結合審查基準之研究──以統一與維力結合案為例

Research on Merger Guidelines: the Study on Uni-President and Weilih Case

張甘穎(Kan-ying Chang)

指導教授 ： 黃銘傑

國立臺灣大學/法律學院/科際整合法律學研究所/碩士(2013年)

https://doi.org/10.6342/NTU.2013.00309

摘要

結合管制採取事前申報異議制，主管機關如何一方面預測結合個案對於市場競爭影響，另一方面又提供全體事業透明標準依循，乃我國競爭法主管機關之挑戰。美國自1968年以來發布一連串結合準則，於2010年更發布最新水平結合準則，兼顧審查彈性與個案透明，值得我國借鑒。
由學派演進與美國經驗，本文歸納出三個趨勢演進：市場結構重要性下降、競爭效果分析關注提升、審查彈性與透明度增加。由於法院高度尊重公平會作為專業獨立機關在不確定法律概念之判斷餘地，我國公平會之意見在結合案件上具決定性影響，因此，本文認為我國結合審查亦應跟隨演進趨勢而修正執法方向，建議我國應降低對市場占有率、市場集中度等結構因素之重視，揚棄步驟式之僵化審查，並提升對競爭效果分析之比重，處理原則更應充實各項審查因素之內容，包括建立整體經濟利益之分析標準，以建立完善與透明之審查基準，俾利事業遵法成本降低。
統一與維力於2008年至2010年一連串之結合案件包含兩大部分：董事兼充遭公平會處分，以及二度申報結合遭公平會禁止。對於前者，參考美國立法例後，本文認為我國結合定義不夠明確，卻要求事業事前申報，且處罰更加嚴厲，故建議，董事兼充是否符合結合定義宜明確規範，且依其情況無法事前申報者，不宜要求事前申報。對於後者，本文認為公平會禁止結合之理由留有許多質疑空間，除了延續前述不符演進趨勢之缺失外，公平會論述之證據亦不足以支持其決定，故建議市場界定之證據應更多元、納入歷史性資料分析、量化分析前先釐清市場之競爭型態與消費行為。學派演進雖有再度向政府干預傾斜之趨勢，然結合管制應有充分理由，管制前提須確定個案符合結合定義、反競爭效果大於結合所生效率，故公平會應盡其舉證與說理責任，否則管制理由不存在，宜退出管制而交由市場自我調節。

關鍵字

結合管制 ； 水平結合 ； 美國結合準則 ； 結合處理原則 ； 統一與維力結合 ； 董事兼充

並列摘要

Since merger parties must file premerger notification once the transaction meets the merger control threshold, merger analysis is necessarily predictive. However, how to evaluate the potential of the merger case and to provide the transparent standard of enforcement practice, is a challenge for the competent authority in Taiwan. Commencing from 1968, the U.S. released several merger guidelines concerning the application of contemporary industrial economics. The horizontal merger guidelines revised in 2010 illustrate the balance between transparency and elasticity, which is a valuable reference for our country.
Based on the ongoing evolution of merger enforcement in the U.S., this essay concludes on three notes: (1) the importance of market structure is in decline, (2) the discussion of competitive effects is expanding, (3) the guidelines provide more details and reflect more diversity of industries. In Taiwan, since the Fair Trade Commission (hereinafter referred to as the FTC) is an independent agency, the court highly respects the evaluation of the FTC, so the decisions of the FTC are decisive on almost all merger cases. To make contributions to the development of merger enforcement policies in Taiwan, which is limited due to heavy emphasis on market definition and concentration, this essay suggests that Taiwan should follow the ongoing trends: play down the role of market share and market concentration factors, abandon the step-by-step approach, emphasize more the analysis of competitive effects, expand the list of factors and explain more.
Uni-president and Weilih Case includes two issues: interlocking directorates in 2008 and shareholdings increase in 2008 and 2010, which met reporting requirements. In the former issue, this essay suggests that the merger definition should draw a clear line in the cases of interlocking directorates, and in the cases of not knowing whether to meet the interlock threshold or not beforehand, should be exempted from notification. In the latter issue, the FTC prohibited Uni-president from increasing its shareholdings of Weilih without clearing asserting itself. Therefore, besides following the trends of evolution, this essay suggests that the FTC ought to introduce a more detailed and sophisticated analysis, reflecting the unique features and circumstances of the case at issue. For this purpose, the FTC should look at a wide variety of evidence, especially of historical events, and use a wide variety of methods when making its final decision. Although the industrial economics tends towards a more interventionist posture, the FTC must discharge the burden of proof: to prohibit a merger on grounds of a stringent evaluation that the disadvantages of adverse competitive effects outweigh the benefits of the merger, or simply to let the market decide.

並列關鍵字

merger control ； horizontal merger ； merger guidelines ； guidelines on handling merger filing ； Uni-president and Weilih Cas ； interlocking directorates

參考文獻

吳岳琮（2012）。《日本競爭法上結合管制於我國公平交易法之啟示》。國立臺灣大學法律學院法律學系碩士論文。

王志誠（2001）。〈企業併購法制之基礎構造〉，《中正大學法學集刊》，4期，頁91-138。

王志誠（2004）。〈跨國性併購：政策與法律〉，《臺大法學論叢》，33卷4期，頁205-265。

吳秀明（2000）。〈論關係企業與公平交易法上之結合管制〉，《臺大法學論叢》，29卷3期，頁135-172。

廖義男（1995）。〈事業結合四則實務之檢討〉，《台大法學論叢》，25卷1期，頁17-28。