부정경쟁방지법상 일반조항의 적용 사례에 대한 불공정거래행위 법리를 통한 재해석

A Study on Interpretation of General Clause of the Unfair Competition Prevention Law Through Unfair Trade Practices

2014년 개정된 부정경쟁방지 및 영업비밀 보호에 관한 법률(이하 “부정경쟁방지법)은 제2조 제1호 (차)에서 종전의 열거된 행위 유형 외에 공정한 상거래 관행이나 경쟁질서에 반하는 행위를 규율할 수 있도록 하여 종래 민법상 불법행위 법리로서 해결하던 것을 부정경쟁행위 일반유형으로 규율할 수 있게 된 점은 의미가 크다고 할 수 있다. 아울러 급변하는 시대적, 경제적 환경 등에 효율적으로 대응할 수 있다는 장점이 있으나, 다른 한편으로는 행위자가 어떠한 행위가 구체적으로 부정경쟁행위로서 금지되는 행위인지를 예측하기 어렵다. 한편 부정경쟁방지법상 일반조항 규정의 문언에는 독점규제 및 공정거래에 관한 법률(이하 “독점규제법”)과 같이 ‘공정한’이라는 표현을 사용하고, 부정경쟁행위와 독점규제법이 경합 또는 중복 적용될 수 있다는 점, 법원이 일관되게 부정경쟁행위를 한 자에 대하여 경쟁자 요건으로 한정하여 해석하고 있는 점은 주목할 필요가 있다. 무엇보다도 부정경쟁행위와 불공정거래행위 모두 자유롭고 공정한 경쟁 내지거래질서를 규율한다는 목적성을 고려한다면, 보다 구체적이고 세부적인 위법성판단 기준을 제시하고 있는 불공정거래행위 법리적용을 통하여 해석하는 방법이 부정경쟁행위 일반조항이 지니고 있는 모호하거나 추상적인 부분을 감쇄하는 데 도움이 될 수 있을 것이다. 또한 불공정거래행위 법리가 장기간 국민 경제생활 속에서 뿌리 내려오면서 축적해온 경험 등이 공정하고 건전한 거래질서를 유지할 수 있는 효율적 규제 법리로서 작용해온 점을 고려한다면, 이를 부정경쟁방지법상 일반조항의 판단 기준의 제시와 해석에 기여할 수 있을 것이다.

Competition means and methods that have been used in the conventional trading field have changed economic values and asset types in various ways across society and economy due to a new technological development, such as social media, object internet and artificial intelligence, which are defined as so-called fourth industrial revolution, and caused new forms of unfair competition to emerge that are difficult to regulate and discipline with existing laws and regulations. In order to deal effectively with these issues, in addition to the type of unfair competition practice that are listed in clause (a) and (b), the clause (h), the prohibition of the act of infringing the economic interests of others by unauthorized use of the performance made by the substantial investment or effort of others for their own business in a manner contrary to fair trade practice or competitive order, newly was established, as Act No.11963 July 30, 2013 amended the Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secrets Protection Act(hereinafter referred to as the Unfair Competition Prevention Act ). The newly established general provision has a great significance in that it has been able to discipline unfair competition practices as a general type of unfair competition act that was solved by applying the law of illegal acts in the previous civil law for actions that do not fall under the specific type of unfair competition practice. However, since the words of the general clause of unfair competition are legislated on the basis of the decision of the Supreme Court, which is the basis of the introduction, they do not provide the criteria of clear judgment, and are defined in a comprehensive and abstract manner. In particular, it is difficult to predict whether or not an act is an act of infringing anti-competitive or fair conduct. Therefore, it is necessary to strictly examine and restrict the application requirements of the general provision, since its scope of application may be expanded. In addition, for the fact that the expression fair as in the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act ( Monopoly Regulation Act )is used, the fact that unfair competition practices can be applied in competition with or overlapping with the Monopoly Regulation Act, and consistent court precedents construe the competitors requirements only for those who have committed unfair competition. Above all, considering that there is no difference between both unfair competition practice and unfair trade practice in the regulation of fair competition order or transaction order, the application and interpretation of the unfair trade practice jurisprudence would rather reduce the abstraction of the general clause of the unfair competition practice, and would be able to make the Fair Trade Committee maintain a fair and sound trading order based on the experience accumulated in the long run of the national economic life as an efficient regulation.