優越的地位の濫用に関する独占禁止法上の考え方
  法令番号: 改正: 辞書バージョン:5.0 翻訳日:平成23年4月19日
Guidelines Concerning Abuse of a Superior Bargaining Position under the Antimonopoly Act
  Law number: Amendment : Dictionary Ver : 5.0 Translation date : April 19, 2011


優越的地位の濫用に関する独占禁止法上の考え方
Guidelines Concerning Abuse of a Superior Bargaining Position under the Antimonopoly Act
優越的地位の濫用に関する独占禁止法上の考え方
Guidelines Concerning Abuse of a Superior Bargaining Position under the Antimonopoly Act
平成22年11月30日
November 30, 2010
公正取引委員会
Japan Fair Trade Commission
はじめに
Introduction
優越的地位の濫用は,私的独占の禁止及び公正取引の確保に関する法律(昭和22年法律第54号。以下「独占禁止法」という。)において,不公正な取引方法の一つとして禁止されている。
The abuse of a superior bargaining position is banned by the Act on Prohibition of Private Monopolization and Maintenance of Fair Trade (Act No. 54 of 1947; referred to as the "Antimonopoly Act," below) as a type of unfair trade practice.
優越的地位の濫用の規定は,独占禁止法の一部を改正する法律(平成21年法律第51号。以下「独占禁止法改正法」という。)によって,独占禁止法第2条第9項第5号として法定化された(注1)。
The provisions on the abuse of a superior bargaining position were adopted as Article 2, paragraph (9), item (v) of the Antimonopoly Act by the Act for Partial Revision of the Antimonopoly Act (Act No. 51 of 2009; referred to as the "Act Amending the Antimonopoly Act," below) (Note 1).
(注1)独占禁止法第2条第9項第5号のほか,同項第6号の規定により公正取引委員会が指定する,①すべての業種に適用される「不公正な取引方法」(昭和57年公正取引委員会告示第15号)第13項(取引の相手方の役員選任への不当干渉),及び②特定業種にのみ適用される不公正な取引方法(以下「特殊指定」という。)にも,優越的地位の濫用の規定が置かれている。
(Note 1) In addition to Article 2, paragraph (9), item (v) of the Antimonopoly Act, the following provisions, which the Japan Fair Trade Commission designates based on item (vi) of said paragraph, stipulate matters concerning the abuse of a superior bargaining position: [1] paragraph (13) of Unfair Trade Practices (Unjust interference with the appointment of an officer of the counterparty), which are applicable to all business types (Fair Trade Commission Notification No. 15 of 1982); and [2] unfair trade practices that are applicable to specific business types (referred to as "special designations," below).
なお,優越的地位の濫用の規定がある特殊指定は次のとおりである。
Special designations that have provisions on the abuse of a superior bargaining position are as follows:
○ 新聞業における特定の不公正な取引方法(平成11年公正取引委員会告示第9号)
- Specific Unfair Trade Practices in the Newspaper Business (Fair Trade Commission Notification No. 9 of 1999)
○ 特定荷主が物品の運送又は保管を委託する場合の特定の不公正な取引方法(平成16年公正取引委員会告示第1号)
- Specific Unfair Trade Practices when Specified Shippers Entrust the Transport and Custody of Articles (Fair Trade Commission Notification No. 1 of 2004)
○ 大規模小売業者による納入業者との取引における特定の不公正な取引方法(平成17年公正取引委員会告示第11号)
- Specific Unfair Trade Practices by Large-Scale Retailers Relating to Trade with Suppliers (Fair Trade Commission Notification No. 11 of 2005)
独占禁止法第2条第9項第5号の規定は,次のとおりである。
Article 2, paragraph (9), item (v) of the Antimonopoly Act provides as follows:
自己の取引上の地位が相手方に優越していることを利用して,正常な商慣習に照らして不当に,次のいずれかに該当する行為をすること。
Engaging in any of the conduct specified in the following, in a way that is unjust in light of normal business practices, by making use of a superior bargaining position over the counterparty:
イ 継続して取引する相手方(新たに継続して取引しようとする相手方を含む。ロにおいて同じ。)に対して,当該取引に係る商品又は役務以外の商品又は役務を購入させること。
(a) causing the counterparty to an ongoing transaction (including a new counterparty with whom there is intended to be an ongoing transaction; the same applies in (b) below) to purchase goods or services other than those that are concerned in the relevant transaction;
ロ 継続して取引する相手方に対して,自己のために金銭,役務その他の経済上の利益を提供させること。
(b) causing the counterparty to an ongoing transaction to provide oneself with money, services, or other economic benefits;
ハ 取引の相手方からの取引に係る商品の受領を拒み,取引の相手方から取引に係る商品を受領した後当該商品を当該取引の相手方に引き取らせ,取引の相手方に対して取引の対価の支払を遅らせ,若しくはその額を減じ,その他取引の相手方に不利益となるように取引の条件を設定し,若しくは変更し,又は取引を実施すること。
(c) refusing to receive the goods concerned in a transaction from the counterparty, causing the counterparty to take back the goods concerned in a transaction after receiving those goods from the counterparty, delaying payment of the consideration for a transaction to the counterparty, or reducing the amount of that payment, or otherwise establishing or changing trade terms or executing transactions in a way that is disadvantageous to the counterparty;
独占禁止法改正法が成立したことにより,独占禁止法第2条第9項第5号に該当する優越的地位の濫用であって,一定の条件を満たすものについて,公正取引委員会は,課徴金の納付を命じなければならないこととなった(注2)。そこで,優越的地位の濫用に係る法運用の透明性,事業者の予見可能性を向上させる観点から,公正取引委員会は,独占禁止法第2条第9項第5号に該当する優越的地位の濫用に関する独占禁止法上の考え方を明確化するため,この「優越的地位の濫用に関する独占禁止法上の考え方」を策定する(注3)(注4)。
With the establishment of the Act Amending the Antimonopoly Act, the Japan Fair Trade Commission must now order a surcharge to be paid for any abuse of a superior bargaining position that falls under Article 2, paragraph (9), item (v) of the Antimonopoly Act and that satisfies certain conditions (Note 2). Thus, the Japan Fair Trade Commission has formulated these Guidelines Concerning Abuse of a Superior Bargaining Position under the Antimonopoly Act from the viewpoint of increasing the transparency of the law's enforcement and improving enterprise’s ability to predict what would constitute the abuse of a superior bargaining position, and with the aim of clarifying the concept of the abuse of a superior bargaining position that falls under Article 2, paragraph (9), item (v) of the Antimonopoly Act (Note 3) (Note 4).
(注2)独占禁止法第2条第9項第5号に該当する優越的地位の濫用に対しては,同号の規定のみを適用すれば足りるので,当該行為に独占禁止法第2条第9項第6号の規定により指定する優越的地位の濫用の規定が適用されることはない。
(Note 2) Since it is sufficient to apply only the provisions of Article 2, paragraph (9), item (v) of the Antimonopoly Act to the abuse of a superior bargaining position that falls under that item, the provisions on the abuse of a superior bargaining position designated pursuant to the provisions of Article 2, paragraph (9), item (vi) of the Antimonopoly Act do not apply.
(注3)公正取引委員会は,特定の業種等における優越的地位の濫用等の独占禁止法違反行為の未然防止を図るため,次のガイドライン等を策定・公表してきている。
(Note 3) The Japan Fair Trade Commission has established and made public the following guidelines in order to prevent violations of the Antimonopoly Act that involve the abuse of a superior bargaining position with regard to specific business types:
(優越的地位の濫用に係る主なガイドライン等)
(Major guidelines concerning abuse of a superior bargaining position)
○ 「大規模小売業者による納入業者との取引における特定の不公正な取引方法」の運用基準(平成17年事務総長通達第9号)
- Guidelines Concerning Designation of Specific Unfair Trade Practices by Large-Scale Retailers Relating to Trade with Suppliers (Secretary General Notice No. 9 of 2005)
○ フランチャイズ・システムに関する独占禁止法上の考え方について(平成14年4月24日公正取引委員会)
- Guidelines Concerning the Franchise System under the Antimonopoly Act (Fair Trade Commission on April 24, 2002)
○ 役務の委託取引における優越的地位の濫用に関する独占禁止法上の指針(平成10年3月17日公正取引委員会)
- Guidelines Concerning Abuse of a Superior Bargaining Position in Service Transactions under the Antimonopoly Act (Fair Trade Commission on March 17, 1998)
(注4)以下,第1から第4までにおける「優越的地位の濫用」とは,独占禁止法第2条第9項第5号に該当する優越的地位の濫用を指す。
(Note 4) In Sections I through IV below, the term "abuse of a superior bargaining position" refers to abuse of a superior bargaining position that falls under Article 2, paragraph (9), item (v) of the Antimonopoly Act.
第1 優越的地位の濫用規制についての基本的考え方
I. Basic Concept Behind Regulations on Abuse of a Superior Bargaining Position
1 事業者がどのような条件で取引するかについては,基本的に,取引当事者間の自主的な判断に委ねられるものである。取引当事者間における自由な交渉の結果,いずれか一方の当事者の取引条件が相手方に比べて又は従前に比べて不利となることは,あらゆる取引において当然に起こり得る。
1. The terms of trade between enterprises are basically left to the independent judgment of the transacting parties. Therefore, as a matter of course, the terms of trade for either party could become disadvantageous compared to those for its counterparty or compared to those under a previous contract in any transaction, as a result of free negotiations between the transacting parties.
しかし,自己の取引上の地位が相手方に優越している一方の当事者が,取引の相手方に対し,その地位を利用して,正常な商慣習に照らして不当に不利益を与えることは,当該取引の相手方の自由かつ自主的な判断による取引を阻害するとともに,当該取引の相手方はその競争者との関係において競争上不利となる一方で,行為者はその競争者との関係において競争上有利となるおそれがあるものである。このような行為は,公正な競争を阻害するおそれがあることから,不公正な取引方法の一つである優越的地位の濫用として,独占禁止法により規制される(注5)。
However, if a party whose bargaining position is superior to that of the counterparty makes use of such a position to impose a disadvantage on the counterparty in a way that is unjust in light of normal business practices, it hinders transactions from being based on the free and autonomous judgment of the counterparty, and puts the counterparty in a disadvantageous competitive position against its competitors, while putting the party with the superior bargaining position in an advantageous competitive position against its competitors. Since this kind of conduct poses a risk of impeding fair competition, it is regulated under the Antimonopoly Act as "abuse of a superior bargaining position," which is one type of unfair trade practice (Note 5).
どのような場合に公正な競争を阻害するおそれがあると認められるのかについては,問題となる不利益の程度,行為の広がり等を考慮して,個別の事案ごとに判断することになる。例えば,①行為者が多数の取引の相手方に対して組織的に不利益を与える場合,②特定の取引の相手方に対してしか不利益を与えていないときであっても,その不利益の程度が強い,又はその行為を放置すれば他に波及するおそれがある場合には,公正な競争を阻害するおそれがあると認められやすい。
The risk of impeding fair competition is judged separately for each circumstance in which there is a cause for concern, and the Commission considers factors including the degree of the disadvantage at issue and the extensiveness of the conduct. For example, the Commission is likely to find that certain conduct impedes fair competition [1] when the party with the superior bargaining position organizationally imposes a disadvantage on a large number of counterparties, or [2] when the party with the superior bargaining position imposes a disadvantage only on a specific counterparty, but the degree of disadvantage is high, or when its conduct, if left unaddressed, is likely to spread to its dealings with other counterparties.
(注5)当事者間の取引が,下請代金支払遅延等防止法(昭和31年法律第120号。以下「下請法」という。)にいう親事業者と下請事業者の取引に該当する場合であって,下請法に規定する①製造委託,②修理委託,③情報成果物作成委託,④役務提供委託に該当する場合には,下請法の規制の対象となる。下請法に関しては,運用に当たっての基本的な考え方を定めた「下請代金支払遅延等防止法に関する運用基準」(平成15年事務総長通達第18号)を策定・公表している。
(Note 5) If the transactions between the parties fall under the category of transactions between main subcontracting enterprises and subcontractors as provided under the Act against Delay in Payment of Subcontract Proceeds, Etc. to Subcontractors (Act No. 120 of 1956; referred to as the "Subcontract Act," below) as well as the category of [1] manufacturing contract, [2] repair contract, [3] information-based product creation contract, or [4] service contract as provided under the Subcontract Act, these transactions are regulated under the Subcontract Act. With respect to the basic approach to the application of the Subcontract Act, the Guidelines on the Application of the Act against Delay in Payment of Subcontract Proceeds, Etc., to Subcontractors have been formulated and publicized (Secretary General Notice No. 18 of 2003).
2 優越的地位の濫用として問題となる行為とは,「自己の取引上の地位が相手方に優越していることを利用して,正常な商慣習に照らして不当に」行われる,独占禁止法第2条第9項第5号イからハまでのいずれかに該当する行為である。
2. Conduct that is an issue in terms of abuse of a superior bargaining position is any of the conduct under Article 2, paragraph (9), item (v), (a) through (c) of the Antimonopoly Act that a party engages in, in a way that is "unjust in light of normal business practices, by making use of a superior bargaining position over the counterparty."
