Open Decision Ledger · Competition & fair trade
A partial ban on a service as restricting its trade
Supreme Court, Sept. 29, 2022, 2021Du33722 (judgment)
Case name: 시정명령및과징금납부명령취소
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Does a business association's ban on its member businesses providing only written desk advice fall within the category of 'acts restricting trade in services' prohibited by Article 19(1)(3) of the former Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act, applied through Article 26(1)(i) of that Act?
Holding
It does. An act falls within the category of 'acts restricting trade in services' as soon as it restricts some or all of the provision or purchase of services; whether the restricted service has substitutes in the trade field concerned is not a matter to weigh. The ban on the provision of written desk advice is such an act, so the court below should have examined, taking the category as met, whether the act unfairly restricted competition in the relevant desk-advice market.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
제19조 제1항 제3호에서 금지하는 ‘용역의 거래를 제한하는 행위’의 행위유형에 해당하려면 용역의 제공이나 구매 등 거래를 일부 또는 전부 제한하는 행위이면 족하고, 일정한 거래분야에서 제한의 대상이 되는 용역과 대체 가능한 용역이 존재하는지 등을 고려하여 위 규정의 적용 여부를 가릴 것은 아니다.
Unofficial English translation
To fall under the type of conduct "an act that restricts transactions in services" prohibited by Article 19 (1), subparagraph 3, it is sufficient that the act restricts transactions in whole or in part, such as the provision or purchase of services, and it is not the case that the applicability of the aforesaid provision should be determined by taking into consideration whether services subject to the restriction and substitutable services exist, etc. in a certain field of transactions.
Disposition
Reversed and remanded Stated in the decision
원심판결을 파기하고, 사건을 서울고등법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.
Form of the test
Elements stated Stated in the decision
제19조 제1항 제3호에서 금지하는 ‘용역의 거래를 제한하는 행위’의 행위유형에 해당하려면 용역의 제공이나 구매 등 거래를 일부 또는 전부 제한하는 행위이면 족하고
Unofficial English translation
To fall under the type of conduct "an act that restricts transactions in services" prohibited by Article 19 (1), subparagraph 3, it is sufficient that the act restricts transactions in whole or in part, such as the provision or purchase of services, and
Factors
- 용역의 제공이나 구매 등 거래를 일부 또는 전부 제한하는 행위이면 족하고
- 일정한 거래분야에서 제한의 대상이 되는 용역과 대체 가능한 용역이 존재하는지 등을 고려하여 위 규정의 적용 여부를 가릴 것은 아니다
Unofficial English translation
• it is sufficient that the act restricts transactions in whole or in part, such as the provision or purchase of services, and
• it is not the case that the applicability of the aforesaid provision should be determined by taking into consideration whether services subject to the restriction and substitutable services exist, etc. in a certain field of transactions.
Relation to precedent
States a new standard Read from the decision
제19조 제1항 제3호에서 금지하는 ‘용역의 거래를 제한하는 행위’의 행위유형에 해당하려면 용역의 제공이나 구매 등 거래를 일부 또는 전부 제한하는 행위이면 족하고
Unofficial English translation
To fall under the type of conduct "an act that restricts transactions in services" prohibited by Article 19 (1), subparagraph 3, it is sufficient that the act restricts transactions in whole or in part, such as the provision or purchase of services, and
Decisions referred to
해당 본문 참조
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
Does the ban on the provision of written desk advice unfairly restrict competition in the desk-advice market covering written and oral desk advice?
The judgment of the Seoul High Court on remand, which will decide whether the ban unfairly restricted competition, requires this entry to be read again. So does any amendment to Article 40(1)(iii) or Article 51(1)(i) of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act, or a later Supreme Court decision on the scope of 'acts restricting trade in services'.
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 6 (relation to precedent).
Axis 6 (Relation to precedent): Primary “States a new standard” vs Independent “Cannot be determined”
The primary says the court announced a new standard on the precedent question, while the independent records that the precedent relation could not be confirmed, so the two differ on how the judgment relates to prior cases.
제19조 제1항 제3호에서 금지하는 ‘용역의 거래를 제한하는 행위’의 행위유형에 해당하려면 용역의 제공이나 구매 등 거래를 일부 또는 전부 제한하는 행위이면 족하고Raw 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 14 January 2021 (2019Nu65643), held that 'acts restricting trade in services' under Article 19(1)(3), applied through Article 26(1)(i), cover only an act restricting the whole of trade in services in the relevant market so as to affect the supply of services directly, and not an act limiting only a particular method of transaction or type of service. It found the relevant market to be the desk-advice market covering written and oral desk advice, and held that because the plaintiff association's ban on written desk advice restricted only part of that market, the conduct was outside the category, so the disposition was unlawful.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court held that this reading misapprehended the scope of Article 19(1)(iii) and affected the outcome. Since restricting some or all of the provision or purchase of services suffices, the ban on the provision of written desk advice does fall within the category, and the court below should have gone on to examine whether it unfairly restricted competition in the desk-advice market. It reversed the whole judgment and remanded the case to the Seoul High Court, and, because the ground for the first appeal was upheld, it did not examine the remaining grounds for appeal.
Distinguishing conditions
- Conduct that restricts neither the provision nor the purchase of services, since the category turns on a partial or total restriction of that trade.
- Conduct falling outside Article 26(1)(i) of the Act, which the provision reaches only where the act is one restricting competition unfairly through conduct under the items of Article 19(1).
- A case in which the conduct meets the category but does not unfairly restrict competition in the relevant market, since illegality still had to be examined on that footing.
Record verification notes
Set the measure's text against the elements first: it must restrict the provision or purchase of services even in part, and it must be an act of a business association under Article 26(1)(i). Then note what this decision does not decide. It leaves open whether the ban on written desk advice unfairly restricted competition in the desk-advice market, so the record of market conditions and effects carries the outcome on remand. Check also the current numbering, since the 2020 full amendment moved the rule to Article 40(1)(iii) and Article 51(1)(i).
From the official text
Points at issue
구 독점규제 및 공정거래에 관한 법률 제19조 제1항 제3호에서 금지하는 ‘용역의 거래를 제한하는 행위’의 행위유형에 해당하는지 판단하는 방법
Unofficial English translation
The method for determining whether conduct falls under the type of conduct "an act that restricts transactions in services" prohibited by Article 19 (1), subparagraph 3 of the former Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act
Summary of the holding
구 독점규제 및 공정거래에 관한 법률(2020. 12. 29. 법률 제17799호로 전부 개정되기 전의 것) 제26조 제1항은 "사업자단체는 다음 각호의 1에 해당하는 행위를 하여서는 아니 된다."라고 규정하면서, 제1호에서 ‘제19조 제1항 각호의 행위에 의하여 부당하게 경쟁을 제한하는 행위’를 규정하고 있고, 제19조 제1항은 "사업자는 계약·협정·결의 기타 어떠한 방법으로도 다른 사업자와 공동으로 부당하게 경쟁을 제한하는 다음 각호의 어느 하나에 해당하는 행위를 할 것을 합의하거나 다른 사업자로 하여금 이를 행하도록 하여서는 아니 된다."라고 규정하면서, 제3호에서 ‘상품의 생산·출고·수송 또는 거래의 제한이나 용역의 거래를 제한하는 행위’를 규정하고 있다. 제19조 제1항 제3호에서 금지하는 ‘용역의 거래를 제한하는 행위’의 행위유형에 해당하려면 용역의 제공이나 구매 등 거래를 일부 또는 전부 제한하는 행위이면 족하고, 일정한 거래분야에서 제한의 대상이 되는 용역과 대체 가능한 용역이 존재하는지 등을 고려하여 위 규정의 적용 여부를 가릴 것은 아니다.
Order
원심판결을 파기하고, 사건을 서울고등법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.
Provisions referred to
구 독점규제 및 공정거래에 관한 법률(2020. 12. 29. 법률 제17799호로 전부 개정되기 전의 것) 제19조 제1항 제3호(현행 제40조 제1항 제3호 참조), 제26조 제1항 제1호(현행 제51조 제1항 제1호 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