Earticle

초록

영어

The first attempt to revise the laws regarding Official Bid Rigging was prompted by the Japan Fair Trade Commission(JFTC)’s issue of a cease and desist order in May 2000 to combat a case of bid-rigging case on a local government project. In that case, evidence was found that the project owner had an intention to nominate one bidder as winner, and the JFTC therefore issued a request to the local government in question to provide a remedy. Partly as a result of this incident, government officials’ involvement in such bids began to draw strong criticism from society. While a penalty may be imposed on business enterprises involved in bid-rigging, no such sanction is applicable to officials who induce bid-rigging. This imbalance gave rise to a sense of unfairness among service contractors. For this reason, as a means of preventing government officials from engaging in bid-rigging, the Act Concerning Elimination and Prevention of Involvement in Bid-Rigging(Act on Elimination and Prevention of Involvement in Bid Rigging, etc. and Punishments for Acts by Employees that Harm Fairness of Bidding, etc.) was promulgated in January 2003. Based on this law, which aims to prevent government officials from becoming involved in bid-rigging schemes, the JFTC may require heads of organizations offering bids to take corrective measures to eliminate the involvement of government officials. After receiving a request from the JFTC, the heads of relevant ministries and other government organizations have to investigate whether there is evidence substantiating disciplinary action against officials involving in bid-rigging. Cooperation and coordination among relevant administrative organizations are also required by law. The term “involvement in bid rigging etc.” in this Act shall mean the involvement in bid rigging etc. by the employees of government or local governments, or directors or employees of specified corporations, and falling under any one of the following items[(ⅰ) Having an entrepreneur or trade association engage in bid rigging etc., (ⅱ) Nomination of the counter party of a contract in advance, or indication or suggestion in advance of wishes to the effect that a specified person be the counter party of the contract, (ⅲ) Out of various data concerning bidding or contract, indication or suggestion of information held in confidential files to a specified entrepreneur or trade association, access to which shall facilitate bid rigging etc. by the specified entrepreneur or trade association, (ⅳ) In connection with a specific bid rigging, etc., aiding bid rigging, etc. nominating a specific person as participant to a bid, or by any other method, at the express or implicit request of an entrepreneur, trade association, or any other entity or by voluntarily approaching these persons, for the purpose of facilitating such bid rigging, etc., in breach of such employee's duties(Article 2 (5)).

한국어

관제담합 및 담합관여행위는 입찰에 참가하는 자가 한정되어있어 참가자 상호간의 접촉이 빈번하며, 발주기관과 사업자들이 산업보호육성 등의 시책을 실시하는 데 밀접한 관계를 유지하 고 있는 경우에 발생하기 쉽다. 일본의 관제담합사례를 보면 발주기관이 소재한 관할 지역에서 사업을 영위하는 사업자들의 법위반 행위가 대다수를 차지하고 있어 지리적 근접성이 강하며, 발주기관 출신의 OB들이 입찰참여 기업에 다수 재직하고 있는 점이다. 또한 담합관여행위의 존재가 인정된 사건의 대부분에서 담합관여행위는 3년 이상 계속 실행되었고, 3개 이상의 직위 에 걸쳐 사람들이 참여하였다. 일단 담합관여행위 시작되어 조직적으로 이루어지게 되면, 그 조직적으로 이루어지고 있는 것 자체가 개별 직원에게 담합참여 행위를 계속하게 하는 이유가 될 수 있고, 재취업자리의 승계로 인하여 이러한 연속성은 계속 유지될 수 밖에 없었다. 우리 공정거래법상으로 발주기관의 입찰관여행위에 관하여 아무런 규정을 두지 않고 있으며, 이에 대한 규제방안을 마련하지 않는 것은 경쟁제한의 한 요소를 방치하는 것이다. 이에 대한 규제방 안이 마련되어야 하며, 일본의 입찰담합 등 관여행위방지법이 좋은 예가 될 것이다.

목차

요약
Ⅰ. 서론
Ⅱ. 입찰담합⋅관제담합의 규제
Ⅲ. 입찰담합 등 관여행위방지법의 내용
Ⅳ. 관제담합 처분사례
Ⅴ. 결론
참고문헌

키워드

저자

• 박수영 [ Park Sooyoung | 전북대학교 법학전문대학원 교수, 전북대학교 동북아법연구소장. ]

참고문헌

발행기관

간행물

표지보기 관심저널 등록

• 간행물명

  동북아법연구 [Northeast Asian law journal]

• 간기

  연3회

• pISSN

  1976-5037

• 수록기간

  2007~2026

• 등재여부

  KCI 등재

• 십진분류

  KDC 369 DDC 341