そこで,以下,第2及び第3において,この「自己の取引上の地位が相手方に優越していることを利用して,正常な商慣習に照らして不当に」の考え方を示した上で,次に,第4において,独占禁止法第2条第9項第5号イからハまでのそれぞれに該当する行為の態様ごとに,優越的地位の濫用の考え方を示す。
Thus, Sections II and III below describe the concept of engaging in conduct in a way that is "unjust in light of normal business practices, by making use of a superior bargaining position over the counterparty," and Section IV explains the concept of "abuse of a superior bargaining position" for each type of conduct that falls under the categories of Article 2, paragraph (9), item (v), (a) through (c) of the Antimonopoly Act.
また,第2以下において,どのような行為が優越的地位の濫用に該当するのかについて具体的に理解することを助けるために,「具体例」及び「想定例」を掲げている。「具体例」とは,過去の審決又は排除措置命令において問題となった行為等の例である。また,「想定例」とは,あくまでも問題となり得る仮定の行為の例であり,ここに掲げられた行為が独占禁止法第2条第9項第5号に該当すれば,優越的地位の濫用として問題となる。
Section II and beyond also present actual examples and potential examples in order to aid the understanding of what specific conduct is found to constitute abuse of a superior bargaining position. The actual examples are examples of actual conduct that was at issue in past decisions or cease and desist orders. The potential examples are examples of conduct that could potentially become an issue; if this conduct falls under Article 2, paragraph (9), item (v) of the Antimonopoly Act, it becomes an issue in terms of abuse of a superior bargaining position.
なお,ここに示されていないものを含め,具体的な行為が優越的地位の濫用として問題となるかどうかは,独占禁止法の規定に照らして個別の事案ごとに判断されるものであることはいうまでもない(注6)。
As a matter of course, whether or not specific conduct, including conduct that is not exemplified here, is an issue in terms of abuse of a superior bargaining position is judged separately for each circumstance in which there is a cause for concern in light of the provisions of the Antimonopoly Act (Note 6).
(注6)親子会社間の取引が優越的地位の濫用として規制の対象となるかについては,流通・取引慣行に関する独占禁止法上の指針(平成3年7月11日公正取引委員会事務局)の「(付)親子会社間の取引」記載のとおりである。
(Note 6) Whether or not transactions between a parent and subsidiary companies are regulated as abuse of a superior bargaining position is set forth in the Guidelines Concerning Distribution Systems and Business Practices under the Antimonopoly Act (General Secretariat, Fair Trade Commission on July 11, 1991) Appendix : Transactions between a Parent and Subsidiary Companies.
第2 「自己の取引上の地位が相手方に優越していることを利用して」の考え方
II. Concept of "by Making Use of a Superior Bargaining Position Over the Counterparty"
1 取引の一方の当事者(甲)が他方の当事者(乙)に対し,取引上の地位が優越しているというためには,市場支配的な地位又はそれに準ずる絶対的に優越した地位である必要はなく,取引の相手方との関係で相対的に優越した地位であれば足りると解される。甲が取引先である乙に対して優越した地位にあるとは,乙にとって甲との取引の継続が困難になることが事業経営上大きな支障を来すため,甲が乙にとって著しく不利益な要請等を行っても,乙がこれを受け入れざるを得ないような場合である。
1. In order for one party to a transaction (Party A) to have a superior bargaining position over the counterparty (Party B), Party A does not need to have a market-dominant position nor an absolutely dominant bargaining position equivalent to this; Party A only needs to have a relatively superior bargaining position compared to the counterparty. When Party A has a superior bargaining position over its business partner Party B, it produces a situation in which, if Party A makes a request, etc., even if it is substantially disadvantageous to Party B, Party B has no choice but to meet that request, because any difficulty Party B has in continuing the transaction with Party A would substantially impede Party B's business management.
2 この判断に当たっては,乙の甲に対する取引依存度,甲の市場における地位,乙にとっての取引先変更の可能性,その他甲と取引することの必要性を示す具体的事実を総合的に考慮する(注7)。
2. In determining the presence or absence of a superior bargaining position, the degree of Party B's dependence on transactions with Party A, Party A's position in the market, the possibility of Party B changing business partners, and other concrete facts indicating the need for Party B to carry out transactions with Party A are comprehensively considered (Note 7).
(注7)甲が乙に対し,取引上の地位が優越しているかどうかは,次の(1)から(4)までに記載された具体的事実を総合的に考慮して判断するので,大企業と中小企業との取引だけでなく,大企業同士,中小企業同士の取引においても,取引の一方当事者が他方の当事者に対し,取引上の地位が優越していると認められる場合があることに留意する必要がある。
(Note 7) Whether or not Party A has a superior bargaining position in transactions with Party B is determined by comprehensively considering the specific facts set forth in (1) through (4), as follows. Accordingly, it should be noted that, not only in transactions between large enterprises and SMEs, but also in transactions among large enterprises, as well as in transactions among SMEs, there are some cases in which either party to the transaction would be found to have a superior bargaining position in transactions with the counterparty.
(1)乙の甲に対する取引依存度
(1) Degree of Party B's dependence on the transactions with Party A
乙の甲に対する取引依存度とは,一般に,乙が甲に商品又は役務を供給する取引の場合には,乙の甲に対する売上高を乙全体の売上高で除して算出される。乙の甲に対する取引依存度が大きい場合には,乙は甲と取引を行う必要性が高くなるため,乙にとって甲との取引の継続が困難になることが事業経営上大きな支障を来すことになりやすい。
If Party B supplies goods or services to Party A, the degree of Party B's dependence on those transactions with Party A is generally calculated by dividing Party B's amount of sales to Party A by Party B's total amount of sales. If the degree of Party B's dependence on the transactions with Party A is high, this means that, because it is highly necessary for Party B to carry out transactions with Party A, should there be any difficulty in continuing the transactions with Party A, Party B's business management would likely be substantially impeded.
(2)甲の市場における地位
(2) Party A's position in the market
甲の市場における地位としては,甲の市場におけるシェアの大きさ,その順位等が考慮される。甲のシェアが大きい場合又はその順位が高い場合には,甲と取引することで乙の取引数量や取引額の増加が期待でき,乙は甲と取引を行う必要性が高くなるため,乙にとって甲との取引の継続が困難になることが事業経営上大きな支障を来すことになりやすい。
Party A's position in the market is determined by considering Party A's market share and its ranking, among other factors. If Party A's market share is large or if it has a high ranking, Party B can expect to increase its transaction volume or amount through transactions with Party A, and because it is highly necessary for Party B to carry out transactions with Party A, should there be any difficulty in continuing the transactions with Party A, Party B's business management would likely be substantially impeded.
(3)乙にとっての取引先変更の可能性
(3) Possibility of Party B changing business partners
乙にとっての取引先変更の可能性としては,他の事業者との取引開始や取引拡大の可能性,甲との取引に関連して行った投資等が考慮される。他の事業者との取引を開始若しくは拡大することが困難である場合又は甲との取引に関連して多額の投資を行っている場合には,乙は甲と取引を行う必要性が高くなるため,乙にとって甲との取引の継続が困難になることが事業経営上大きな支障を来すことになりやすい。
The possibility of Party B changing business partners is determined by considering the possibility of Party B starting transactions with or increasing its transactions with a enterprise other than Party A, and investments made by Party B in association with the transactions with Party A, among other factors. If it is difficult for Party B to start or increase transactions with other enterprises, or if Party B has made a large investment in association with the transactions with Party A, then due to the high necessity for Party B to carry out transactions with Party A, should there be any difficulty in continuing the transactions with Party A, Party B's business management would likely be substantially impeded.
(4)その他甲と取引することの必要性を示す具体的事実
(4) Other concrete facts indicating the need for Party B to carry out transactions with Party A
その他甲と取引することの必要性を示す具体的事実としては,甲との取引の額,甲の今後の成長可能性,取引の対象となる商品又は役務を取り扱うことの重要性,甲と取引することによる乙の信用の確保,甲と乙の事業規模の相違等が考慮される。甲との取引の額が大きい,甲の事業規模が拡大している,甲が乙に対して商品又は役務を供給する取引において当該商品又は役務が強いブランド力を有する,甲と取引することで乙の取り扱う商品又は役務の信用が向上する,又は甲の事業規模が乙のそれよりも著しく大きい場合には,乙は甲と取引を行う必要性が高くなるため,乙にとって甲との取引の継続が困難になることが事業経営上大きな支障を来すことになりやすい。
Other concrete facts indicating the need for Party B to carry out transactions with Party A are determined by considering the amount of transactions with Party A, the future growth potential of Party A, the importance of handling the goods or services subject to the transactions, the confidence in Party B that is secured through its transactions with Party A, and the difference in business size between Party A and Party B, among other factors. If the amount of transactions with Party A is high, if Party A's business size is expanding, if goods or services that Party A supplies to Party B have strong brand power, if confidence in Party B's goods or services increases through its transactions with Party A, or if Party A's business size is substantially larger than that of Party B, then due to the high necessity for Party B to carry out transactions with Party A, should there be any difficulty in continuing the transactions with Party A, Party B's business management would likely be substantially impeded.
(具体例)
(Actual Examples)
① X社は,チェーン店を全国に6,649店展開しており,その店舗数は我が国におけるコンビニエンス・ストア・チェーン業界において第2位の地位にある。X社のチェーン店の年間売上高の合計は約1兆1000億円であり,これは,コンビニエンス・ストア・チェーン業界においては第2位,小売業界全体においては第5位の地位を占めている。X社チェーン店の店舗数及び売上高は,毎年増加している。また,X社のチェーン店は,消費者から需要の多い商品をそろえているものとして高い信用を得ている。
[1] Company X ranks second in the Japanese chain convenience store industry in terms of the number of stores, operating 6,649 chain stores nationwide. The total annual sales of the chain stores operated by Company X amount to about 1.1 trillion yen, which is the second highest in the chain convenience store industry, and the fifth highest in the whole of the retail industry. The number of Company X's stores and amount of sales increase every year. Also, Company X's chain stores have gained a high level of consumer confidence for providing lines of goods that are in high demand.
X社は,全国的に店舗を展開し,それらの売上高が多く,X社チェーン店が取り扱う日用雑貨品の製造販売業者又は卸売業者(以下「日用品納入業者」という。)にとって極めて有力な取引先であるとともに,日用品納入業者は,自己の販売する商品がチェーン店において取り扱われることにより当該商品に対する消費者の信用度が高まること等から,X社との納入取引の継続を強く望んでいる状況にある。このため,X社と継続的な取引関係にある日用品納入業者の大部分は,X社との納入取引を継続する上で,納入する商品の品質,納入価格等の取引条件とは別に,X社からの種々の要請に従わざるを得ない立場にある(平成10年7月30日勧告審決・平成10年(勧)第18号)。
Since Company X operates chain stores nationwide and sales at those stores are large, Company X is an extremely influential business partner for manufacturers, sellers, and wholesalers of the daily goods handled by Company X's chain stores (referred to as "suppliers of daily goods," below). These suppliers of daily goods also have a strong desire to continue their supply transactions with Company X, because consumer confidence in their goods increases as a result of their goods being handled by Company X's chain stores, amongst other reasons. Accordingly, most of the suppliers of daily goods that engage in ongoing transactions with Company X are in a position in which they have no choice but to go along with various requests from Company X are not covered under the trade terms such as the quality and supply price of the supplied goods, in order to continue their supply transactions with Company X (JFTC recommendation decision, July 30, 1998).
② X銀行は,その年度末の総資産額が約91兆円であり,総資産額につき我が国の銀行業界において第1位の地位にある。
[2] Bank X ranks the highest in Japan's banking industry in terms of the amount of total assets, with its total assets amounting to about 91 trillion yen as of the end of the fiscal year in question.
X銀行と融資取引を行っている事業者,特に中小事業者の中には,
Some enterprises, particularly small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), that are engaged in financial transactions with Bank X (referred to as the "borrower enterprises," below), would have difficulty raising funds through loans, etc. from financial institutions other than Bank X in the immediate future if they were to lose access to the loans from Bank X, for the following reasons:
・ 金融機関からの借入れのうち,主としてX銀行からの借入れによって資金需要を充足している
- The borrower enterprises' capital needs that are provided by loans from financial institutions are satisfied mainly by the loans from Bank X.
・ X銀行からの借入れについて,直ちに他の金融機関から借り換えることが困難である
- It is difficult for the borrower enterprises to refinance the loans from Bank X immediately by using loans from other financial institutions.
・ 事業のための土地や設備の購入に当たってX銀行からの融資を受けられる旨が示唆された後,当該土地や設備の購入契約を進めたことから,当該融資を受けることができなければ他の方法による資金調達が困難である
- As the borrower enterprises, when purchasing land or equipment for their business activities, preceded with contracts to purchase land or equipment after it had been suggested that they would be granted loans from Bank X, it would be difficult for them to procure funds by another method if they were not granted those loans.
など,当面,X銀行からの融資に代えて,X銀行以外の金融機関からの融資等によって資金手当てをすることが困難な事業者(以下「融資先事業者」という。)が存在する。融資先事業者は,X銀行から融資を受けることができなくなると事業活動に支障を来すこととなるため,融資取引を継続する上で,融資の取引条件とは別に,X銀行からの種々の要請に従わざるを得ない立場にあり,その取引上の地位はX銀行に対して劣っている(平成17年12月26日勧告審決・平成17年(勧)第20号)。
As the business activities of the borrower enterprises would be impeded if they were not granted loans by Bank X, the borrower enterprises are in a position in which they have no choice but to go along with various requests from Bank X that are not covered under the trade terms of the loans if they are to continue their financial transactions with Bank X, and they are in a weaker position than Bank X in the transactions (JFTC recommendation decision, December 26, 2005).
③ X社が自ら経営するコンビニエンスストア(以下「直営店」という。)及びX社のフランチャイズ・チェーンに加盟する事業者(以下「加盟者」という。)が経営するコンビニエンスストア(以下「加盟店」という。)は,一部の地域を除き全国に所在している。店舗数は,直営店が約800店,加盟店が約1万1200店の合計約1万2000店であり,年間売上額は,直営店が約1500億円,加盟店が約2兆4200億円の合計約2兆5700億円であるところ,X社は,店舗数及び売上額のいずれについても,我が国においてコンビニエンスストアに係るフランチャイズ事業を営む者の中で最大手の事業者である。これに対し,加盟者は,ほとんどすべてが中小の小売業者である。
[3] The convenience stores that Company X's operates itself (referred to as "directly operated stores," below) and convenience stores operated by enterprises who are members of Company X's franchise chain (such enterprises are referred to as "franchise members," below, and such stores are referred to as "franchise stores," below) are located nationwide, except in certain areas. The total number of stores is about 12,000, with about 800 directly-operated stores and about 11,200 franchise stores, and the total annual amount of sales is about 2.57 trillion yen, with approximately 150 billion yen sold by directly-operated stores and approximately 2.42 trillion yen sold by franchise stores. Company X is the largest enterprise among the enterprises engaged in the convenience-store franchise business in Japan in terms of both the number of stores and the amount of sales. In contrast, almost all franchise members are small- and medium-sized retailers.
X社は,加盟者との間で,加盟店基本契約を締結しているところ,同契約においては,加盟店基本契約の終了後少なくとも1年間は,コンビニエンスストアに係るフランチャイズ事業を営むX社以外の事業者のフランチャイズ・チェーンに加盟することができないこととされている。
When Company X concludes a basic franchise store contract with a franchise member, the contract forbids the franchise member from becoming the member of a franchise chain with a different enterprise that is engaged in a convenience-store franchise business for at least one year after the termination of the contract.
X社は,加盟店基本契約に基づき,加盟店で販売することを推奨する商品(以下「推奨商品」という。)及びその仕入先を加盟者に提示している。加盟者が当該仕入先から推奨商品を仕入れる場合はX社のシステムを用いて発注,仕入れ,代金決済等の手続を簡便に行うことができるなどの理由により,加盟店で販売される商品のほとんどすべては推奨商品となっている。
Under the basic franchise store contract, Company X presents the goods that it recommends be sold at the franchise stores (referred to as the "recommended goods," below) and their suppliers to the franchise members. Since franchise members can use Company X's system as a simple way of placing orders, purchasing goods, settling payments, and processing other procedures when purchasing the recommended goods from said suppliers, almost all goods sold at the franchise stores are the recommended goods.
X社は,加盟店が所在する地区に経営相談員を配置し,加盟店基本契約に基づき,経営相談員を通じて,加盟者に対し,加盟店の経営に関する指導,援助等を行っているところ,加盟者は,それらの内容に従って経営を行っている。
Company X allocates management advisors to districts where the franchise stores are located, and, under the basic franchise store contract, provides guidance and assistance concerning the management of the franchise stores to franchise members through these management advisors, and the franchise members manage their franchise stores in accordance with the contents of that guidance, etc.
以上の事情等により,加盟者にとっては,X社との取引を継続することができなくなれば事業経営上大きな支障を来すこととなり,このため,加盟者は,X社からの要請に従わざるを得ない立場にある。したがって,X社の取引上の地位は,加盟者に対し優越している(平成21年6月22日排除措置命令・平成21年(措)第8号)。
Due to these circumstances, should there be any difficulty in continuing the transactions with Company X, a franchise member's business management would be substantially impeded, and because of this, the franchise members are in a position in which they have no choice but to go along with various requests from Company X. Accordingly, Company X has a superior bargaining position in transactions with the franchise members (Cease and Desist Order No. 8 of 2009; June 22, 2009).
3 また,優越的地位にある行為者が,相手方に対して不当に不利益を課して取引を行えば,通常,「利用して」行われた行為であると認められる。
3. When a party who has a superior bargaining position unjustly imposes a disadvantage on the counterparty in carrying out transactions, such conduct is generally recognized as "making use" of a superior bargaining position.
第3 「正常な商慣習に照らして不当に」の考え方
III. Concept of Engaging in Conduct in a Way that Is "Unjust in Light of Normal Business Practices"
「正常な商慣習に照らして不当に」という要件は,優越的地位の濫用の有無が,公正な競争秩序の維持・促進の観点から個別の事案ごとに判断されることを示すものである。
The requirement that conduct is being engaged in "unjustly in light of normal business practices," indicates that the presence or absence of abuse of a superior bargaining position is judged separately for each circumstance in which there is a cause for concern, from the standpoint of maintaining/promoting fair competition that allows enterprises compete to provide better quality or lower prices.
ここで,「正常な商慣習」とは,公正な競争秩序の維持・促進の立場から是認されるものをいう。したがって,現に存在する商慣習に合致しているからといって,直ちにその行為が正当化されることにはならない。
The term "normal business practices" means business practices that are endorsed with a view to maintaining and promoting fair competition. Accordingly, conduct is not automatically justified merely because it complies with the currently existing business practices.
第4 優越的地位の濫用となる行為類型
IV. Categories of Conduct That Constitutes Abuse of a Superior Bargaining Position
ここでは,優越的地位の濫用につながり得る行為であることが,独占禁止法第2条第9項第5号イからハまでの規定から明らかな行為を中心に,行為類型ごとに,優越的地位の濫用の考え方について明らかにする。
This section clarifies the concept of "abuse of a superior bargaining position" for each type of conduct, with a focus on conduct that clearly constitutes abuse of a superior bargaining position in light of the provisions of Article 2, paragraph (9), item (v), (a) through (c) of the Antimonopoly Act.
なお,優越的地位の濫用として問題となるのは,これらの行為類型に限られるものではない。優越的地位の濫用として問題となる種々の行為を未然に防止するためには,取引の対象となる商品又は役務の具体的内容や品質に係る評価の基準,納期,代金の額,支払期日,支払方法等について,取引当事者間であらかじめ明確にし,書面で確認するなどの対応をしておくことが望ましい。
The conduct that is an issue in terms of abuse of a superior bargaining position is not restricted to the categories of conduct shown below. In order to prevent various types of conduct that raise the issue of abuse of a superior bargaining position, it is best for the transacting parties to clarify and confirm in advance and in writing particulars such as the specific contents of and the quality evaluation standards for the goods or services subject to the transactions, the time of delivery, the amount of payment, the due date for payment, and the payment method.
1 独占禁止法第2条第9項第5号イ(購入・利用強制)
1. Article 2, paragraph (9), item (v), (a) of the Antimonopoly Act (Forced Purchase/Use)
独占禁止法第2条第9項第5号イの規定は,次のとおりである。
The provisions of Article 2, paragraph (9), item (v), (a) of the Antimonopoly Act are as follows:
イ 継続して取引する相手方(新たに継続して取引しようとする相手方を含む。ロにおいて同じ。)に対して,当該取引に係る商品又は役務以外の商品又は役務を購入させること。
[a]causing the counterparty to an ongoing transaction (including a new counterparty with whom there is intended to be an ongoing transaction; the same shall apply in (b) below) to purchase goods or services other than those connected to the relevant transaction;
この規定における「当該取引に係る商品又は役務以外の商品又は役務」には,自己の供給する商品又は役務だけでなく,自己の指定する事業者が供給する商品又は役務が含まれる。
The phrase "goods or services other than those connected to the relevant transactions" in these provisions includes not only the goods or services supplied directly by a party, but also goods or services supplied by enterprises designated by that party.
また,「購入させる」には,その購入を取引の条件とする場合や,その購入をしないことに対して不利益を与える場合だけではなく,事実上,購入を余儀なくさせていると認められる場合も含まれる(注8)。
"Causing...to purchase" includes not only cases where the purchase is specified in the trade terms or where the counterparty is put at a disadvantage for failure to make the purchase, but also cases where it is found that the counterparty is, in effect, being compelled to make the purchase (Note 8).
(注8)独占禁止法第2条第9項第5号ロにおける「提供させる」の考え方も,これと同様である。
(Note 8) The same applies to the concept of "causing...to provide" in Article 2, paragraph (9), item (v), (b) of the Antimonopoly Act.
(1)取引上の地位が相手方に優越している事業者が,取引の相手方に対し,当該取引に係る商品又は役務以外の商品又は役務の購入を要請する場合であって,当該取引の相手方が,それが事業遂行上必要としない商品若しくは役務であり,又はその購入を希望していないときであったとしても,今後の取引に与える影響を懸念して当該要請を受け入れざるを得ない場合には,正常な商慣習に照らして不当に不利益を与えることとなり,優越的地位の濫用として問題となる。
(1) Where a enterprise who has a superior bargaining position over a counterparty requests the counterparty to purchase goods or services other than those connected to the transactions in question, if, even though the counterparty does not require those goods or services in the performance of its business and does not wish to purchase them, the counterparty has no choice but to do so out of concern about the possible effect that a refusal could have on future transactions, the request unjustly imposes a disadvantage on the counterparty in light of normal business practices, and this is an issue in terms of abuse of a superior bargaining position.
(2)他方,取引の相手方に対し,特定の仕様を指示して商品の製造又は役務の提供を発注する際に,当該商品若しくは役務の内容を均質にするため又はその改善を図るため必要があるなど合理的な必要性から,当該取引の相手方に対して当該商品の製造に必要な原材料や当該役務の提供に必要な設備を購入させる場合には,正常な商慣習に照らして不当に不利益を与えることとならず,優越的地位の濫用の問題とはならない。
(2) On the other hand, if a enterprise who has a superior bargaining position over a counterparty, in placing an order for the manufacture of goods or the provision of services by designating certain specifications, causes the counterparty to purchase the raw materials required for manufacturing the goods or the equipment required for providing the services based on a reasonable need, such as a need to standardize or improve the quality of those goods or services, this does not unjustly impose a disadvantage on the counterparty in light of normal business practices, and as such, there is no issue in terms of abuse of a superior bargaining position.
(想定例)
(Potential Examples)
① 購入しなければ相手方との取引を打ち切る,取引数量を削減するなど,今後の取引に影響すると受け取られるような要請をすることにより,購入させること。
[1] Causing a counterparty to purchase goods or services by requesting that it do so in a way that could be taken to mean that the purchase will influence future transactions, such as suggesting the termination of transactions with the counterparty or a reduction of the transaction volume in the event of a failure to make the purchase.
② 購買担当者等取引の相手方との取引関係に影響を及ぼし得る者が購入を要請することにより,購入させること。
[2] Causing a counterparty to purchase goods or services by having a person, such as a staff member in charge of purchasing, who could influence the transactional relationship with the counterparty, request the counterparty to purchase them.
③ 取引の相手方に対して,組織的又は計画的に購入を要請することにより,購入させること。
[3] Causing a counterparty to purchase goods or services by organizationally or systematically requesting that the counterparty purchase them.
④ 取引の相手方から購入する意思がないとの表明があった場合,又はその表明がなくとも明らかに購入する意思がないと認められる場合に,重ねて購入を要請することにより,又は商品を一方的に送付することにより,購入させること。
[4] Causing a counterparty to purchase goods or services in a case where the counterparty has expressed its intention not to do so or, if the counterparty did not actually express this, in a case where the counterparty is found to clearly have no intention of doing so, by repeatedly requesting the counterparty to purchase the goods or services or by independently sending the goods to the counterparty.
⑤ 自己が部品の加工を発注する取引の相手方に対し,自己の取引先であるメーカーの製品の販売先を紹介するよう要請し,販売先を紹介することができなかった取引の相手方に対して,当該製品を購入させること。
[5] Requesting a counterparty with whom the enterprise has placed an order for component processing to find a purchaser for the goods produced by a business partner who is a manufacturer, and causing the counterparty to purchase those goods should the counterparty fail to find a purchaser.
⑥ 取引の受発注を電子化するに当たって,取引の相手方はその電子化に対応し得るインターネットサービスを既に別の事業者と契約しその提供を受けているため,新たに同サービスの提供を受ける必要がないにもかかわらず,今後取引を継続しないことを示唆しながら,自己の指定するより高価なインターネットサービスを提供する事業者を利用することを要請し,当該事業者から利用させること。
[6] In computerizing orders received, causing a counterparty to use the more expensive Internet service provider designated by the enterprise, by requesting that it do so while suggesting that transactions with the counterparty will not be continued otherwise, despite the fact that the counterparty has already signed a contract with another enterprise for Internet services that can respond to the computerization, that it has been receiving those services, and that it has no need to receive the same type of services over again.
(具体例)
(Actual Examples)
① X社は,道内6ホテルにおいて,閑散期における稼働率の向上及び収益確保を目的として,一定期間に限り当該ホテルで使用できる宿泊券について,納入業者等に対し,あらかじめ納入業者等ごとに購入を要請する枚数を設定し
[1] Company X, with the aim of increasing the operating rate and securing profits in the off-season at its six hotels located within Hokkaido, prepares hotel vouchers that can be used at those hotels within limited periods of time, determines in advance the number of hotel vouchers that Company X will request each supplier, etc. to purchase, and makes its request in the following way:
・ 文書で宿泊券の購入を要請し,購入の申込みが無いなどの場合には,事業部長ら納入取引等に影響を及ぼし得る者から購入するよう重ねて要請する
- Company X writes to request that the suppliers purchase the hotel vouchers, and if the suppliers do not offer to purchase them, Company X has a person, such as a divisional manager, who could have an influence on the supply transactions, repeatedly request the suppliers, etc. to purchase them.
