earticle

영어

Acts, following the Constitution, form the basis of a nation. They should therefore be legitimate and justifiable in terms of process and substance, remaining steadfast notwithstanding political agenda or sentiment. In this regards, the Fair Supplier-Vendor Trade Practices Act (“FSVTPA”), newly enacted on December 22, 2015, poses many problems. Overall, it is similar to a set of existing “fair trade practices” laws, including the Large-Scale Retailer’s Fair Trade Practices Act. It does not, however, deserve to be a standalone law. For example, provisions regarding “prohibited practices” under Chapter 2, which play an essential part in the FSVTPA, actually overlap with Article 23(3) (unfair business practices) and Article 23-3 (anti- retaliation) of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act (“MRFTA”). Its penalty provisions, which are no more stringent than those in the MRFTA, also do not carry additional meaning. Certain other non-redundant provisions such as Article 5 (a supplier’s obligation to execute a vendor agreement in writing), Article 11 (prohibition of refusal to confirm order histories) and Article 25 (monetary penalties), are not so practically enforceable or even run the risk of being unconstitutional. The FSVTPA is aimed at fair transactions between merchants, who are more sophisticated than an average person which the Civil Code addresses. Commercial transaction laws (applicable to relationship between merchants) have different legal principles from consumer protection laws (applicable to relationship between a merchant and consumers, or between natural persons). Nevertheless, the governmental power is tempted to intervene in seemingly unconscionable bargains between merchants, beyond the scope of civil remedies such as damages or nullification. The FSVTPA has thus impaired the fundamental principle of private autonomy in commerce and distorted the public and private law system. Fair trade practices laws should be limited in function and triggered only when the governmental intervention is highly necessary. Furthermore, lack of professional review resulted in several legislative errors: while the FSVTPA generally applies not only to resale but also to consignment sale, provisions regarding “prohibited practices” fail to refer to consignment sale; while it generally applies not only to goods transactions but also to service transactions, the term “service” is often omitted in detailed rules. The FSVTPA was enacted by an abrupt political compromise between the ruling party and the opposition party. Professional or academic specialists had not been given the chance to review and refine its provisions. In consequence, it contains a number of non-legal or ungrammatical terms. The FSVTPA, often framed as an economic democratization law, is in fact a bundle of legislative defects. Unfair trade practices between suppliers and venders could have been addressed by reinforcing the MRFTA. Rather, the flimsy law that politicians created for a political show has damaged the integrity of Korea’s legal system, and confused law enforcers and distribution companies. Just as a firm’s performance is evaluated on the basis of its product quality, so a nation’s legislative capacity depends on how systematic and complete its laws are. Unlike defective products, defective laws cannot be returned or recalled. The National Assembly should seek a prompt and immediate solution to remove the legislative disorder the FSVTPA has caused so far.

한국어

지난해 말에 제정된 대리점법은 공정거래법과의 차별성 및 논리체계의 정합성이 크게 부족하다. 동법의 핵심 내용이라 할 수 있는 제2장 [대리점거래의 공정화]에 규정된 각종 금지행위는 공정거래법 제23조(불공정거래행위의 금지) 제3항 및 동법시행령 [별표1의2] 그리고 공정거래법 제23조의3(보복조치의 금지)에 이미 규정된 내용을 반복하고 있다. 관련 벌칙의 내용도 공정거래법과 같거나 약하게 규정되어 있다. 굳이 대리점법의 제정 의미를 찾는다면 동법 제5조(대리점거래 계약서 작성의무)와 제11조(주문내역의 확인요청 거부 또는 회피 금지) 및 제25조(과징금)를 들 수 있겠으나, 이마저도 앞의 두 조항은 입법기술의 미비로 실효성이 떨어지고 제25조는 그 자체로 위헌소지를 안고 있다. 대리점법은 재판매 외에 위탁판매거래를 규율대상으로 하면서도 정작 후자에 관한 개별조항은 없다. 또한 상품과 서비스를 거래대상으로 하면서도 서비스에 관한 차별화된 개별조항이 없다. 그밖에도 대리점법에는 법률에 부적합한 용어와 문구가 다수 포함되어 있다. 대리점법은 경제민주화입법으로 거창하게 포장되어 세상에 나왔지만, 그 실질은 부실입법의 전형이다. 대리점거래의 불공정관행은 기존 공정거래법의 엄정한 집행만으로 충분히 대처할 수 있는 문제이다. 그런데도 정치권이 성과주의에 빠져 허랑한 법률을 만연히 제정함으로써 경제법 전반의 체계적 완결성과 품격을 해치고, 소관부서와 유통기업에 혼란을 주고 있다. 국회는 결자해지 차원에서 이에 대한 해결책을 신속히 마련해야 한다.