46 2016 8 Korea Administrative Law Theory Practice Association Administrative Law Journal Vol. 46, August 2016 1) 공정거래법상자진신고자등에대한제재및감면처분의행정소송상취급 대법원 선고 두 판결에대한비판적검토 이승민 * 대상판결에서는독점규제및공정거래에관한법률제19조제1항에따라금지되는부당한공동행위를하였음을이유로공정거래위원회 ( 이하 공정위 ) 로부터과징금납부를명하는제재처분을부과받고이후 2순위조사협조자지위를인정받아과징금을감액하는감면처분을받은피심인이제재처분과감면처분모두에대해취소소송을제기한경우, 위와같은제재처분은이후의감면처분을예정한 일종의중간적처분 으로서감면처분이내려지면여기에흡수되어소멸하므로이를다툴별도의소의이익을인정할수없다고판시하고있다. 그러나공정위의자진신고자또는조사협조자에대한제재처분은그형식, 내용, 효과등에비추어볼때중간처분이나잠정적행정행위가아닌종국처분에해당하고, 감면처분은제재처분의일부취소에해당하는것으로생각되며, 게다가공정위가제재처분을명하는본의결과별도의의결 ( 분리의결 ) 로감면처분을해야할의무는없고이는당사자의신청에따라공정위가재량으로결정하는것이므로, 대상판결의위와같은판시는수긍하기어렵다. 또한, 대상판결은행정행위의법적성격, 쟁송취소의대상, 소의이익등에관한종래의판례나이론에부합하지않을뿐만아니라, 처분상대방의권리구제나소송경제의관점에서도바람직하지않다는점에서도그결론에동의하기어렵다. 그리고대법원이어떤행정행위의법적성격을명확히밝히지않고 일종의 와같은표현을사용하는것도타당하지않다. 대상판결이후에선고된판결들을보면, 대상판결에서처럼공정위의자진신고자또는조사협조자에대한제재처분과감면처분모두의취소를구하는사안에서는대상판결이적용되고있지만, 그렇지않은경우에대해서까지대상판결이전면적으로적용될수있을것인지는명확하지않다. 이는특히대상판결과내용상배치되는대법원판결들도선고되고있다는점에서그러하다. 다만, 어떠한경우든대상판결의판시가그선고이전에제기되어소송계속중인사건에불리한영향을미쳐서는안될것인데, 여기서는특히공정위가자진신고자등에대해별도의의결로감면처분을하는경우에는조 * ( ), ( ).
348 세감액경정처분의경우와동일하게청구취지를특정하는방식에대해상당한신뢰가형성되어있었다는점이고려되어야한다. 궁극적으로대상판결과다른판결들사이의모순 저촉을방지하기위해서는, 대상판결의판시를공정위의제재처분과감면처분모두의취소를구하고있는사안에한정하여적용할필요가있을것이다. 주제어 : 자진신고, 자진신고감면, 분리의결, 중간처분, 잠정적처분, 취소의대상, 소의이익.. ( 2015. 2. 12. 2013 987 )...... 문제의소재 ( ) 22 2 1 ( ) (. ),. ( ) ( ), 35 3 ( )., 1) 1), 2009. 3. 2. 2009-070 (3 ).,.
349.,.,. 2),, 3) 35 3.,. 2015. 2. 12. 2013 987 ( ). 4) ( ). 5),..,,.,.,,, 6). 2), 2012. 4. 30. 2012-058 (13 ) 2012-060 ( )., 2013. 10. 18. 2012 15632 2014. 11. 27. 2013 24471. 3), 2015. 11. 18. 2015-386 (K T ). 4) 2013 6169. 5).,, ( ), 29 1 (2015. 10);, 2015,, 456 (2016. 3).,, ( 2015. 2. 12. 2013 6169 ),, 455 (2016. 2)., ( : 2015.2.12, 2013 987 ),, 10 (2016. 3), 76,.
350,, (, ).,. ( II.), ( III.), ( IV. VI.), 7) ( VII.).. 대상판결 ( 대법원 2015. 2. 12. 선고 2013 두 987 판결 ) 의판단요지 2 2008. ( ), 2011. 6. 9.. 8), 2011. 7. 18. 2 50%. ( 1 ) ( 2 ). (1) 소의적법여부에대한판단 ( ), 2 6). V. 2. 3.. 7),. 8).