・ 宿泊券の購入を要請する文書とともに購入を要請する枚数の宿泊券を納入取引等に影響を及ぼし得る者から手渡す等の方法により宿泊券を購入するよう要請している。
- Company X requests the suppliers, etc. to purchase the hotel vouchers by having a person who could have an influence on the supply transactions physically hand over the number of hotel vouchers that Company X is requesting the supplier to purchase, along with a document requesting that the supplier purchase the hotel vouchers.
これらの要請を受けた納入業者等の多くは,X社との納入取引等を継続して行う立場上,その要請に応じることを余儀なくされている(平成16年11月18日勧告審決・平成16年(勧)第31号)。
Many of the suppliers, etc. who receive such a request are compelled to comply in order to continue their supply transactions with Company X (JFTC recommendation decision, November 18, 2004).
② X銀行は,融資先事業者から新規の融資の申込み又は既存の融資の更新の申込みを受けた場合に,融資に係る手続を進める過程において,融資先事業者に対し,金利スワップの購入を提案し,融資先事業者が同提案に応じない場合に
[2] When Bank X receives an application for a new loan or for the renewal of an existing loan from a borrower enterprise, while the loan procedures are moving forward, it proposes that the borrower enterprise purchase interest-rate swaps. If the borrower enterprise does not accept the proposal, Bank X compels the borrower enterprise to purchase the interest-rate swaps, in the following way:
・ 金利スワップの購入が融資を行うことの条件である旨,又は金利スワップを購入しなければ融資に関して通常設定される融資の条件よりも不利な取扱いをする旨明示する
- Bank X clearly indicates that the purchase of the interest-rate swaps is a requirement for providing the loan, or that more disadvantageous conditions than usual will be set for the loan if the borrower enterprise fails to purchase the interest-rate swaps.
・ 担当者に管理職である上司を帯同させて重ねて購入を要請するなどにより,金利スワップの購入が融資を行うことの条件である旨,又は金利スワップを購入しなければ融資に関して通常設定される融資の条件よりも不利な取扱いをする旨示唆することにより金利スワップの購入を要請し,融資先事業者に金利スワップの購入を余儀なくさせる行為を行っている(平成17年12月26日勧告審決・平成17年(勧)第20号)。
- Bank X requests the borrower enterprise to purchase interest-rate swaps by having the staff member in charge visit the borrower enterprise together with a superior who is in a managerial position, to make repeated requests that the borrower enterprise purchase the interest-rate swaps, hinting that the purchase is a requirement for providing the loan, or that more disadvantageous conditions than usual will be set for the loan if the borrower enterprise fails to purchase the interest-rate swaps. (JFTC recommendation decision, December 26, 2005)
③ X社は,Y店及びZ店において,毎年開催する販売企画を約1か月間実施するに際し,あらかじめ店舗ごとに設定した販売目標金額を達成するため,Y店及びZ店の仕入担当者から,Y店又はZ店において販売される商品の納入業者及び当該納入業者の従業員に対し,電気製品,衣料品等を購入するよう要請していた。この要請を受けた納入業者及び当該納入業者の従業員の多くは,納入業者がX社との取引を継続して行う立場上,こうした要請に応じざるを得ない状況にあり,当該商品を購入していた(平成21年3月5日排除措置命令・平成21年(措)第3号)。
[3] When implementing an annual sales promotion campaign for a period of about one month at Store Y and Store Z, with the aim of attaining the sales target amount predetermined for each store, Company X has had the buyers at Store Y and Store Z request the suppliers of the goods sold at Store Y and Store Z and the employees of those suppliers to purchase electric products, clothing, and other goods. Many of the suppliers and the employees of those suppliers who received the request were in a position in which they had no choice but to meet the request in order to continue their transactions with Company X, and purchased the above-mentioned goods. (Cease and Desist Order No. 3 of 2009; March 5, 2009)
2 独占禁止法第2条第9項第5号ロ
2. Article 2, paragraph (9), item (v), (b) of the Antimonopoly Act
独占禁止法第2条第9項第5号ロの規定は,次のとおりである。
The provisions of Article 2, paragraph (9), item (v), (b) of the Antimonopoly Act are as follows:
ロ 継続して取引する相手方に対して,自己のために金銭,役務その他の経済上の利益を提供させること。
(b) causing the counterparty to an ongoing transaction to provide oneself with money, services, or other economic benefits;
この規定における「経済上の利益」の提供とは,協賛金,協力金等の名目のいかんを問わず行われる金銭の提供,作業への労務の提供等をいう。
The term "economic benefits" in these provisions refers to providing money as a monetary contribution, financial assistance, or under any other title, providing labor, etc.
(1)協賛金等の負担の要請
(1) Request for the payment of a monetary contribution, etc.
ア 取引上の地位が相手方に優越している事業者が,取引の相手方に対し,協賛金等の名目による金銭の負担を要請する場合であって,当該協賛金等の負担額及びその算出根拠,使途等について,当該取引の相手方との間で明確になっておらず,当該取引の相手方にあらかじめ計算できない不利益を与えることとなる場合や,当該取引の相手方が得る直接の利益(注9)等を勘案して合理的であると認められる範囲を超えた負担となり,当該取引の相手方に不利益を与えることとなる場合(注10)には,正常な商慣習に照らして不当に不利益を与えることとなり,優越的地位の濫用として問題となる。
A. If a enterprise who has superior bargaining position in transactions over a counterparty requests the counterparty to pay money under the title of a monetary contribution, etc., and if the amount of the monetary contribution to be paid, the basis for the calculation of that amount, and the use of the money have not been made clear to the counterparty, thereby imposing a disadvantage on the counterparty the cost of which it cannot calculate in advance, or if the payment turns out to be a burden that exceeds the scope that is found to be reasonable considering the direct benefit (Note 9), etc., that the counterparty will acquire, thereby imposing a disadvantage on the counterparty (Note 10), the request for payment of a monetary contribution unjustly imposes a disadvantage on the counterparty in light of normal business practices, and this is an issue in terms of abuse of a superior bargaining position.
(注9)「直接の利益」とは,例えば,広告に取引の相手方の納入する商品を掲載するため,広告を作成・配布する費用の一部を協賛金として負担させることが,取引の相手方にとってその納入する商品の販売促進につながる場合など実際に生じる利益をいい,協賛金を負担することにより将来の取引が有利になるというような間接的な利益を含まない。
(Note 9) The term "direct benefit" refers to a benefit that actually arises, such as where a enterprise causes its counterparty to pay a portion of the expenses required for preparing or distributing advertisements as a monetary contribution in order to advertise the goods supplied by the counterparty in connection with a sales promotion for the goods supplied by the counterparty; it does not include an indirect benefit, such as that payment of a monetary contribution, etc. would give the counterparty an advantage in future transactions.
(注10)この場合は,協賛金等の負担の条件について取引の相手方との間で明確になっていても優越的地位の濫用として問題となる。
(Note 10) If this is the case, even if the conditions for the payment of a monetary contribution, etc. have been made clear to the counterparty, it still becomes an issue in terms of abuse of a superior bargaining position.
イ 事業者が,催事,広告等を行うに当たり,取引の相手方に対し,その費用の一部として協賛金等の負担を要請することがある。このような要請は,流通業者によって行われることが多いが,流通業者が商品の納入業者に協賛金等の負担を要請する場合には,当該費用を負担することが納入商品の販売促進につながるなど当該納入業者にとっても直接の利益となることがある。協賛金等が,それを負担することによって得ることとなる直接の利益の範囲内であるものとして,取引の相手方の自由な意思により提供される場合には,正常な商慣習に照らして不当に不利益を与えることとならず,優越的地位の濫用の問題とはならない。
B. In some cases, when a enterprise holds an event or places an advertisement, it will request a counterparty to pay a monetary contribution, etc. as part of the required expenses. Such a request is often made by distributors, and when a distributor requests a supplier to pay a monetary contribution, etc., the payment of such expenses could, at times, give the supplier a direct benefit, such as a payment leading to a sales promotion for the goods that the supplier has supplied. When a monetary contribution, etc. is paid by the counterparty of its own free will, as a contribution that is within the scope of the direct benefit that it will acquire by such a payment, the request for payment of a monetary contribution does not unjustly impose a disadvantage on the counterparty in light of normal business practices, and as such, there is no issue in terms of abuse of a superior bargaining position.
(想定例)
(Potential Examples)
① 取引の相手方の商品又は役務の販売促進に直接寄与しない催事,売場の改装,広告等のための協賛金等を要請し,これを負担させること。
[1] Requesting and causing a counterparty to pay a monetary contribution, etc. for holding an event, refurbishing a sales space, or placing an advertisement that does not directly contribute to the sales promotion of the counterparty's goods or services.
② 決算対策のための協賛金を要請し,取引の相手方にこれを負担させること。
[2] Requesting and causing a counterparty to pay a monetary contribution as a measure for settling the enterprise's accounts.
③ 自己の店舗の新規オープン又は改装オープンに際し,当該店舗の利益を確保するため,事前に負担額,算出根拠,目的等について明確にすることなく,一定期間にわたり,取引の相手方からの当該店舗に対する納入金額の一定割合に相当する額を協賛金として負担させること。
[3] Using the opening of a new or remodeled store to cause a counterparty to pay an amount equivalent to a certain percentage of the amount that the counterparty supplies to a store as a monetary contribution over a fixed period, without clarifying the amount of the payment, the basis for the calculation of the amount, or the purpose of the payment in advance, in order to secure the store's gross profits.
④ 一定期間に一定の販売量を達成した場合にリベートの提供を受けることをあらかじめ定めていた場合において,当該販売量を達成しないのに当該リベートを要請し,負担させること。
[4] Requesting and causing a counterparty to pay a rebate that it had been decided in advance that a enterprise would receive on attaining a certain sales volume during a fixed period, in spite of the fact that the enterprise has not attained the sales volume.
⑤ 自己の店舗の新規オープンセール又は改装オープンセールにおける広告について,当該広告を行うために実際に要する費用を超える額の協賛金を取引の相手方に要請し,負担させること。
[5] In advertising an opening sale on the occasion of a store opening or store remodeling, requesting and causing a counterparty to pay an amount of monetary contribution that exceeds the expenses actually required for placing the advertisement.
⑥ 物流センター等の流通業務用の施設の使用料(センターフィー)について,その額や算出根拠等について納入業者と十分協議することなく一方的に負担を要請し,当該施設の利用量等に応じた合理的な負担分を超える額を負担させること。
[6] Unilaterally requesting and causing a supplier to pay fees for using certain facilities ("center fees") for its distribution operations, such as a logistics center, without sufficiently discussing the amount of fees and the basis for the calculation of their amount with the supplier, in an amount that exceeds a reasonable amount of fees for the level of use of those facilities.
⑦ 継続して行ってきた取引について,専ら「新規導入協賛金」という名目で金銭を得るために,商品の納入の受入れをいったん取りやめた後,同一の商品につき納入を再開させることにより,取引の相手方に金銭の提供を要請し,これを負担させること。
[7] In order to gain money under the pretext of a "monetary contribution for newly introduced goods," requesting and causing a counterparty to provide money by ceasing to accept goods that are being supplied in an ongoing transaction and subsequently causing the counterparty to resume supplying the same goods.
(具体例)
(Actual Examples)
X社は,自社及び子会社3社の店舗の開店に際し,惣菜等の各仕入部門に係る納入業者に対し,当該店舗の粗利益を確保するため,事前に算出根拠,目的等について明確に説明することなく,「即引き」と称して,開店に当たって当該納入業者に納入させる商品のうち特定のものについて,その納入価格を通常の納入価格に一定割合を乗じた価格等通常の納入価格より低い価格とすることにより,当該価格と通常の納入価格との差額に相当する経済上の利益の提供を要請していた。この要請を受けた納入業者の多くは,X社との納入取引を継続して行う立場上,その要請に応じることを余儀なくされ,経済上の利益を提供していた(平成20年6月23日排除措置命令・平成20年(措)第15号)。
Company X, when opening its own store and its three subsidiaries' stores, requested the suppliers who supplied prepared foods, etc. to each purchasing division to make the supply prices of specific goods that they were supplying for the store-opening lower than the usual supply prices, by multiplying the usual supply prices by a certain percentage, under the title of "instant discount," thereby causing the suppliers to provide an economic benefit equivalent to the difference between that price and the usual supply price, without clarifying the basis for the calculation of the amount or the purpose of the payment in advance, in order to secure the relevant stores' gross profits. Many of the suppliers, etc. who received this request were in a position where they were compelled to comply in order to continue their supply transactions with Company X, and provided the economic benefit. (Cease and Desist Order No. 15 of 2008; June 23, 2008)
(2)従業員等の派遣の要請
(2) Request to dispatch employees, etc.
ア 取引上の地位が相手方に優越している事業者が,取引の相手方に対し,従業員等(注11)の派遣を要請する場合であって,どのような場合に,どのような条件で従業員等を派遣するかについて,当該取引の相手方との間で明確になっておらず,当該取引の相手方にあらかじめ計算できない不利益を与えることとなる場合や,従業員等の派遣を通じて当該取引の相手方が得る直接の利益(注12)等を勘案して合理的であると認められる範囲を超えた負担となり,当該取引の相手方に不利益を与えることとなる場合(注13)には,正常な商慣習に照らして不当に不利益を与えることとなり,優越的地位の濫用として問題となる。
A. If a enterprise who has a superior bargaining position in transactions over a counterparty requests the counterparty to dispatch its employees, etc. (Note 11), and if the cases in which they are to be dispatched and the conditions for their dispatch have not been made clear to the counterparty, thereby imposing a disadvantage on the counterparty the cost of which it cannot calculate in advance, or if the burden to be borne by the counterparty exceeds the scope that is found to be reasonable considering the direct benefit (Note 12), etc., that it acquires by dispatching its employees, etc., thereby imposing a disadvantage on the counterparty (Note 13), the request to dispatch employees unjustly imposes a disadvantage on the counterparty in light of normal business practices, and this is an issue in terms of abuse of a superior bargaining position.
