beta
갤러리아웨딩홀의 거래강제행위에 대한 건

2000-08-25 | 약식2000-221 | 2000광사0674 | 시정명령

Representative Measure Type

Corrective Order

Resolution Number

Summary-type 200-221

Case Number

200 Mine yarn0 0674

case name

galger’s Act of Compelling Transactions

Date of Resolution

200.08.26

Attachment Files

gallonia.hwp

gallonia.pdf

Persons with serious mind

Lgallon (representative of galglarwebow)

Seo-gu Gwangju Metropolitan City 417-10

Text

1. The respondent shall not force any unfair trade, such as compelling the use of a wedding room in which he/she intends to use the wedding room in running a wedding business by force, etc. of his/her restaurant operated by him/her;

2. The respondent shall announce the fact that he/she has violated the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act by doing the above 1.m. within 30 days from the date he/she receives this corrective order by publishing it in one daily newspaper for each region issued in the Gwangju metropolitan area in a size of 10cc x a Saturday, Sundays, and holidays once every other daily newspaper with a size of 10cc: Provided, That in the case of a daily newspaper for which the publication is made, the size of the person shall have undergone prior consultation with the Fair Trade Commission.

Reasons

1. Qualifications for the inquiree;

The respondent is a business operator who operates a wedding hall and is prescribed in subparagraph 1 of Article 2 of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Act").

2. Formation of compulsory transaction;

(a) Fact of conduct;

After the commencement of March 199, the respondent has been forced to use the restaurant under the conditions of wedding loan to the customer who intends to use the wedding hall he/she operates from Sundays 11:30 to 14:00.

Combined: 4.84% 4.84% 79% 92% 75% 75% 92% 83% on January 2, 2000 on January 2, 2000, 199 November 11, 1999.12.200

state) in the last six months use of a restaurant;

B. Determination of illegality

In general, in the operation of the wedding hall, the entrepreneur can provide a recording convenience for the users of the wedding hall to deal with ancillary facilities and goods related to the wedding to use the wedding hall in a lump sum. However, the use of the wedding room and the use of ancillary facilities, such as the scarkes, photographs, and video, are traded as separate goods or services. Therefore, it is reasonable for customers who use the wedding to freely choose the wedding room and ancillary goods or services, respectively.

Since marriage weddings are concentrated on Sundays and the selection of a place of weddings is subject to certain restrictions on regions, it would be difficult for customers to refuse unfair demands of the place of weddings from the perspective of customers who should select a place of weddings limited to the fixed date and time of weddings.

By using this point, the respondent leased a wedding room which is a main facility to the customer of the wedding hall and let him/her use the restaurant regardless of the customer's will. Such an act by the respondent is to compel the other party to purchase other goods or services unfairly in light of normal transaction practices and to purchase them from him/her in light of the latter part of Article 23 (1) 3 of the Act and Article 36 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (attached Table).

General unfair trade practices and criteria set forth in subparagraph 5 (a) (f) of the same paragraph.

3. On June 14, 200, the respondent recognized the facts of the above 2. A on June 14, 200 and accepted the opinion of the corrective measures of the text, and thus the deliberation of this case was conducted without the attendance of the respondent.

4. Conclusion

In full view of the above 2.B., the court below's above 2.A. act of the respondent is in violation of the provisions of Article 23 (1) 3 of the Act and Article 36 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (attached Table), and Article 24 of the Act, since Article 24 of the Act is applied and a decision is made as ordered.

The Fair Trade Commission has resolved as above.

August 26, 2000

the above-mentioned Won Kim Jong-il, the above-mentioned Won-won Kim

F.C. H. H. L. L. L.C.