바카라게임방법

1. Case summary

□ The client is a business operator who sells products on a TV home shopping channel. The client supplied certain products to the TV home shopping channel (“Company C”) under a contract.

 

□ As a certain product showed a good sales performance (“Project L”) among the products supplied by the client, Company C intensively organized sales broadcasts of Product L over a short period of time, and the client came to have a considerable inventory of Product L in order to meet the delivery schedule.

 

□ In the meantime, as the sales performance of Product L declined, Company C pushed the client to hold an unconventional promotional event (e.g., a 4-week free trial and a one buy and one get free event). The client had no choice but to accept Company C’s proposal as it was in a situation where the client needed a sales broadcast in order to handle the inventory.

 

□ Despite the extraordinary promotional event, the sales performance of Product L did not improve. The client was forced to be responsible for all of the promotional expenses, and it virtually went bankrupt.

 
2. Our assistance

 

□ Before filing a claim for damages against Company C for violating the Large-Scale Distribution Business 바카라게임방법, we, on behalf of the client, reported Company C to the Korean Fair Trade Commission for violating the 바카라게임방법.

 

□ Specifically, in accordance with Article 11 of the 바카라게임방법, large-scale distributors like TV home shopping companies are required to issue a document regarding the payment of promotional expenses before conducting a promotional event; otherwise, they are prohibited from forcing suppliers to pay for promotional events. Thus, there was a room for Company C to be deemed that it had violated the applicable law.

 

□ However, as a small business, the client had difficulty securing direct physical evidence. Pointing out excessive sales commissions and unfair trade practices in the process of organizing sales broadcasts in the TV home shopping industry, we submitted a statement and circumstantial evidence for the client, specifying that Company C’s 바카라게임방법 of transferring promotional expenses to the client and failing to deliver a document regarding the payment of promotional expenses was illegal.

 

□ Company C asserted that Article 11(1)2 of the 바카라게임방법 was not applicable to the client pursuant to Article 11(5) of the 바카라게임방법 because the promotional event had been held at the client’s voluntary request. In response, we emphasized the legal theory in which a large-scale distributor takes the burden of proof regarding the “voluntariness” of the supplier.

3. The KFTC’s decision: The KFTC found that Company C violated the Large-Scale Distribution 바카라게임방법 (and issued a warning to Company C).

 

□ Accepting our argument, the KFTC judged that Company C violated Articles 11(1) and 11(2) of the Large-Scale Distribution 바카라게임방법, and issued a warning against Company C.

4. Implications

 

□ In large-scale distribution business transactions, large-scale distributors like hypermarkets and TV home shopping channel operators are giant companies, while suppliers are small and medium-sized enterprises, so promotional events are virtually forced by large distributors and promotion costs are often passed on to the suppliers.

 

□ In addition, suppliers heavily rely on large-scale distributors for transactions, making it difficult to easily raise issues against them. Even if they can raise an issue, it is difficult for them to secure evidence against the large-scale distributors.

 

□ The Supreme Court of Korea recently ruled that it is a large-scale distributor who is obliged to prove “voluntariness” of a supplier in relation to promotional events (see Decision 2018Du52044 dated May 14, 2020).

 

□ This case is meaningful in that we obtained a sanction against Company C from the KFTC by proving Company C’s violation of the Large-Scale Distribution 바카라게임방법 in relation to the promotional events on the basis of circumstantial evidence and emphasizing that Company C was obliged to prove its assertion that the client had voluntarily conducted the promotional events.



□ Attorneys in charge : Back Kwang-hyun, Kim Ji-soo