取引の相手方に対し,従業員等の派遣に代えて,これに相当する人件費を負担させる場合も,これと同様である。
The same is true if a enterprise causes a counterparty to pay equivalent personnel costs in place of dispatching its employees, etc.
(注11)「従業員等」には,当該取引の相手方が当該要請に応じるために雇用したアルバイトや派遣労働者等が含まれる。
(Note 11) The term "employee, etc." includes a part-time worker, a dispatched worker, etc. whom the counterparty employs for the purpose of accepting the relevant request.
(注12)「直接の利益」とは,例えば,取引の相手方の従業員等を小売店に派遣して消費者に販売させることが,取引の相手方が納入する商品の売上げ増加,取引の相手方による消費者ニーズの動向の直接把握につながる場合など実際に生じる利益をいい,従業員等の派遣をすることにより将来の取引が有利になるというような間接的な利益を含まない。
(Note 12) The term "direct benefit" refers to a benefit that actually arises, such as cases where a enterprise causing a counterparty to dispatch its employees, etc., to retail stores of the enterprise and sell goods to consumers, leads to an increase in sales of the goods supplied by the counterparty or to a direct understanding of a trend in consumer needs by the counterparty; it does not include an indirect benefit, such as that dispatching employees, etc. would give the counterparty an advantage in future transactions.
(注13)この場合は,従業員等の派遣の条件について取引の相手方との間で明確になっていても優越的地位の濫用として問題となる。
(Note 13) If this is the case, even if the conditions for the dispatch of employees, etc. have been made clear to the counterparty, it still becomes an issue in terms of abuse of a superior bargaining position.
イ メーカーや卸売業者が百貨店,スーパー等の小売業者からの要請を受け,自己が製造した商品又は自己が納入した商品の販売等のためにその従業員等を派遣する場合がある。こうした従業員等の派遣は,メーカーや卸売業者にとって消費者ニーズの動向を直接把握できる,小売業者にとって専門的な商品知識の不足が補われる等の利点を有している場合がある。従業員等の派遣が,それによって得ることとなる直接の利益の範囲内であるものとして,取引の相手方の自由な意思により行われる場合には,正常な商慣習に照らして不当に不利益を与えることとならず,優越的地位の濫用の問題とはならない。また,従業員等の派遣の条件についてあらかじめ当該取引の相手方と合意(注14)し,かつ,派遣のために通常必要な費用を自己が負担する場合も,これと同様である。
B. In some cases, a manufacturer or a wholesaler, at the request of a retailer such as a department store or a supermarket, will dispatch employees, etc. to sell, etc. goods manufactured or supplied by that manufacturer or wholesaler. Such a dispatch of employees, etc. could be advantageous at times, by, for example, allowing the manufacturer or wholesaler to directly ascertain the trend of consumer needs, or allowing the retailer to supplement its lack of knowledge about the goods. When employees, etc. are dispatched of the counterparty's own free will and within the scope of the direct benefit that it acquires through their dispatch, the request to dispatch employees does not unjustly impose a disadvantage on the counterparty in light of normal business practices, and as such, there is no issue in terms of abuse of a superior bargaining position. The same is true when a enterprise has made an agreement (Note 14) regarding the conditions for the dispatch of employees, etc. in advance with the counterparty, and pays the expenses normally required for their dispatch.
(注14)「合意」とは,当事者の実質的な意思が合致していることであって,取引の相手方との十分な協議の上に当該取引の相手方が納得して合意しているという趣旨である。「返品」(第4の3(2))における「合意」の考え方も,これと同様である。
(Note 14) The term "agreement" means that the material intentions of both parties coincide, and that the counterparty has accepted the terms and conditions and agreed to them after sufficient discussions between the parties. The same applies to the concept of an "agreement" in regard to the "return of goods" (IV. 3(2)).
(想定例)
(Potential Examples)
① 取引の相手方に対し,派遣費用を負担することなく,自己の利益にしかならない業務を行うよう取引の相手方に要請し,その従業員等を派遣させること。
[1] Requesting and causing a counterparty to dispatch its employees, etc., to engage in operations that only benefit the enterprise and without paying the expenses of the dispatch.
② 自己の店舗の新規オープンセール又は改装オープンセールに際し,販売業務に従事させるために納入業者の従業員を派遣させ,当該納入業者の納入に係る商品の販売業務に併せて他の納入業者の商品の販売業務にもその従業員を従事させることにより,その従業員を派遣した納入業者に対して,直接の利益等を勘案して合理的であると認められる範囲を超えた負担をさせること。
[2] Causing a supplier to dispatch employees, during an opening sale on the occasion of a store opening or store remodeling, in order to have them engage in sales operations, and having those employees engage in sales operations not only for goods supplied by that supplier, but also for other suppliers' goods, thereby causing the supplier that has dispatched the employees to bear a burden that exceeds the scope that is found to be reasonable considering the direct benefit, etc.
③ 取引の相手方が従業員等を派遣するための費用を自己が負担するとしながら,派遣費用として一律に日当の額を定めるのみであって,個々の取引の相手方の事情により交通費,宿泊費等の費用が発生するにもかかわらず,当該費用を負担することなく,従業員等を派遣させること。
[3] Offering to bear the expenses for the dispatch of employees, etc. by a counterparty but setting only a uniform daily allowance as dispatch expenses, and although expenses such as transportation expenses and accommodation expectations occur due to the individual counterparty's circumstances, causing the counterparty to dispatch employees, etc. without paying those expenses.
④ 取引の相手方が従業員等を派遣するための費用を自己が負担する場合において,日当,交通費,宿泊費等の費用を負担するとしながら,日当については,当該従業員等の給与や当該派遣に係る業務の内容に見合った適正な額を下回る額に一律に定めること。
[4] Where the enterprise is bearing the expenses for the dispatch of employees, etc. by the counterparty, and the expenses to be borne include daily allowances, transportation expenses, and accommodation expenses, uniformly setting the daily allowance at an amount lower than what is appropriate in view of the salary of the employees, etc. or the contents of the job they are being dispatched to.
⑤ 自己の棚卸業務のために雇用したアルバイトの賃金を取引の相手方に負担させること。
[5] Causing a counterparty to pay the wages for a part-time worker whom the enterprise has employed for taking inventory.
⑥ 契約上,取引の相手方が自己の倉庫まで運送することのみが契約内容とされている場合において,当該取引の相手方に対して,あらかじめ契約で定められていない自己の倉庫内における荷役等の業務について,無償で従事させること。
[6] Where a contract only stipulates that a counterparty will transport goods to the enterprise's warehouse, causing the counterparty to work loading and unloading, etc. the goods free of charge in the warehouse of the enterprise, which was not set forth in the contract in advance.
(具体例)
(Actual Examples)
X社は,店舗の新規オープン及び改装オープンに際し,納入業者に対し,当該納入業者の納入に係る商品であるか否かを問わず,当該店舗における商品の陳列,商品の補充,接客等の作業(以下「オープン作業」という。)を行わせることとし,あらかじめ当該納入業者との間でその従業員等の派遣の条件について合意することなく,オープン作業を行わせるためにその従業員等の派遣を受けることを必要とする店舗,日時等を連絡し,その従業員等を派遣するよう要請している。この要請を受けた納入業者の多くは,X社との納入取引を継続して行う立場上,その要請に応じることを余儀なくされ,その従業員等を派遣しており,X社は,当該派遣のために通常必要な費用を負担していない(平成20年6月30日排除措置命令・平成20年(措)第16号)。
At the time that Company X opens a new store or a remodeled store, it causes suppliers to engage in work such as displaying goods, replenishing stock, and providing customer service (referred to as "open work," below) at the store, irrespective of whether the goods are those supplied by said the relevant supplier, and without reaching an agreement with the suppliers in advance about the conditions for the dispatch of employees, etc., and it requests the suppliers to dispatch employees, etc. by informing them of the store, date, and time that Company X needs the suppliers' employees to be dispatched to engage in open work. Many of the suppliers who have received such a request have been compelled to comply in order to continue their transactions with Company X, and have dispatched their employees, etc., while Company X has not paid the expenses normally required for their dispatch. (Cease and Desist Order No. 16 of 2008; June 30, 2008)
(3)その他経済上の利益の提供の要請
(3) Request for other economic benefits
ア 協賛金等の負担の要請や従業員等の派遣の要請以外であっても,取引上の地位が相手方に優越している事業者が,正当な理由がないのに,取引の相手方に対し,発注内容に含まれていない,金型(木型その他金型に類するものを含む。以下同じ。)等の設計図面,特許権等の知的財産権,従業員等の派遣以外の役務提供その他経済上の利益の無償提供を要請する場合であって,当該取引の相手方が今後の取引に与える影響を懸念してそれを受け入れざるを得ない場合には,正常な商慣習に照らして不当に不利益を与えることとなり,優越的地位の濫用として問題となる(注15)。
A. Even if a request is other than for the payment of a monetary contribution, etc., or the dispatch of employee, etc., if a enterprise has a superior bargaining position over a counterparty and, without a justifiable reason, requests that the counterparty provide, free of charge, design drawings or intellectual property rights such as patent rights to a die, etc. (including wooden dies and other types similar to metal dies; the same applies below) that are not contained in the order, or other than the dispatch of employees, etc., requests to be provided with services or other economic benefits, and if the counterparty has no choice but to comply with the request from concerns about the possible effects of refusal on future transactions, the request unjustly imposes a disadvantage on the counterparty in light of normal business practices, and this is an issue in terms of abuse of a superior bargaining position (Note 15).
(注15)無償で提供させる場合だけでなく,取引上の地位が優越している事業者が,取引の相手方に対し,正常な商慣習に照らして不当に低い対価で提供させる場合には,優越的地位の濫用として問題となる。この判断に当たっては,「取引の対価の一方的決定」(第4の3(5)ア)に記載された考え方が適用される。
(Note 15) Not only where a service is being provided free of charge, but also where a enterprise who has superior bargaining position over a counterparty causes that counterparty to provide a service at an unjustly lower price in light of normal business practices, this becomes an issue in terms of abuse of a superior bargaining position. In determining whether the conduct constitutes abuse of a superior bargaining position, the concept described in "unilateral decisions on the consideration for transactions" (IV. 3 (5) A) is applied.
イ 一方,前記アに列記した経済上の利益が無償で提供される場合であっても,当該経済上の利益が,ある商品の販売に付随して当然に提供されるものであって,当該商品の価格にそもそも反映されているようなときは,正常な商慣習に照らして不当に不利益を与えることとならず,優越的地位の濫用の問題とはならない。
B. On the other hand, even if the economic benefits described in A. above are provided free of charge, when it is a matter of course for the economic benefits to be provided accompanying the sale of certain goods, and the economic benefits have originally been reflected in the prices of those goods, the request for the economic benefits does not unjustly impose a disadvantage on the counterparty in light of normal business practices, and as such, there is no issue in terms of abuse of a superior bargaining position.
(想定例)
(Potential Examples)
① 取引に伴い,取引の相手方に著作権,特許権等の権利が発生・帰属する場合に,これらの権利が自己との取引の過程で得られたことを理由に,一方的に,作成の目的たる使用の範囲を超えて当該権利を自己に譲渡させること。
[1] Unilaterally causing a counterparty to transfer rights, such as a copyright or a patent right, etc. that is created or belongs to the counterparty as a part of the transaction, to the enterprise, in excess of a scope of use that is fitting to preparations by the enterprise, on the grounds that those rights were acquired in the course of transactions with the enterprise.
② 発注内容に金型の設計図面を提供することが含まれていないにもかかわらず,取引の相手方に対し,金型の設計図面を無償で提供させること。
[2] Causing a counterparty to provide design drawings of dies free of charge, in spite of the fact that providing design drawings is not a part of the agreement.
③ 補修用部品,金型等自己が保管すべきものについて,自己の一方的な都合により,取引の相手方に無償で保管させ,また,保管に伴うメンテナンス等をさせること。
[3] Causing a counterparty to retain spare parts dies, etc. that the enterprise should have in its own keeping, or to provide maintenance, etc., in line with that retention, free of charge, purely to suit the enterprise's own circumstances.
④ 自己が支給した部品・原材料の不具合,自己が行った設計の不備等自己に責任があるにもかかわらず,最終ユーザーからクレームがあった際,自己は一切責任を負わず,取引の相手方に最終ユーザーに対する損害賠償を含むクレーム対応を無償ですべて行わせること。
[4] Causing a counterparty to take measures to settle all complaints, including payment of compensation for damages to the end user, free of charge, without the enterprise assuming any responsibility when an end user raises a complaint, in spite of the fact that a enterprise is responsible due to such reasons as defects in the components or raw materials it has supplied or defects in the designs it has made.
