Regarding this case, various provisions and rules were applied, including
Article 2-2 (Extraterritorial Application), Article 19 (Prohibition of Improper
Collaborative Acts), Article 36-2 (International Cooperation of Fair Trade
Commission) and Article 53-3 (Delivery of Documents of the MRFTA).
Among them, application of rules on extraterritorial application and procedural
matters were considered particularly significant in the enforcement history of
the KFTC in that the KFTC applied the laws and carried out the necessary
procedures against numerous carriers from multiple countries collectively.
As rules on the extraterritorial application of Korean competition law is
explained in detail in the discussion of the graphite cartel case352, here we
intend to only provide a brief overview on the background to the introduction
of extraterritorial application and the changes made in the law, along with an
analysis of provisions on international cooperation regarding case-handling
procedures.
1. Establishment of provisions on extraterritorial application
Under the current MRFTA, legal grounds for extraterritorial application are
provided in Article 2-2 which was introduced into the Act with the 2004
amendments. Article 2-2, however, was not directly referred to in the KFTC
decision on the air cargo cartel and, instead, extraterritorial application was
deemed possible based on interpretation of the provisions on the purpose of
the Act, similar to other cases handled before the introduction of Article 2-2.
Before the introduction of such explicit provision, the question of
extraterritorial application of the MRFTA sparked hot debate. Those who did
not see it possible argued that it was not provided for in the law. It was further
noted that since the Constitution prescribed compliance with international laws
in its Article 6 and international common laws acknowledged the territorial
principle, extraterritorial application based on the effect doctrine would be in