351, 1, 2 1 2 1,.,. 35, 1, 1, 2, 9) 2. 10) 22 2 1, 35 1, (2011. 7. 20. 2011-6 ) 7, 11, 12,,. 22 2 2, 35 3, ( ) ( ).,,,, ( ). 9) 2008. 9. 25. 2007 12699, 2007 12699 35 2 2 50%, 45%. 2005. 3. 31. 18768, 35 2 2 1 50%. 10) 2, 35 1 3 2,., 2.
352,..,. 1, 54 1 30 1.,.,.,.., ( ). (2) 본안에대한판단 11), 1, 11),..
353, 2008,. (1) 소의적법여부에대한판단, 22 2 ( ), 35 3 ( ),,,. (2) 본안에대한판단.. 공정거래법상자진신고자등에대한제재감면제도 12) 22 2 ( ), ( ) 12) /, ( : 2012. 9. 27. 2010 3541 ),, 18-2 (2013), 133-136.,, 2,.
354. EU, 13) 1996. 12. 30. 5235 1997. 4. 1.. 1999, 1999 2013 325 141, 2005 2005 2013 248 137. 14) (1) 감면대상. 35 1 1 2,. (2016. 4. 15. 2016-3 ) ( ) 2 1 2,,.,, 15). 1 2,. ( ) 1, ( ). 16) (Amnesty Plus), 13),, 4,, 2015, 158, 202. 14),,, 2014, 170-171. 15) 2 3. 16),, 204.
355 35 1 4. (2) 감면요건,,,,. 17) (3) 감면내용, 1 2.. 35 1., 22 2 1,, 16. 18) 35 1. 1 :, 35 1 1. 1 :. 35 17) 35 1 1 4. 18) 22 2 3, 35 4 ( /,, 140-141 ).,. 22 2 3,,,, 35 1 22 2 3. 16, 16.
356 1 2, 19). 1,. 2 : 50%. 35 1 3,. 1 :,. 35 1 4,. 13 2, 20%. 1. 2015. 1. 2. 2014-19 ( 2015 ). (2012. 1. 3. 2011-11. 2012 ), 21) 35 15 19) 9) 2008. 9. 25. 2007 12699. 20),. 21) 2012 10 1.
357. 22), 23). 24),. 25) 2015,.,, 26), 27). 28),. 29), 11,. 30) 35 3.,. 31),,. 22) 2012 11 1. 23) 2012 14 1. 24) 2012 12 2. 25) 2012 12 1. 26) 10 1. 27) 11. 28) 12 1. 29) 12 2. 30), (2016. 2. 4. 2016-2 ) 11 2,,. 31) 2016. 6. 10. 2016 33186.
358. 자진신고자등에대한제재처분과감면처분의법적성격,.,.,. (1) 중간처분에해당하는지여부 1). 32),. 33), 34) 2, 35), 36) 37),. 38),, 39) 40) 41). 32),. 33) /,,, 2004, 544-546 ;,,, 2014, 51-53. 34) 1986. 1. 21. 82 236. 35) 1995. 9. 15. 95 6632. 36) 1995. 7. 28. 94 8853. 37) 1994. 6. 24. 93 182, 2000. 6. 9. 99 16. 38) /,, 544-545.
359 42) 43), 44),. 45) 2),. 2 1 1,. 46).,,.,,...,,., 39) /,, 545. 40) 1994. 3. 8. 93 10828, 1995. 3. 28. 94 12920. 41) 1993. 1. 15. 92 12407, 1993. 6. 11. 92 16706. 42) 2009. 10. 15. 2009 6513. 43) 2011. 3. 10. 2009 23617, 23624. 44),, 53. 45). /,, 136-139. 46) 1982. 9. 14. 82 161., (I), 22,, 2016, 761.
360,,.,,., 11, 22,.,.,. 47).,. 48).,,.,, 49).,.., 47) 13 1, ( 1995. 3. 14. 94 9962, 1997. 6. 19. 95 8669 ), ( 1989. 11. 14. 89 4765, 1994. 6. 14. 94 1197, 1995. 12. 22. 95 14688 ). 48) 1993. 2. 9. 92 4567, 1993. 11. 9. 93 14271 ;,, 348. 49), /,, 544 ;,, 51.
