SOUTH KOREA Law and Practice Contributed by: John H Choi, Han Soon Choi, Changhun Lee and Seungjun Woo, Shin & Kim
Antitrust Damage Lawsuit In the case of an Antitrust Damage Lawsuit, if the vic - tim has filed a damages lawsuit based on the provi - sions of the MRFTA, the victim bears the burden of asserting and proving that they incurred damage and the extent of the damage (amount of damages). The perpetrator bears the burden of asserting and prov - ing that there was no intent or negligence regarding the violation of the MRFTA and that there are circum - stances under which the victim’s claimed amount of damages should be limited. That is, a perpetrator whose conduct violates the MRFTA is presumed to have acted intentionally or negligently. On the other hand, if the victim has filed a damages lawsuit based on a provision of the Civil Act, the victim must prove the perpetrator’s intent or negligence. The victim must also prove the specific amount of damages. The most problematic issue in this regard is calculating the amount of damages caused by col - lusion. The court deducts the estimated price that the victim would have borne had there been no collu - sion (hypothetical competitive price) from the actual price where there was collusion. In order to calculate the hypothetical competitive price, special appraisal methods such as an econometrics analysis are used. Appraisal according to the econometrics analysis method is usually carried out by academic experts. The court generally accepts the amount of damages calculated from the appraisal result as long as there is no clear error. Accordingly, the victim usually proves the amount of damages from collusion by making a request to the court for such an appraisal and review - ing the result. However, a victim who has difficulty bearing the cost of the appraisal or who wants to end the lawsuit quickly may instead prove the amount of damages without undergoing the appraisal method described, such as by using the amount of damages calculated in similar cases. In this situation, the court alleviates the burden on the victim of proving the amount of damages by recognising the amount, based on the provision that eases the burden of proving damages under the MRFTA.
antitrust litigation, the court may ultimately disregard them if other evidence presented in the same case undermines their probative value. 2.4 Proof Administrative Lawsuit Against the KFTC In the case of an Administrative Lawsuit Against the KTFC, the KFTC bears the burden of claiming and proving that there has been a violation of the MRFT and that the measures imposed by the KFTC are appropriate. The party subject to the measures bears the burden of claiming and proving that there is jus - tification for the violation of the MRFTA. The court determines whether the KFTC has deviated from or abused its discretion by reviewing whether there are errors in the findings of fact that were the bases for the measures and whether the general principles of administrative laws, such as the principles of propor - tionality and impartiality, have been followed. For example, in the case of the KFTC’s surcharge imposition, the court considers that the KFTC has dis - cretion to determine whether to impose a surcharge and the amount of that surcharge. The court believes that the “Notice on Standard for Imposing Surcharge” (Surcharge Notice) is only an internal standard within the KFTC and the KFTC’s measures are not immedi - ately unlawful simply because the Surcharge Notice was not followed. However, if the KFTC has repeat - edly imposed measures pursuant to the Surcharge Notice so that it has become an administrative prac - tice, then the court has determined that measures contrary to such administrative practice are unlawful. The fact that such administrative practice has been established must also be claimed and proved by the party subject to the measures. Regarding the degree of proof, the Supreme Court has determined that even if the proof of facts in an Administrative Lawsuit Against the KFTC and an Anti - trust Damage Lawsuit does not mean proof of the sort required by the natural sciences, where there is no shred of doubt, it does mean proof of high probability that a certain fact existed after comprehensive review of all the evidence in light of empirical rules – unless there are special circumstances – so that an ordinary person should have no doubt.
180 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook