오늘날 금융분야에 있어서 경쟁환경의 진행 상황에 비추어 볼 때 규제완화 등의 움직임과 함께, 공정거래법의 금융분야에 대한 적용가능성이 중요한 논점의 하나로 다루어지고 있다. 그런데 금융사업은 국민경제에 중대한 영향을 미치는 산업유형이기 때문에, 그 진입에서부터 운영 및 파산에 이르기까지 전문감독기관의 엄격한 감독을 받는 특수성을 갖고 있다. 이 연구에서는 경쟁의 촉진과 금융사업의 특수성을 감안하여, 일본의 공정거래위원회와 금융감독기구 사이의 관계 및 금융사업에 대한 규제체계를 살펴보고, 우리에 대한 시사점을 고찰해 보았다. 일본은 우리나라와 같이 단일 금융감독기관에 의해 금융사업에 대한 감독이 이루어지고 있고, 아울러 독점금지법(공정거래법)도 함께 적용된다. 그러나 보험업법 제101조 등은 보험사업자의 공동행위에 대해 일정한 요건 하에 공정거래법의 적용을 배제하는 규정을 두고 있다. 즉 보험업법은 공동행위의 인가신청, 공동행위의 변경명령과 인가취소·폐지, 공정거래위원회와의 관계 등에 대해 엄격하고도 상세한 규정을 두고 있다. 그런데 금융감독기관의 행정지도에 의한 공동행위에 대해 독점금지법을 어디까지 적용하여야 하는가 하는 문제가 여전히 남아있다. 이와 관련하여 일본 공정거래위원회는 기본적인 방침 내지는 규제기준을 통하여 구체적인 규율을 시도하고 있다. 즉, 법령에 구체적인 규정이 있는 행정지도의 경우에 있어서 그 행정지도의 목적, 내용, 방법 등이 법령의 규정에 합치될 때는 독점금지법이 적용되지 않는다. 그러나 법령에 구체적인 규정이 없는 행정지도의 경우, 행정기관의 행정지도가 공정하고 자유로운 경쟁을 제한하거나 저해하지 않도록 유의할 것을 촉구하면서, 공정거래법의 목적에 반할 때에는 독점금지법을 적용하고 있다. 생각건대 금융사업에 있어서 감독기관의 행정지도는 금융정책의 목적달성을 위해 불가피한 점이 있고, 그것이 전문금융감독기관에 의해 이루어지기 때문에 그 특수성을 인정해야 할 것이다. 다만 해당 행정지도는 어디까지나 사업법 및 공정거래법의 목적에 부합하여야 할 것이다. 이러한 점에서 우리의 경우도 금융산업(특히 보험업)의 공동행위에 대해 금융감독기관과 공정거래위원회 사이의 대응 절차 등을 보다 명확히 법정할 필요가 있다고 본다.

Reflecting from the progressing situation of the competing environment in terms of the financial field today, the applicability of competition laws toward the financial field is dealt with as one of important points. But since the financial business is a type of industry having severe influence on the national economy, it has a special nature of getting strict supervision by specialized supervision agency from its entrance to the operation and bankruptcy. In this study, the relationship between Fair Trade Committee and Financial Supervision Organization along with the control system on financial business of Japan to consider their implications toward our country. The supervision on financial business by a single financial supervision organization takes place in Japan just like our country and Antimonopoly Act(competition law) is applied together at the same time. But the Insurance Business Act Article 101, etc sets the provision to exclude the application of competition law under certain conditions on the joint activity of insurance businesses. In other words, the Insurance Business Act sets strict but detailed provisions on the application for authorization of joint activity or the order to change, cancel authorization and discontinue joint activity along with the relationship with Fair Trade Committee, etc. However, the problem of to what extent the Antimonopoly Act on joint activities by administrative guidance of financial supervision agency still remains. In relation to this, the Fair Trade Committee of Japan is attempting specific regulations through basic policies or control standards. In other words, in case of the administrative guidance having specific provisions in the law, the Antimonopoly Act is not applied when the purpose, details or method, etc of such administrative guidance is in agreement with the provisions of the law. But in case of administrative guidance without specific provisions in the law, the Antimonopoly Act is applied if in contrary with the purpose of competition law while urging the administrative guidance of administrative agency to pay attention not to restrict or obstruct fair and free competitions. Come to think of it, the administrative guidance of supervision agency in terms of financial business is unavoidable for accomplishing the purpose of financial policy and its special nature would have to be accepted because it is performed by a specialized financial supervision agency. However, the corresponding administrative guidance would have to coincide with the purpose of business law and competition law all the way. In such aspect, it would be necessary for us to also provide by law more clearly for the action process, etc between financial supervision agency and Fair Trade Committee on the joint activity of financial industry(especially insurance business).

Reflecting from the progressing situation of the competing environment in terms of the financial field today, the applicability of competition laws toward the financial field is dealt with as one of important points. But since the financial business is a type of industry having severe influence on the national economy, it has a special nature of getting strict supervision by specialized supervision agency from its entrance to the operation and bankruptcy. In this study, the relationship between Fair Trade Committee and Financial Supervision Organization along with the control system on financial business of Japan to consider their implications toward our country. The supervision on financial business by a single financial supervision organization takes place in Japan just like our country and Antimonopoly Act(competition law) is applied together at the same time. But the Insurance Business Act Article 101, etc sets the provision to exclude the application of competition law under certain conditions on the joint activity of insurance businesses. In other words, the Insurance Business Act sets strict but detailed provisions on the application for authorization of joint activity or the order to change, cancel authorization and discontinue joint activity along with the relationship with Fair Trade Committee, etc. However, the problem of to what extent the Antimonopoly Act on joint activities by administrative guidance of financial supervision agency still remains. In relation to this, the Fair Trade Committee of Japan is attempting specific regulations through basic policies or control standards. In other words, in case of the administrative guidance having specific provisions in the law, the Antimonopoly Act is not applied when the purpose, details or method, etc of such administrative guidance is in agreement with the provisions of the law. But in case of administrative guidance without specific provisions in the law, the Antimonopoly Act is applied if in contrary with the purpose of competition law while urging the administrative guidance of administrative agency to pay attention not to restrict or obstruct fair and free competitions. Come to think of it, the administrative guidance of supervision agency in terms of financial business is unavoidable for accomplishing the purpose of financial policy and its special nature would have to be accepted because it is performed by a specialized financial supervision agency. However, the corresponding administrative guidance would have to coincide with the purpose of business law and competition law all the way. In such aspect, it would be necessary for us to also provide by law more clearly for the action process, etc between financial supervision agency and Fair Trade Committee on the joint activity of financial industry(especially insurance business).

competition legal regulation, Fair Trade Act, Fair Trade Commission,insurance business law, mutual agreement, professional financial supervisory agencies