361., 2..., (,, ),., ( ),.,,. 3),.,.,..,,., 21 22, 22 2,,.,,.,
362.,. 50),, 54 1 30. 51),,. 52) 4),.,....,.,. 50),. 1. OOO. 2. OOO.. : OOO,OOO,OOO. : (60 ). : 51) 53 1 54 30 ( ),.. 52) 50).
363,..,,.,,..,.,.,.,., 35 3,, 53).,, 54) 2.. 55) 53) 1). 54) 12 2.,. 55) 2015. 1. 13. 2015 433, 2015. 4. 3. 2014 49189, 2015. 12. 3. 2015 39370, 2015. 12. 10. 2015 53192, 2016. 1. 28. 2014 65819.
364,.,,.,,.,,., 56)..,.,,. 2015. 9. 24. 2012 13962. 2 1 1., 1 2,.. 57)., 56) 1 2. 57) 2012. 5. 24. 2010 32091 ( ).
365.,.,,.. (2) 잠정적행정행위에해당하는지여부,.,, 58), 59). ( ), 60). 61),., 62).,.,,,.., 58),, 236-237. 59),, 75 60),, 237. 61),, 237 ;,, 75. 62),, 76.
366.,,., 63). 21 22 2,.,,.,,. 64), 65). 66),,. 1 2. 67) 63) 2008. 2. 28. 2007 13791, 13807, 2013. 12. 12. 2011 3388. 64),,, 2011. 12., 385 ( ). 65). OO OOOO ( 20**. **. **. [ ] 20**-*** ) OOO,OOO,OOO OOO,OOO,OOO. 66),,, 14 3 (2013. 9), 749.
367,, 68)..,.,. 69),.... 자진신고자등에대한제재및감면에있어취소의대상과소의이익,. 67) 57) 2012. 5. 24. 2010 32091 2015. 9. 24. 2012 13962. 68), 1 3,, 1 3, 7,,, 746-747. 69) 1996. 7. 30. 95 6328.
368,. (1) 후속처분을취소의대상으로본경우 70),., 71) 72). 73),,.,,. 74),,,. 70),, 129-130. 71) 1998. 9. 4. 97 19588. 72) 2000. 1. 28.. 73) 1999. 10. 8. 99 6873.,, ( 1996. 9. 10. 94 13978 ). 74) 2013. 1. 31. 2011 11112, 11129.
369 (2) 당초처분을취소의대상으로본경우,,.,, 75),,. 76),,,,,, 77). (3) 자진신고자등에대한제재및감면의경우 ( ),. 78), 79) 75) 1991. 9. 13. 91 391, 2007. 10. 26. 2005 3585. 22 2 2.,,, 2010, 312. 76) 2007. 4. 27. 2004 9302. 77) 2015. 11. 19. 2015 295. 78) 2008. 2. 15. 2006 3957, 2006 4226. 2006 3957, ( 2008. 2. 15. 2006 3957 ),, 2008. 6. 2. ;, ;,. 79) 2012. 6. 14. 2012 2483.
370. 80), 2, 81). 82),,.. ( ), 83). 84), 85) ( ),. 86).,. IV. 2. (1). 4). 2012. 5. 24. 2010 32091, 80) 2014. 9. 4. 2012 15012. 81) 2) 2013. 10. 18. 2012 15632. 82) 2014. 11. 27. 2013 24471. 83) 2012. 5. 24. 2010 32091 ( 2015. 9. 24. 2012 13962 ). 84) 2015. 5. 28. 2012 13252, 2015. 9. 10. 2013 13815, 2015. 1. 13. 2015 433 ( 2016. 5. 26. 2016 34516 ), 2015. 9. 11. 2014 49189 ( 2015 55042 ), 2015. 12. 3. 2015 39370 ( ), 2015. 12. 10. 2015 53192 ( )., 2015 433, ( /,, 143-148 ),. 85) 2015. 5. 28. 2012 13252, 2015. 9. 10. 2013 13815. 86) 69) 1996. 7. 30. 95 6328. ( 2008. 2. 15. 2006 3957 ),,,.
