1. Case Overview
On January 26, 2022, the Korea Fair Trade Commission ("KFTC," the defendant) issued a corrective order and an order to pay an administrative fine (the "Disposition") against Company A, a TV home shopping business operator (the "Plaintiff"), on the ground that the Plaintiff violated Article 12(1) of the Act on Fair Transactions in Large Franchise and Retail Business ("Large-scale Retail Business Act") by having the suppliers' executives and 안전한 바카라 사이트 appear as broadcast guests and audience members.
We represented the Plaintiff and filed an administrative lawsuit seeking revocation of the Disposition against the KFTC.
2. Our Argument and Role
Among the broadcast guests that the KFTC considered to fall under the category of "안전한 바카라 사이트, etc." of suppliers were many who were (i) the representative of a supplier operating as sole proprietors, (ii) the representative of a corporate suppliers, and (iii) the representative of a manufacturer, all of whom were difficult to classify as "안전한 바카라 사이트, etc." We actively disputed the KFTC's interpretation of the scope of "안전한 바카라 사이트, etc." under Article 12(1) of the Act. In particular, while a representative of a corporate supplier could be formally regarded as falling within the scope of "안전한 바카라 사이트, etc." due to their contractual relationship with the supplier, we argued that the majority of the Plaintiff's suppliers were small enterprises, and their representatives and the suppliers were essentially identical entities. Accordingly, the representatives of suppliers and manufacturers should be excluded from the definition of "안전한 바카라 사이트, etc." under the Act.
3. Significance of the Judgment
The court identified "otherness" (the existence of a distinct legal person) and "provision of labor" as the conceptual criteria for determining whether an individual qualifies as an "안전한 바카라 사이트, etc." under the Large-scale Retail Business Act. It held that the representatives of the supplier operating as sole proprietors, the corporate supplier, and the manufacturer lacked the element of "otherness," a key aspect of the concept of an 안전한 바카라 사이트, and therefore could not be deemed "employees, etc."
This judgment is noteworthy in that it presented concrete standards for determining whether a person qualifies as an "안전한 바카라 사이트, etc." under Article 12(1) of the Act. It further recognized that even if an individual appears outwardly to be an "안전한 바카라 사이트, etc.," they may be excluded from that category where they have in substance provided labor for their own benefit due to the absence of "otherness." The ruling thus provides a meaningful precedent for future determinations under Article 12(1) of the Act.