⑤ 商品を納入するに当たって,取引の相手方と十分協議することなく一方的に,当該取引の相手方が回収する義務のない産業廃棄物や他の事業者の輸送用具等を取引の相手方に無償で回収させること。
[5] Unilaterally and without sufficient discussion, causing a counterparty, in supplying goods, to collect industrial waste or transportation equipment, etc. that the counterparty is not obligated to collect, from other enterprise free of charge.
3 独占禁止法第2条第9項第5号ハ
3. Article 2, paragraph (9), item (v), (c) of the Antimonopoly Act
独占禁止法第2条第9項第5号ハの規定は,次のとおりである。
The provisions of Article 2, paragraph (9), item (v), (c) of the Antimonopoly Act are as follows:
ハ 取引の相手方からの取引に係る商品の受領を拒み,取引の相手方から取引に係る商品を受領した後当該商品を当該取引の相手方に引き取らせ,取引の相手方に対して取引の対価の支払を遅らせ,若しくはその額を減じ,その他取引の相手方に不利益となるように取引の条件を設定し,若しくは変更し,又は取引を実施すること。
(c) Refusing to receive the goods subject to the transaction from the counterparty, causing the counterparty to take back the goods subject to the transactions after having received said goods from said counterparty, delaying the payment on transactions to the counterparty or reducing the amount of payment, or otherwise establishing or changing terms of the transaction or executing transactions in a way that is disadvantageous to the counterparty;
この独占禁止法第2条第9項第5号ハには,「受領拒否」,「返品」,「支払遅延」及び「減額」が優越的地位の濫用につながり得る行為の例示として掲げられているが,それ以外にも,取引の相手方に不利益を与える様々な行為が含まれる。
Article 2, paragraph (9), item (v), (c) of the Antimonopoly Act indicates a "refusal to receive goods," "return of goods," "delay of payment," and "price reduction" as examples of conduct that could lead to abuse of a superior bargaining position, but it also includes various other conduct that imposes a disadvantage on a counterparty.
(1)受領拒否
(1) Refusal to receive goods
ア 取引上の地位が相手方に優越している事業者が,取引の相手方から商品を購入する契約をした後において,正当な理由がないのに,当該商品の全部又は一部の受領を拒む場合(注16)であって,当該取引の相手方が,今後の取引に与える影響等を懸念してそれを受け入れざるを得ない場合には,正常な商慣習に照らして不当に不利益を与えることとなり,優越的地位の濫用として問題となる(注17)。
A. If a enterprise who has a superior bargaining position in transactions over a counterparty, after concluding a contract to purchase goods from the counterparty, refuses to receive (Note 16) all or part of those goods without justifiable grounds, and if the counterparty has no choice but to accept that refusal out of concern about the possible effects that protesting would have on future transactions, the refusal to receive goods unjustly imposes a disadvantage on the counterparty in light of normal business practices, and this is an issue in terms of abuse of a superior bargaining position (Note 17).
(注16)「受領を拒む」とは,商品を納期に受け取らないことである。納期を一方的に延期すること又は発注を一方的に取り消すことにより納期に商品の全部又は一部を受け取らない場合も,これに含まれる。
(Note 16) The phrase "refuse to receive" means not receiving goods on the delivery date. This also includes cases in which the enterprise does not receive all or part of the goods on the delivery date due to its unilateral postponement of the delivery date or its one-sided cancellation of the order.
(注17)取引の相手方から役務の提供を受ける契約をした後において,正当な理由がないのに,当該役務提供の全部又は一部の受取りを拒む場合については,独占禁止法第2条第9項第5号ハ「その他取引の相手方に不利益となるように取引の条件を(中略)変更し,又は取引を実施すること」として優越的地位の濫用の問題となり得る(第4の3(5)ウ参照)。
(Note 17) After concluding a contract for services to be provided by the counterparty, if a enterprise refuses to receive all or part of the services being provided, its refusal falls under the category of "changing the terms of the transaction or executing transactions in a way that is disadvantageous to the counterparty," as set forth in Article 2, paragraph (9), item (v), (c) of the Antimonopoly Act, and this may become an issue in terms of abuse of a superior bargaining position (refer to IV. 3 (5) C).
イ 他方,①当該取引の相手方から購入した商品に瑕疵がある場合,注文した商品と異なる商品が納入された場合,納期に間に合わなかったために販売目的が達成できなかった場合等,当該取引の相手方側の責めに帰すべき事由がある場合,②商品の購入に当たって当該取引の相手方との合意により受領しない場合の条件を定め,その条件に従って受領しない場合(注18),③あらかじめ当該取引の相手方の同意を得て(注19),かつ,商品の受領を拒むことによって当該取引の相手方に通常生ずべき損失(注20)を負担する場合には,正常な商慣習に照らして不当に不利益を与えることとならず,優越的地位の濫用の問題とはならない。
B. On the other hand, [1] if there are grounds attributable to the counterparty, such as where the goods purchased from the counterparty were defective, where the goods delivered differed from the goods ordered, or where the aim of the sales could not be achieved since the goods were not delivered by the delivery date; [2] if the conditions for the purchase of goods under which the enterprise will not receive the goods have been set based on an agreement with the counterparty, and the enterprise's non-receipt of the goods is in accordance with those conditions (Note 18); or [3] if the enterprise obtains the consent of (Note 19) the counterparty in advance and bears the loss that the counterparty would normally incur (Note 20) as a result of a refusal to receive the goods, the refusal to receive goods does not unjustly impose a disadvantage on the counterparty in light of normal business practices, and as such, there is no issue in terms of abuse of a superior bargaining position.
(注18)当該商品について,正常な商慣習の範囲内で受領を拒む条件を定める場合に限る。
(Note 18) This is limited to where the conditions for the refusal to receive the goods are set within the scope of normal business practices.
(注19)「同意を得て」とは,了承という意思表示を得ることであって,取引の相手方が納得して同意しているという趣旨である。「返品」(第4の3(2)),「支払遅延」(第4の3(3))及び「やり直しの要請」(第4の3(5)イ)における「同意を得て」の考え方も,これと同様である。
(Note 19) The phrase "obtains the consent of" means that the enterprise has received an indication of the counterparty's acceptance wherein the counterparty agreed to the refusal and gave its consent. The same applies to the concept of "obtain the consent of" in regard to the "return of goods" (IV. 3(2)), "delay in payment" (IV. 3(3)), and "request to redo an order" (IV. 3(5) B).
(注20)「通常生ずべき損失」とは,受領拒否により発生する相当因果関係の範囲内の損失をいう。例えば,①商品の市況の下落,時間の経過による商品の使用期限の短縮に伴う価値の減少等に相当する費用,②物流に要する費用,③商品の廃棄処分費用が挙げられる。「返品」(第4の3(2)),「支払遅延」(第4の3(3))及び「やり直しの要請」(第4の3(5)イ)における「通常生ずべき損失」の考え方も,これと同様である。
(Note 20) The phrase "loss that the counterparty would normally incur" means a loss within the scope of reasonable consequence that arises as a result of a refusal to receive goods. For example, it includes [1] expenses equivalent to a decrease in value due to a drop in the market for the goods or the shortening of the time before the use-by date due to the lapse of time; [2] expenses required for physical distribution; and [3] expenses for the disposal of the goods. The same applies to the concept of a "loss that the counterparty would normally incur" in the "return of goods" (IV. 3(2)), "delay in payment" (IV. 3(3)), and "request to redo an order" (IV. 3(5) B).
(想定例)
(Potential Examples)
① 取引の相手方が,発注に基づき商品を製造し,当該商品を納入しようとしたところ,売行き不振又は売場の改装や棚替えに伴い当該商品が不要になったことを理由に,当該商品の受領を拒否すること。
[1] Refusing to receive, at the time that a counterparty tries to deliver them, goods that the counterparty has manufactured based on the enterprise's order, on the grounds that the goods are no longer required due to slack sales or due to renovation of the sales space or a change in the shelf arrangement.
② あらかじめ定められた検査基準を恣意的に厳しくして,発注内容と異なること又は瑕疵があることを理由に,当該商品の受領を拒否すること。
[2] Arbitrarily making a predetermined inspection standard stricter and refusing to receive the goods on the grounds that they differ from what was ordered or that the goods are defective.
③ 特定の仕様を指示して商品の製造を発注した後であるにもかかわらず,自己の顧客から当該商品の注文が取り消されたことや,自己の販売計画を変更したことを理由に,当該商品の受領を拒否すること。
[3] Refusing to receive goods on the grounds that a customer has cancelled its order for the goods, or that sales projections have changed, in spite of the fact that the enterprise ordered those goods to be manufactured based on certain specifications that it had designated.
④ 取引の相手方が仕様の明確化を求めたにもかかわらず,正当な理由なく仕様を明確にしないまま,取引の相手方に継続して作業を行わせ,その後,取引の相手方が商品を納入しようとしたときになって,発注内容と異なることを理由に,当該商品の受領を拒否すること。
[4] Causing the counterparty to continue engaging in work without clarifying the specifications and without justifiable grounds for not doing so, in spite of the fact that the counterparty has asked the enterprise to clarify the specifications, and subsequently refusing to receive the goods when the counterparty tries to deliver them, on the grounds that the goods differ from what was ordered.
⑤ 発注した後になって,あらかじめ合意した納期を,取引の相手方の事情を考慮せず一方的に短く変更し,その納期までに納入が間に合わなかったとして商品の受領を拒否すること。
[5], Unilaterally accelerating the delivery date that has been agreed upon on in advance after placing an order, without considering the counterparty's circumstances, and refusing to receive goods on the grounds that the delivery was not made by the accelerated delivery date.
⑥ ロット単位で商品の検査を行い,不良品があったロットのみ受領しない契約であるにもかかわらず,あるロットで不良品が見つかった際,他のロットの検査をせず,すべてのロットの受領を拒否すること。
[6] Refusing, without inspecting the other lots, to receive all of the lots when defective goods are found in one lot, in spite of the fact that the contract provides for the enterprise to inspect goods by lot, and to refuse to receive only those lots that include defective goods.
⑦ 取引の相手方に対し,特定の仕様を指示して継続的に部品の製造を発注しているところ,従来の納入時には仕様を満たしているとして検査に合格させていた部品と同水準の部品について,自己の一方的な都合により不要になったことから,耐久性,耐靱性等の部品の性能に全く影響を及ぼさない微細な傷,打痕等を理由に,当該部品の受領を拒否すること。
[7] Refusing to accept manufacturing components of the same level of quality as those that the enterprise has instructed a counterparty to adopt certain specifications for, has been continuously placing orders for, and has been allowing to pass previous inspections at the time of supply as components that met the specifications, on the grounds that the components have minor damage, dents, etc. that do not have any influence on their performance in terms of durability, toughness, etc., because purely due to the enterprise's own circumstances the components are no longer necessary.
(2)返品
(2) Return of goods
ア 取引上の地位が相手方に優越している事業者が,取引の相手方に対し,当該取引の相手方から受領した商品を返品する場合であって,どのような場合に,どのような条件で返品するかについて,当該取引の相手方との間で明確になっておらず,当該取引の相手方にあらかじめ計算できない不利益を与えることとなる場合,その他正当な理由がないのに,当該取引の相手方から受領した商品を返品する場合であって,当該取引の相手方が,今後の取引に与える影響等を懸念してそれを受け入れざるを得ない場合には,正常な商慣習に照らして不当に不利益を与えることとなり,優越的地位の濫用として問題となる。
A. If a enterprise who has a superior bargaining position in transactions over a counterparty returns goods that the enterprise has received from the counterparty, and the circumstances and conditions under which the goods are to be returned have not been clarified between the enterprise and the counterparty, thereby imposing a disadvantage on the counterparty the cost of which it cannot calculate in advance, or if the enterprise, without justifiable grounds, returns goods that it has received from the counterparty and the counterparty has no choice but to accept their return out of concerns about the possible effects of refusal on future transactions, the return of goods unjustly imposes a disadvantage on the counterparty in light of normal business practices, and this is an issue in terms of abuse of a superior bargaining position.
イ 他方,①当該取引の相手方から購入した商品に瑕疵がある場合,注文した商品と異なる商品が納入された場合,納期に間に合わなかったために販売目的が達成できなかった場合等,当該取引の相手方側の責めに帰すべき事由により,当該商品を受領した日から相当の期間内に,当該事由を勘案して相当と認められる数量の範囲内(注21)で返品する場合,②商品の購入に当たって当該取引の相手方との合意により返品の条件を定め,その条件に従って返品する場合(注22),③あらかじめ当該取引の相手方の同意を得て,かつ,商品の返品によって当該取引の相手方に通常生ずべき損失を自己が負担する場合,④当該取引の相手方から商品の返品を受けたい旨の申出があり,かつ,当該取引の相手方が当該商品を処分することが当該取引の相手方の直接の利益(注23)となる場合には,正常な商慣習に照らして不当に不利益を与えることとならず,優越的地位の濫用の問題とはならない。
B. On the other hand, [1] if there are grounds attributable to the counterparty, such as where the goods purchased from the counterparty were defective, where the goods delivered differed from the goods ordered, or where the sales target could not be achieved since the goods were not delivered by the delivery date, when the quantity of the goods that are returned is within a scope that is found to be reasonable in light of the grounds for their return, and when they are returned within a reasonable period of time from the day they were received (Note 21); [2] if conditions for the return of goods were decided based on an agreement with the counterparty on the purchase of the goods, and the goods are returned according to those conditions (Note 22); [3] if the enterprise obtains the consent of the counterparty in advance and bears the loss that the counterparty would normally incur from the return of the goods; or [4] if the counterparty offers to accept the return of goods, and the disposal of the goods by the counterparty is of direct benefit to the counterparty (Note 23), then the return of goods does not unjustly impose a disadvantage on the counterparty in light of normal business practices, and therefore there is no issue in terms of abuse of a superior bargaining position.
