Intelbuyer - did you see this?
On the other hand, the Supreme Court reached a landmark ruling, considered epochal in the history of Korean antitrust law, on November 22 2007. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded the case back to the Seoul High Court in the POSCO case, where the Seoul High Court held that POSCO unlawfully interfered with the business activities of its competitor in violation of the MRFTA by refusing to deal. Specifically, the Supreme Court held that intent and purpose to abuse market dominance and its effects are legal elements that need to be proven for abuse of market dominance. It was also held that these elements are legal standards specifically applicable to abuse of market dominance cases, distinguishing them from unfair trade practice cases.
The POSCO case was a rare case where the Supreme Court heard the case en banc and made a ruling with two Supreme Court Justices dissenting. It is expected that this ruling will become the legal standard for the Supreme Court itself, as well as the lower courts. Following the POSCO case, the Seoul High Court, upon its review of the Interpark G-Market case, held that G-Market's conduct did not constitute abuse of market dominance following the rule of law under the POSCO case and thereby overruled the KFTC's decision. Therefore, as in the case of Intel, if an appeal is filed with the Seoul High Court against the KFTC's decision, it is likely that the Seoul High Court will apply the POSCO test and will hold that the KFTC's findings in the Intel case do not satisfy the POSCO test.
Of course this is speculation on the part of this commentator, just like the previous article we've discussed, however here is someone who thinks that Intel may have actually conducted themselves within the law. How refreshing. Wouldn't that destroy a lot of long held beliefs here! |
