競爭法之垂直交易限制以限制轉售價格為中心

Abstract

本文主要研究目的在於探討我國現行公平法第19條限制轉售價格之規範性質以及公平會對於民國104年修法增訂第19條但書'正當合理'以及輔以施行法第25條之合法性判斷,本文尚將新法第20條第1款杯葛與第5款不當限制交易與第19條混搭影響列入討論,此外,新法第19條之構成要件及相關爭議點亦納入本文一併討論。 由於資訊創新,導致電子商務蓬勃發展,不僅,改變消費者之原有消費習性,取代原本從實體店面購得商品之慣性,更改變整體流通市場之產業結構與行銷方式。網路通路商相較於實體通路商,因節省許多成本開銷(例如人事訓練,店面租金),故而,得以同一商品但價格更便宜之方式銷售於消費者,因此,實體店面有聯合要求上游供應商或上游供應商自行對商品實施限制轉售價格之可能性發生,主要目的在避免發生搭便車,損害品牌之聲譽,減少競爭力,且實質有效落實公平法之立法目的與精神 “維護市場公平競爭秩序穩定”。 我國於民國104年雖然有重新翻修公平法,惟,垂直限制之價格限制與非價格限制目前還是分別立法,分開處理,故而,公平會在判斷違法性,會產生有不同之結果;前者限制轉售價格之法律效果原則禁止,例外輔以正當合理判斷,也就是只要滿足法條之文義規定既該當違法;後者,原則合法例外違法,採合理審查,並搭配市場力(market power),市場結構(market structure),交易條件,等綜合考量。惟,結合國內外許多實證資料文獻顯示,價格垂直價格限制與非價格垂直限制對於限制市場競爭所帶來的效果差異性不大,故而本文建議可刪除目前第19條限制轉售價格之規定,直接使用第20條第1款或第5款判斷既可。

The main purpose of this thesis are discussion on the essential of Article 19 in the Fair Trade Law of Taiwan, and, how to regulate release price maintenance (RPM) is reasonable or not. Combination with the enforcement rule of Fair Trade Article 25 to determine by RPM is reasonable or not. In this paper, not only include the relationship between Article19 and 20 subsection 1 and 5, but also the constitutive requirements issues about the Article19. Owing to new information technology innovations which are bringing about the booming of electric business (E-commerce/On-Line Sale), it changes the consumer’s purchasing behaviors, such as from Physical Access to Internet. As a result, whole the circulation market has a big change in market structure and marketing strategies. Internet Access compares to Physical, it can save much operation cost such as employee training, rental. Therefore, if the same products but get the different price, such as the Internet Access Stores sales price much cheaper than Physical ones, it will happen free riders。In order to keep the competence of products, Prevention of free-riding effects, and Promotion of entries of new businesses or brands, the supplier would enforce PRM. Due to Article19 and 20 subsection 1 and 5 are difficult in separating, however, in Taiwan, we still separating the regulation into vertical price regulation and none price regulation which in different provision in the Act. The former is based on “per se illegal” combine the justifiable reasons; while the latter “rule of reason”, which need to be take many factors such as market share, and structure market into consideration. According to many Economic Empirical Analysis, it demonstrate that both of them, the outcome of the market influence are not divergence, with a view to preventing complex for Fair Trade Commission to measure, in this thesis, cancel the Article 19.