(注21)「相当の期間」については,個々の事情により判断されるべきであるが,例えば,直ちに発見できる瑕疵がある場合や注文品と異なっている場合には,商品の受領後,検品に要する標準的な期間内に速やかに返品する必要がある。「減額」(第4の3(4))における「相当の期間」の考え方も,これと同様である。
(Note 21) While a "reasonable period of time" should be determined based on the circumstances of each case, if there is a defect that is immediately detectable or if the goods differ from those ordered, the goods need to be returned promptly within the standard period required for inspection after receiving the goods. The same applies to the concept of a "reasonable period of time" in "price reduction" (IV. 3(4)).
また,相当の期間内に返品する場合であっても,無制限に返品することは認められない。例えば,瑕疵のある商品や注文と異なる商品であれば,その商品を返品することは認められるが,これに併せて他の商品も(セットでなければ販売の用をなさないものを除く。)返品することは,「相当と認められる数量の範囲内」の返品とは認められない。
However, even if the goods are returned within a reasonable period of time, unlimited returns are not allowed. For example, defective goods or goods that differ from what was ordered may be returned, but returning other goods together with them (other goods that can only be sold together with the returned goods as a set) is not recognized as a return of goods that is "within the scope of a quantity that is found to be reasonable."
(注22)当該商品について,その受領の日から一定の期間内における一定の数量の範囲内での返品又は受領した商品の総量に対して一定の数量の範囲内での返品が,正常な商慣習となっており,かつ,当該商慣習の範囲内で返品の条件を定める場合に限る。
(Note 22) This is limited to where a return, either of a scope that is within a specific quantity of goods and within a specific period from the day of their receipt or of a scope that is within a specific quantity of goods out of the total that was received, follows normal business practices, and the conditions for the return of the goods are decided within the scope of such business practices.
(注23)「直接の利益」とは,例えば,取引の相手方の納入した旧商品であって取引先の店舗で売れ残っているものを回収して,新商品を納入した方が取引の相手方の売上げ増加となるような場合など実際に生じる利益をいい,返品を受けることにより将来の取引が有利になるというような間接的な利益を含まない。
(Note 23) The term "direct benefit" refers to a benefit that actually arises, for example, where a supplier collects the outdated versions of goods it has delivered, which have remained unsold at a store of the counterparty, and delivers new goods, thereby leading to an increase in its sales; it does not include an indirect benefit such returning the goods giving the counterparty an advantage in future transactions.
(想定例)
(Potential Examples)
① 展示に用いたために汚損した商品を返品すること。
[1] Returning goods that have been damaged due to their being used for display.
② 小売用の値札が貼られており,商品を傷めることなくはがすことが困難な商品を返品すること。
[2] Returning goods with retail price stickers attached to them that are difficult to remove without damaging the goods.
③ メーカーの定めた賞味期限とは別に独自にこれより短い販売期限を一方的に定める場合において,この販売期限が経過したことを理由に返品すること。
[3] Unilaterally setting an independent sell-by-date that is sooner than the best-by-date set by the manufacturer, and returning goods on the grounds that the sell-by date has expired.
④ 自己のプライベート・ブランド商品を返品すること。
[4] Returning goods from a private brand.
⑤ 月末又は期末の在庫調整のために返品すること。
[5] Returning goods for the purpose of a month-end or term-end inventory adjustment.
⑥ 自己の独自の判断に基づく店舗又は売り場の改装や棚替えを理由に返品すること。
[6] Returning goods on the grounds that the enterprise is renovating the store or sales space or changing the shelf arrangement at its own discretion.
⑦ セール終了後に売れ残ったことを理由に返品すること。
[7] Returning goods on the grounds that the goods remained unsold after a discount sale.
⑧ 単に購入客から返品されたことを理由に返品すること。
[8] Returning goods on the grounds that they were returned by the customer who purchased them.
⑨ 直ちに発見できる瑕疵であったにもかかわらず,検品に要する標準的な期間をはるかに経過した後になって,瑕疵があることを理由に取引の相手方に返品すること。
[9], Returning goods to a counterparty on the grounds that a defect was found long after the standard period of time required for inspection has passed, in spite of the fact that the defect was immediately detectable.
(具体例)
(Actual Examples)
X社は,店舗の閉店又は改装に際し,当該店舗の商品のうち,当該店舗及び他の店舗において販売しないこととした商品について,当該商品の納入業者に対し,当該納入業者の責めに帰すべき事由がなく,あらかじめ当該納入業者との合意により返品の条件を定めておらず,かつ,当該商品の返品を受けることが当該納入業者の直接の利益とならないにもかかわらず,当該商品の返品に応じるよう要請している。この要請を受けた納入業者の多くは,X社との取引を継続して行う立場上,その要請に応じることを余儀なくされ,当該商品の返品を受け入れており,X社は,当該商品の返品によって当該納入業者に通常生ずべき損失を負担していない(平成21年6月19日排除措置命令・平成21年(措)第7号)。
At the time of closing or renovating its stores, Company X requests the suppliers of the goods sold at its stores that Company X has decided no longer to sell at that and other stores to accept the return of such goods, in spite of the fact that there are no grounds attributable to those suppliers, that no conditions have been decided in advance regarding the return of goods based on an agreement with those suppliers, and that accepting the return of the goods is of no direct benefit to those suppliers. Many of the suppliers who have received such a request were compelled to comply in order to continue their transactions with Company X, and accepted the return of the goods, while Company X has not borne the loss that those suppliers would normally incur as a result of their return. (Cease and Desist Order No. 7 of 2009; June 19, 2009)
(3)支払遅延
(3) Delay in payment
ア 取引上の地位が相手方に優越している事業者が,正当な理由がないのに,契約で定めた支払期日に対価を支払わない場合であって,当該取引の相手方が,今後の取引に与える影響等を懸念してそれを受け入れざるを得ない場合には,正常な商慣習に照らして不当に不利益を与えることとなり,優越的地位の濫用として問題となる。
A. If a enterprise who has a superior bargaining position in transactions over a counterparty fails to pay the consideration on the due date for payment decided under a contract, without justifiable grounds, and if the counterparty has no choice but to accept that failure to pay out of concerns about the possible effects that protesting would have on future transactions, a delay in payment unjustly imposes a disadvantage on the counterparty in light of normal business practices, and this is an issue in terms of abuse of a superior bargaining position.
また,契約で定めた支払期日より遅れて対価を支払う場合だけでなく,取引上の地位が優越している事業者が,一方的に対価の支払期日を遅く設定する場合や,支払期日の到来を恣意的に遅らせる場合にも,当該取引の相手方に正常な商慣習に照らして不当に不利益を与えることとなりやすく,優越的地位の濫用として問題となりやすい。
Not only where a enterprise pays the consideration after the due date for payment decided under a contract, but also where a enterprise who has a superior bargaining position in transactions unilaterally sets a late due date for payment or arbitrarily defers the arrival of the due date for payment, the delay in payment is likely to unjustly impose a disadvantage on the counterparty in light of normal business practices, and this is likely to be an issue in terms of abuse of a superior bargaining position.
イ 他方,あらかじめ当該取引の相手方の同意を得て,かつ,対価の支払の遅延によって当該取引の相手方に通常生ずべき損失を自己が負担する場合には,正常な商慣習に照らして不当に不利益を与えることとならず,優越的地位の濫用の問題とはならない。
B. On the other hand, if a enterprise obtains the consent of the counterparty in advance, and bears the loss that the counterparty would normally incur as a result of a delay in the payment of consideration, the delay in payment does not unjustly impose a disadvantage on the counterparty in light of normal business practices, and there is no issue in terms of abuse of a superior bargaining position.
(想定例)
(Potential Examples)
① 社内の支払手続の遅延,製品の設計や仕様の変更などを理由として,自己の一方的な都合により,契約で定めた支払期日に対価を支払わないこと。
[1] Failing to pay the consideration by the due date for payment that was decided under the contract, purely due to the enterprise's own circumstances, such as a delay in in-house payment procedures or changes in designs and specifications of goods.
② 分割して納入を受ける取引において,初期納入分の提供を受けた後に対価を支払うこととされているにもかかわらず,一方的に支払条件を変更し,すべてが納入されていないことを理由として対価の支払を遅らせること。
[2] In transactions where goods are delivered in installments, unilaterally changing the payment conditions and delaying the payment of the consideration on the grounds that the delivery of all installments has not been completed, in spite of the fact that the consideration is to be paid after the delivery of the first installment.
③ 商品の提供が終わっているにもかかわらず,その検収を恣意的に遅らせることなどにより,契約で定めた支払期日に対価を支払わないこと。
[3] Failing to pay the consideration by the due date that was decided under the contract by arbitrarily delaying the receiving inspection for goods, in spite of the fact that all of the goods have been provided.
④ 取引に係る商品又は役務を自己が実際に使用した後に対価を支払うこととされている場合に,自己の一方的な都合によりその使用時期を当初の予定より大幅に遅らせ,これを理由として対価の支払を遅らせること。
[4] Where the consideration is to be paid after the enterprise actually uses the goods or services subject to the transaction, causing the timing at which the enterprise uses those goods to be substantially later than the originally planned timing, purely to suit its own circumstances.
⑤ 非常に高額な製品・部品等の納入を受けている場合において,当初,契約で一括払いとしたにもかかわらず,支払の段階になって自己の一方的な都合により数年にわたる分割払いとし,一括払いに応じないこと。
[5] Where a enterprise has received particularly expensive goods/components, etc., changing a lump-sum payment to an installment payment made over multiple years purely to suit its own circumstances, and refusing to make a lump-sum payment, in spite of the fact that it concluded a contract that stipulates a lump-sum payment.
(4)減額
(4) Price reduction
ア 取引上の地位が相手方に優越している事業者が,商品又は役務を購入した後において,正当な理由がないのに,契約で定めた対価を減額する場合であって,当該取引の相手方が,今後の取引に与える影響等を懸念してそれを受け入れざるを得ない場合には,正常な商慣習に照らして不当に不利益を与えることとなり,優越的地位の濫用として問題となる。
A. If a enterprise who has a superior bargaining position in transactions against a counterparty reduces the price decided upon under a contract, without justifiable grounds, after purchasing goods or services, and the counterparty has no choice but to accept such reduction out of concern about the possible effects that protesting would have on future transactions, the price reduction unjustly imposes a disadvantage on the counterparty in light of normal business practices, and this is an issue in terms of abuse of a superior bargaining position.
契約で定めた対価を変更することなく,商品又は役務の仕様を変更するなど対価を実質的に減額する場合も,これと同様である。
The same is true of a price reduction in effect, where the specifications for the goods are changed without changing the price decided on under the contract.
イ 他方,①当該取引の相手方から購入した商品又は提供された役務に瑕疵がある場合,注文内容と異なる商品が納入され又は役務が提供された場合,納期に間に合わなかったために販売目的が達成できなかった場合等,当該取引の相手方側の責めに帰すべき事由により,当該商品が納入され又は当該役務が提供された日から相当の期間内に,当該事由を勘案して相当と認められる金額の範囲内(注24)で対価を減額する場合,②対価を減額するための要請が対価に係る交渉の一環として行われ,その額が需給関係を反映したものであると認められる場合には,正常な商慣習に照らして不当に不利益を与えることとならず,優越的地位の濫用の問題とはならない。
B. On the other hand, [1] if there are grounds attributable to the counterparty, such as where the goods purchased from the counterparty or the services provided by the counterparty were defective, where the goods delivered or the services provided differed from the goods or services ordered, or where the sales target could not be achieved since the goods were not delivered by the delivery date, when the price is reduced within the scope of an amount that is found to be reasonable in light of the grounds for reduction, and within a reasonable period of time from the day that the goods were delivered or the services were provided (Note 24); or [2] if a request for a price reduction has been made as part of the negotiations on the consideration, and the amount is found to reflect the supply-and-demand relationship, a price reduction does not unjustly impose a disadvantage on the counterparty in light of normal business practices, and there is no issue in terms of abuse of a superior bargaining position.
(注24)相当の期間内に対価を減額する場合であっても,無制限に対価を減額することは認められない。例えば,商品に瑕疵がある場合であれば,その瑕疵の程度に応じて正当に評価される金額の範囲内で減額を行う必要があるが,これを超えて減額を行うことは,「相当と認められる金額の範囲内」の対価の減額とは認められない。
(Note 24) Even if a price reduction has been made within a reasonable period of time, unlimited price reductions are not allowed. For example, if goods are defective, the price needs to be reduced within the scope of a fairly evaluated amount according to the degree of the defect, and a price reduction above that amount is not recognized as a price reduction "within the scope of an amount that is found to be reasonable."
(想定例)
(Potential Examples)
① 商品又は役務の提供を受けた後であるにもかかわらず,業績悪化,予算不足,顧客からのキャンセル等自己の一方的な都合により,契約で定めた対価の減額を行うこと。
[1] Reducing the price decided upon under the contract, purely to suit the enterprise’s own circumstances such as a business downturn, budget shortfall, or cancellation by a customer, in spite of having been provided with those goods or services.
② あらかじめ定められた検査基準を恣意的に厳しくして,発注内容と異なる又は瑕疵があることを理由に,納入価格の値引きをさせること。
[2] Arbitrarily making the predetermined inspection standards stricter, and causing the counterparty to give a discount on the supply price on the grounds that the goods differ from those ordered or that the goods are defective.