371, 87). 88) (1) 처분의법적성격과관련한문제점,,.,,.., 2015. 11. 19. 2015 295 89),.,,. (2) 처분상대방의권리구제및소송경제와관련한문제점,. 30, 90),,. 87) 2015. 9. 24. 2012 13962. 88) VI. 5.. 89) 77). 90),,,, 157.
372,.. 91),.,,,..,, 30. 92),.,. ( ). 93) 22 1 8 2 262., 94). 91),, 302,. 92) 1. 1 ( / /,,, 3 (2012. 9.), 137-139 ), 30 54 1. 2016. 8. 1. 55 ( ). 93) /, (IV),, 2012, 305 ;,,, 11 (2006), 285. 94) 79) 2012. 6. 14. 2012 2483.
373,. 95).,. ` ( ), 96)..,.., 54 1 30., 30. 97), 98),.,,. 99), 2, 95), ( 78 ) 2008. 2. 15. 2006 4226, 2015. 10. 8. 2015 785, 2016. 3. 17. 2015 48763 ). 96) 1) 2009. 3. 2. 2009-070., 1 L L, 2 T 50%. 97). 2005. 7. 14. 2003 35635, 1999. 9. 21. 97 1211, 1982. 1. 15. 81 19. 98) ( 1982. 2. 29. 80 522 ),. 99),,, 156.
374.,,,., 1 2 ( )..,., 100)., 101),. 102).,,,. 100),, 237 ;,, 76. 101), ( 23 2 ). 102) (, 1999. 4. 27. 98 57, 2001. 10. 10. 2001 29 ), ( 2008. 5. 6. 2007 147, 2008. 8. 29. 2007 176 ), ( 2008. 6. 26. 2008 23. 2005. 2. 28. 2005 25, 2005. 7. 20. 2005 127, 2005. 8. 22. 2005 147, 2005. 8. 30. 2005 161, 2005. 10. 5. 2005 188, 2006. 1. 6. 2005 276, 2006. 1. 19. 2006 15, 2006. 1. 25. 2006 19, 2006. 2. 1. 2006 20, 2008. 2. 26. 2008 33 ).
375,.,. 103),,.,. 104),.. 대상판결이전에소송계속중이던사건들에대한처리, 105) 106),,., ( ) 103),, 250,. 104),, 156. 105) 79) 2012. 6. 14. 2012 2483 ( 2014. 9. 4. 2012 15012 ). 106) 2), 81) 2013. 10. 18. 2012 15632 ( 2014. 11. 27. 2013 24471 ).
376. 107) (, ), 108), 109).,,.?, (i) 54 1 30? (ii), (a)?,? (b)?. 107) 74), 95) 2008. 2. 15. 2006 3957, 2006 4226. 2), 81), 106) 2013. 10. 18. 2012 15632, ( 95) 2015. 10. 8. 2015 785 (. ), 95 ) 2016. 3. 17. 2015 48763 ( ) ).,. 108),, 156. 109),, 156.
377..,,, 110) 111). 112). 113), 114),. 115) 110) 1989. 8. 8. 88 10251. 111) 2003. 11. 14. 2001 8742. 112) 2000. 9. 26. 99 646. 113) /,, 610. 114),, 294-295. 115) 112) 2000. 9. 26. 99 646,,,,,,, ( 1998. 4. 24. 97 17131, 1994. 2. 22. 93 21156 ).
378 ( ),,.,, 116) 117),.,,..,. 118), 4.. (1) 제소기간준수여부에대한판단,.,. 116), 2014. 1. 1. 2014-1 100, 2014. 1. 15. 2014-2 50, 2014. 1. 1. 2014-1 50... 117) 93). 118) 2015. 6. 10. 2013 45876.,.,, 157.
379, 119) 54 1 30.,.,,. 120),. 121),, 122), 123). 124), 19 1,.. 119) 2004. 11. 25. 2004 7023. /,, 610. 120) 1990. 12. 26. 90 6279., (2004. 12. 10. 2003 12557 :,, 52 (2004 ), 249. 121) /,, 612. 122) 98) 1982. 2. 9. 80 522. /,, 610., 2002. 12. 18. 22 2 1 ( ).,.,, ( 2009. 5. 14. 2006 17390 ).,. 123) 2010. 5. 4. 2009 28683 2009. 8. 19. 2008 7398. 124) /,, 613.
