 이때 공정한 거래를 저해할 우려가 있는지 판단하는 방법
Unofficial English translation
Meaning of restriction on trading areas or counterparties among tied transactions with restrictions, prescribed as a type of unfair trade practice under former Article 23 (1) 5 and (2) of the former Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act and Article 36 (1) [Attached Table 1-2] Item 7 (b) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act, and the method of determining whether there is a risk of impeding fair trade at that time
Summary of the holding
구 독점규제 및 공정거래에 관한 법률(2013. 8. 13. 법률 제12095호로 개정되기 전의 것, 이하 ‘구 공정거래법’이라 한다) 제23조 제1항 제5호, 제2항, 구 독점규제 및 공정거래에 관한 법률 시행령(2014. 2. 11. 대통령령 제25173호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제36조 제1항 [별표 1의2] 제7호 (나)목에서 불공정거래행위의 한 유형으로 규정한 구속조건부 거래 중 거래지역 또는 거래상대방의 제한은 상품 또는 용역을 거래함에 있어서 그 거래상대방의 거래지역 또는 거래상대방을 부당하게 구속하는 조건으로 거래하는 행위로서 ‘공정한 거래를 저해할 우려가 있는 행위’를 말한다. 여기에서 공정한 거래를 저해할 우려가 있는지는 해당 행위의 의도와 목적, 효과와 영향 등 구체적 태양과 거래의 형태, 상품 또는 용역의 특성, 시장 상황, 사업자 및 거래상대방의 시장에서의 지위, 제한의 내용과 정도, 경쟁에 미치는 영향, 구 공정거래법상 위법한 목적 달성을 위한 다른 행위와 함께 또는 그 수단으로 사용되는지 등을 종합적으로 고려하여 판단하여야 한다.
Order
상고를 모두 기각한다. 상고비용은 피고가 부담한다.
Unofficial English translation
All appeals are dismissed. The appeal costs shall be borne by the defendant.
Provisions referred to
구 독점규제 및 공정거래에 관한 법률(2013. 8. 13. 법률 제12095호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제23조 제1항 제5호(현행 제45조 제1항 제7호 참조), 제2항(현행 제45조 제3항 참조), 구 독점규제 및 공정거래에 관한 법률 시행령(2014. 2. 11. 대통령령 제25173호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제36조 제1항 [별표 1의2] 제7호 (나)목[현행 제52조 [별표 2] 제7호 (나)목 참조]
Read 2026-10-25 · Cross-read 2026-10-25. 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