The KFTC’s decision and the court’s judgments have clarified the meaning of the term “trade” under the MRFTA, interpreting the scope of the concept in a comprehensive manner. In line with the opinions of most academics, the KFTC and the courts defined trade as a general means for the business activities or trading order, instead of individual contracts. It is meaningful that the grounds for the insurers’ argument were not accepted. Their logic was that a direct trading relationship between the parties needs to be recognized. However, according to the KFTC’s decision and the courts’ judgments, even without a direct trading relationship, an act of unfair trade practice could be acknowledged if a conduct is seen as performance of legal obligations in a trading relationship. In other words, a relationship for the claim for damages associated with an illegal act can be recognized as a trading relationship if the insurers determine the items of compensation for damaged cars in order to fulfill their obligations under the insurance contracts. It is a significant judgment that, although the insurer-victim relationship is formed based on legal provisions on a direct insurance claim, a trading relationship is acknowledged as long as the insurers’ obligation to compensate the victims for the property damage is defined in the insurance contracts.
In this regard, an important standard has been defined for determination of unfair trade practices. The main focus of the MRFTA should be the actual aspects of trade practice. Determination based only on legal principles is meaningless. In the present case, the ground for determination was an actual relationship between the parties, which was determined based on an intention of the parties to form neither trading relationship nor a legal act. It is also important that the rulings pointed out an unfair trade practice can be easily committed during performance of the damage compensation obligation. This logic can be applied extensively to insurance contracts for a third party.
In addition, it was reconfirmed that a superior position should be recognized after considering market conditions, difference in business capabilities of the parties concerned, and the characteristics of goods to be traded. The factors considered in this case include information imbalance, no right to choose an insurer, receipt of payments as computed by insurers, specialized or technical information, contractual terms of the insurance policy, no payment in a large scale, and the possibility of paying a uniformly calculated amount.
Furthermore, it was explicitly ruled that even an “omission” to do something can be recognized as an act of providing disadvantages. In other words, an act of providing disadvantages includes not only an active engagement in a conduct to the disadvantage of trading partners but also an omission to bear the costs or perform the liability. The idea behind this ruling is that it is necessary to strictly enforce the law against the acts contrary to the primary purpose of an insurance system.
To conclude, the Court decided that it was contrary to customary trade practices to provide disadvantages for individual victims who wanted to be compensated for their damage through insurance policies and also contrary to leave many victims not filing a claim for indirect damage compensation.