转售价格维持的反垄断分析方法研究——兼评“韩泰轮胎案”  

Antitrust Analysis Method of Resale Price Maintenance——Reviewing the Hankook Tire Case

作　　者：许光耀 牛钰彤 

机构地区：[1]广西大学法学院 [2]南开大学法学院

出　　处：《价格理论与实践》2021年第9期40-44,共5页Price:Theory & Practice

摘　　要：转售价格维持行为的调整方法是反垄断法上的高难度问题,各国理论与实践对此尚未形成一致的认识。本文通过对韩泰轮胎案判决进行深入解剖与分析,发现转售价格维持协议本身不符合垄断协议的构成要件,但其可以成为其一方当事人从事横向垄断协议的手段,或从事支配地位滥用行为的载体与工具,而上述每一种垄断行为的证明都需要满足一定的市场条件。因此,在含有转售价格维持的案件中,需要结合个案情况对实际发生的垄断行为进行判断。韩泰轮胎案中,由于不具备发生上述任何一种行为的市场条件,被告的转售价格维持行为不构成垄断协议,因而是合法的。这一认识也可以推广至其他类型的纵向限制,即纵向限制只能通过上述两种垄断行为而产生反竞争效果,它们本身并不构成独立的垄断行为类型。The adjustment method of resale price maintenance behavior is a difficult issue in anti-monopoly law, and the theory and practice of various countries have not yet formed a consistent understanding of this. Through in-depth analysis and analysis of the judgment of Hankook Tire case, this paper finds that the resale price maintenance agreement itself does not meet the constitutive elements of a monopoly agreement, but it can become a means for one of the parties to engage in a horizontal monopoly agreement, or to engage in abusive behavior of dominant position. Carriers and tools, and the proof of each of the above monopolistic behaviors needs to meet certain market conditions. Therefore, in cases involving resale price maintenance, it is necessary to judge the actual monopolistic behavior based on individual circumstances. In the Hankook Tire case, since there were no market conditions for any of the above acts, the resale price maintenance act of the defendant did not constitute a monopoly agreement and was therefore legal. This understanding can also be extended to other types of vertical restraints, that is, vertical restraints can only produce anti-competitive effects through the above-mentioned two monopoly behaviors, they do not constitute independent types of monopoly behaviors.

关 键 词：转售价格维持 竞争 反垄断法 

分 类 号：D922.294[政治法律—经济法学]