380,, 125). 126),., 54 1 30 22 2 60.. 127) 60,.,.,., 128).,,. 129) (2) 소송행위의추후보완가능성 125),, 10 (, ),, 2006, 412-413. 126),, 428-429. 127) 54 1 20 1, 22 2. 128) V. 2. (3).. 129) 112), 115 2000. 9. 26. 99 646.
381,. 54 2 1, 173 1 2.,, 130),. 131), 132), 3,.. (1)., 2.,,.,., 130) 2006. 3. 10. 2006 3844, 2012. 10. 11. 2012 44730. 131) /,, 602. 132) 79), 94) 2012. 6. 14. 2012 2483.
382.., 2016. 1. 14. 2014 3459, 2016. 1. 15. 2015 39486,. VI. 2. 2015. 6. 10. 2013 45876. ( 8 ).,. 133),.,, 134).,. IV. 2. (1). 4). 2015. 9. 24. 2012 13962 2012. 5. 24. 2010 32091. 133),. 134),,.,,.
383, ( ).,,.,,..,,.,. 135). 결론..,,,. (, ),,.,..,.,. 135),,, 156.
384 27 1,. 136).,.,,. ( : 2016. 8. 8. : 2016. 8. 17. : 2016. 8. 18.) 136),.
385 참고문헌 1.,,, 2014.,, 4,, 2015., (I), 22,, 2016.,,, 2006.,,, 2014.,,, 2010. /,,, 2004. /, (IV),, 2012. 2., ( : 2015. 2. 12, 2013 987 ),, 10 (2016. 3).,, ( ), 29 1 (2015. 1).,,, 14 3 (2013. 9)., (2004. 12. 10. 2003 12557 :,, 52 (2004 ). /, ( : 2012. 9. 27. 2010 3541 ),, 18-2 (2013). / /,,, 3 (2012. 9).,,, 11 (2006)., ( 2008. 2. 15. 2006 3957 ),, 2008. 6. 2..,,, 2011. 12.,, ( 2015. 2. 12. 2013 6169 ),, 455 (2016. 2)., 2015,, 456 (2016. 3).
386 <Abstract> A Critique of the Supreme Court s Decision Requiring Leniency Applicants to Challenge the KFTC s Penalty-Exemption Decision, Rather than the Preceding Penalty-Imposition Decision Decision: Korean Supreme Court, 2013Du987 (February 2, 2015) 137) Seung-Min Lee * In a February 2015 decision (the Decision ), the Korean Supreme Court held that a plaintiff who has applied to the Korea Fair Trade Commission (the KFTC ) for leniency and seeks to challenge the KFTC s imposition of civil penalties for membership in a cartel, cannot directly challenge the order determining the penalties. Instead, the plaintiff must seek to annul the subsequent decision of the KFTC on whether to grant an exemption under the leniency program. This is because, according to the Supreme Court, the earlier penalty decision is an interim decision, which is merged into the later decision on whether to exempt the cartelist from penalties. This article argues that the reasoning supporting this holding is questionable. The form, content, and legal effect of the KFTC s decision on imposition of civil penalties are those of a final, not interim, order; the Supreme Court s discussion of the legal nature of these two separate KFTC decisions for leniency applicants does not adhere to its own precedents as well as established doctrines of administrative law; and adopting the holding of the Decision in other litigation may lead to unjust consequences for plaintiffs in terms of their right to defend themselves and interest in less cumbersome proceedings. Since the Decision was issued, its holding has been applied in cases where the factual background is highly analogous. But whether or to what extent the holding of the Decision will be applied elsewhere currently remains unclear, particularly because the holdings in some other Supreme Court cases appear hard to reconcile with that of the Decision. In any case, it would be unacceptable for the Decision to adversely affect pending cases which were raised before the Decision was issued. * Ph. D. in Law; Yulchon, LLC.
387 Key Words: leniency, leniency exemption from penalties, separation between penalty-imposition decision and penalty-exemption decision, interim administrative decision, subject matter for an administrative litigation for nullity