APPC Homepage

Under the Fair Trade Act, the concepts of “single economic identity” or “undertaking ” are operated according to the type of prohibited act, and even these concepts are hardly taken into consideration in the areas of procedural and sanctions. However, the concept of “undertaking” is so-called product of law (Rechtsproduckt) based on the functional interpretation of competition law, and is not understood by the type of act or the substantive or procedural law. The starting point of the article is that the term should be coherent in the enforcement of competition law.

In South Korea, when the KFTC imposes administrative fines, it is also an important to see if a company affiliated with the Chaebol can form a single economic entity. So far, such fines have only been imposed on individual companies that have committed such violations. Considering the prevalence of Chaebols in the national economy, there is a loophole in the effective implementation of competition laws in Korea.

The 9th Amendment of German Act against Restraints of Competition made a fundamental change in the name “corporate liability” in order to harmonize German competition law with the European monistic approach. Another legal person that belongs to a certain corporate group that is undertaking and (in)directly exerts significant influence on other affiliates may be subject to criminal fines if the company undertaking violates the law or gains illegal economic profits.

The idea of collective liability requires more academic attention in that the management of Chaebol should be held responsible for violations of management corporations under certain circumstances. It is also a question of whether the owner is qualified as an undertaking. Control and liability should be considered together.