③ 自己の一方的な都合により取引の対象となる商品若しくは役務の仕様等の変更,やり直し又は追加的な提供を要請した結果,取引の相手方の作業量が大幅に増加することとなるため,当該作業量増加分に係る対価の支払を約したにもかかわらず,当初の契約で定めた対価しか支払わないこと。
[3] Only paying the consideration decided on under the initial contract, in spite of having promised to pay consideration for the counterparty's substantially increased workload resulting from the enterprise having requested, purely to suit its own circumstances, for the goods or services subject to the transactions to have their specifications changed, be redone, or be provided in an additional quantity.
④ セールで値引販売したことを理由に,又は当該値引販売に伴う利益の減少に対処するために,値引販売した額に相当する額を取引の相手方に値引きさせること。
[4] Causing a counterparty to give a discount in an amount equivalent to the discounted price at which the enterprise sold goods, on the grounds that the enterprise sold the goods at a discounted price during a discount sale, or in order to cover the decrease in profit in line with the discounted price at which the goods were sold.
⑤ 毎月,一定の利益率を確保するため,当該利益率の確保に必要な金額を計算して,それに相当する額を取引の相手方に値引きさせること。
[5] Calculating the amount necessary for securing profitability every month, and causing the counterparty to give a discount in an equivalent amount in order to secure a certain level of profitability.
⑥ 商品の製造を発注した後であるにもかかわらず,自社で策定したコスト削減目標を達成するために必要な金額を計算して,それに相当する額を取引の相手方に値引きさせること。
[6] Calculating the amount necessary for attaining a cost reduction target decided on in-house and causing a counterparty to give a discount in an equivalent amount, in spite of having placed an order for goods to be manufactured.
⑦ 自己の要請に基づいて設備投資や人員の手配を行うなど,取引の相手方が自己に対する商品又は役務の提供の準備のための費用を負担しているにもかかわらず,自己の一方的な都合により,当該商品又は役務の一部の取引を取りやめ,契約で定めた対価から取引の減少分に係る対価の減額を行うこと。
[7] Canceling a part of a transaction for goods or services purely to suit the enterprise's own circumstances, and reducing the consideration decided on under the contract by the amount of consideration for the portion of goods or services reduced from the transaction, in spite of the fact that the counterparty has borne expenses to prepare to provide the enterprise with goods or services, such as making capital investments or arranging personnel at the enterprise's request.
⑧ 同一商品が他店で安く販売されていることを理由に,納入業者と協議することなく,自店と他店の販売価格の差額分を納入価格から差し引いた対価しか支払わないこと。
[8] Without discussing it with the supplier, paying only an amount of consideration arrived at by deducting the difference between one store's sale price and another store's sale price from the supply prices, on the grounds that the same goods are sold at a lower price at other stores.
⑨ 消費税・地方消費税相当額を支払わないことにより,又は支払時に端数切捨てを行うことにより,契約で定めた対価の減額を行うこと。
[9] Reducing the consideration set forth in the contract through non-payment of the amount equivalent to consumption tax or local consumption tax, or by rounding down numbers at the time of payment.
⑩ 自己の一方的な都合による設計変更,図面提供の遅延等があったにもかかわらず,取引の相手方の納期延長を認めず,納期遅れのペナルティの額を差し引いた対価しか支払わないこと。
[10] Not agreeing to extend the delivery date, and paying only an amount of consideration arrived at by deducting a penalty for late delivery, in spite of the fact that the enterprise has changed the designs or delayed the provision of drawings, etc. purely to suit its own circumstances.
(具体例)
(Actual Examples)
X社は,食品,菓子及び雑貨の各仕入部門が取り扱っている商品について,商品回転率が低いこと,店舗を閉店することとしたこと,季節商品の販売時期が終了したこと又は陳列棚からの落下等により商品が破損したことを理由として,商品の割引販売を行うこととし,割引販売を行うこととした商品の納入業者に対し,その納入価格から当該割引販売前の価格に100分の50を乗じるなどの方法により算出した額の値引きをするよう要請していた。この要請を受けた納入業者の多くは,X社との納入取引を継続して行う立場上,その要請に応じることを余儀なくされ,値引きをしていた(平成20年5月23日排除措置命令・平成20年(措)第11号)。
Company X decided to sell the goods handled by each purchasing division for food, confectionary, and sundries at discounted prices, on the grounds that their turnover was low, the store was to be closed, the sales period for seasonal goods had ended, the goods had been damaged as a result of falling from the display shelves, or for other reasons, and requested the suppliers of the goods subject to the discounted sales to reduce the supply prices by the amount calculated by multiplying the price before the discount by 50 percent, etc. Many of the suppliers who received this request were compelled to comply in order to continue their supply transactions with Company X, and gave the discount. (Cease and Desist Order No. 11 of 2008; May 23, 2008)
(5)その他取引の相手方に不利益となる取引条件の設定等
(5) Establishment of other trade terms that are disadvantageous to the counterparty
前記第4の1,第4の2及び第4の3(1)から(4)までの行為類型に該当しない場合であっても,取引上の地位が優越している事業者が,取引の相手方に正常な商慣習に照らして不当に不利益となるように取引の条件を設定し,若しくは変更し,又は取引を実施する場合には,優越的地位の濫用として問題となる。
Even when conduct does not fall under any of the categories of conduct listed in IV. 1, IV. 2, and IV. 3 (1) through (4), above, if a enterprise who has a superior bargaining position in transactions over a counterparty sets or changes the trade terms or implements transactions in a manner that unjustly imposes a disadvantage on the counterparty in light of normal business practices, this becomes an issue in terms of abuse of a superior bargaining position.
一般に取引の条件等に係る交渉が十分に行われないときには,取引の相手方は,取引の条件等が一方的に決定されたものと認識しがちである。よって,取引上優越した地位にある事業者は,取引の条件等を取引の相手方に提示する際,当該条件等を提示した理由について,当該取引の相手方へ十分に説明することが望ましい。
Generally, when negotiations on trade terms are not sufficient, the counterparty tends to believe that the trade terms, etc., have been decided unilaterally. Therefore, when presenting the trade terms, etc., to a counterparty, it is best for a enterprise who has a superior bargaining position in the transactions to sufficiently explain to the counterparty the reason for presenting those trade terms, etc.
ア 取引の対価の一方的決定
A. One-sided decisions on the consideration for transactions
(ア)取引上の地位が相手方に優越している事業者が,取引の相手方に対し,一方的に,著しく低い対価又は著しく高い対価での取引を要請する場合であって,当該取引の相手方が,今後の取引に与える影響等を懸念して当該要請を受け入れざるを得ない場合には,正常な商慣習に照らして不当に不利益を与えることとなり,優越的地位の濫用として問題となる(注25)。
(a) If a enterprise who has a superior bargaining position in transactions with a counterparty unilaterally requests a counterparty to carry out transactions at either an extremely low or extremely high consideration, and if the counterparty has no choice but to comply with the request due to concerns about the possible effects of refusal on future transactions, the request unjustly imposes a disadvantage on the counterparty in light of normal business practices, and this is an issue in terms of abuse of a superior bargaining position (Note 25).
この判断に当たっては,対価の決定に当たり取引の相手方と十分な協議が行われたかどうか等の対価の決定方法のほか,他の取引の相手方の対価と比べて差別的であるかどうか,取引の相手方の仕入価格を下回るものであるかどうか,通常の購入価格又は販売価格との乖離の状況,取引の対象となる商品又は役務の需給関係等を勘案して総合的に判断する。
Whether or not such conduct constitutes abuse of a superior bargaining position is determined after comprehensively considering the method for deciding the consideration, such as whether or not the enterprise held sufficient discussions with the counterparty when the consideration was decided, as well as whether or not the consideration is discriminatory in comparison to the consideration for other counterparties, whether or not the consideration is lower than the counterparty's purchase price, the difference between what was decided and the normal purchase price or sale price, and the supply-and-demand relationship of the goods or services subject to the transactions.
(注25)取引の対価の一方的決定は,独占禁止法第2条第9項第5号ハの「取引の相手方に不利益となるように取引の条件を設定(中略)すること。」に該当する。
(Note 25) A unilateral decision on the consideration for transactions falls under "establishing trade terms... in a way that is disadvantageous to the counterparty" set forth in Article 2, paragraph (9), item (v), (c) of the Antimonopoly Act.
(イ)他方,①要請のあった対価で取引を行おうとする同業者が他に存在すること等を理由として,低い対価又は高い対価で取引するように要請することが,対価に係る交渉の一環として行われるものであって,その額が需給関係を反映したものであると認められる場合,②ある品目について,セール等を行うために通常よりも大量に仕入れる目的で,通常の購入価格よりも低い価格で購入する場合(いわゆるボリュームディスカウント)など取引条件の違いを正当に反映したものであると認められる場合には,正常な商慣習に照らして不当に不利益を与えることとならず,優越的地位の濫用の問題とはならない。
(b) On the other hand, [1] if a enterprise's request to carry out transactions at a lower consideration or a higher consideration on the grounds that a competitor intends to carry out such transactions at the requested amount of consideration, or for other reasons, is made as part of the negotiations about the consideration, and if said amount is found to reflect the supply-and-demand relationship; or [2] if the request is found to be a just reflection of a difference in the trade terms, such as when goods are purchased at a lower price than usual because the goal is to purchase a larger volume than usual (i.e., a volume discount) for holding a discount sale, etc., the request does not unjustly impose a disadvantage on the counterparty in light of normal business practices, and there is no issue in terms of abuse of a superior bargaining position.
(想定例)
(Potential Examples)
① 多量の発注を前提として取引の相手方から提示された単価を,少量しか発注しない場合の単価として一方的に定めること。
[1] Unilaterally setting the unit price that has been presented by a counterparty for bulk orders as the unit price for small-volume orders.
② 納期までの期間が短い発注を行ったため,取引の相手方の人件費等のコストが大幅に増加したにもかかわらず,通常の納期で発注した場合の単価と同一の単価を一方的に定めること。
[2] Unilaterally setting the same unit price as for orders with a normal delivery date, in spite of the fact that the counterparty's personnel expenses and other costs substantially increased as a result of the enterprise having placed an order with a close delivery date.
③ 通常の発注内容にない特別の仕様を指示したり,配送頻度の変更を指示したりするなどしたため,取引の相手方の作業量が増加し,当該取引の相手方の人件費等のコストが大幅に増加したにもかかわらず,通常の発注内容の場合の単価と同一の単価を一方的に定めること。
[3] Unilaterally setting the same unit price as for normal orders, in spite of the fact that a counterparty's workload has increased and its personnel expenses and other costs have substantially increased as a result of the enterprise designating special specifications that are not designated in normal orders, or instructing the delivery frequency to be changed.
④ 自己の予算単価のみを基準として,一方的に通常の価格より著しく低い又は著しく高い単価を定めること。
[4] Unilaterally setting a unit price that is substantially lower or substantially higher than the usual price, based solely on the enterprise's budgeted unit price.
⑤ 一部の取引の相手方と協議して決めた単価若しくは不合理な基準で算定した単価を他の取引の相手方との単価改定に用いること,又は取引の相手方のコスト減少を理由としない定期的な単価改定を行うことにより,一律に一定比率で単価を引き下げ若しくは引き上げて,一方的に通常の価格より著しく低い若しくは著しく高い単価を定めること。
[5] Unilaterally setting a unit price that is substantially lower or substantially higher than the usual price by uniformly lowering or raising the unit price by a certain percentage, by using a unit price that has been decided through discussions with some of the enterprise's counterparties or a unit price calculated based on unreasonable criteria that was used to revise the unit price for a different counterparty, or by the periodical revision of the unit price not based on the counterparties' decline in costs.
⑥ 発注量,配送方法,決済方法,返品の可否等の取引条件に照らして合理的な理由がないにもかかわらず特定の取引の相手方を差別して取り扱い,他の取引の相手方より著しく低い又は著しく高い対価の額を一方的に定めること。
[6] Treating specific counterparties in a discriminatory manner, and unilaterally deciding that the amount of consideration will be substantially lower or substantially higher than that for other counterparties, in spite of the fact that there are no reasonable grounds in light of the trade terms, such as the volume of orders, the delivery method, the settlement method, and whether or not it is possible to return the goods.
⑦ セールに供する商品について,納入業者と協議することなく,納入業者の仕入価格を下回る納入価格を定め,その価格で納入するよう一方的に指示して,自己の通常の納入価格に比べて著しく低い価格をもって納入させること。
[7] Setting a supply price that is lower than the supplier's purchase price for the goods that the enterprise will sell at a discount sale, without discussing it with the supplier, and causing the supplier to deliver goods at a price substantially lower than the supplier's usual supply price by unilaterally instructing the supplier to deliver the goods at that price.
⑧ 原材料等の値上がりや部品の品質改良等に伴う研究開発費の増加,環境規制への対策などにより,取引の相手方のコストが大幅に増加したにもかかわらず,従来の単価と同一の単価を一方的に定めること。
[8] Unilaterally setting the same unit price as in the past, in spite of the fact that the counterparty's costs have substantially increased due to a price hike in raw materials, etc., an increase in research and development expenses in line with an improvement in the quality of parts and components, or in response to environmental controls.
⑨ ある店舗の新規オープンセールを行う場合に,当該店舗への納入価格のみならず,自己が全国展開している全店舗への納入価格についても,著しく低い納入価格を一方的に定めること。
[9] When running an opening sale on the occasion of a store opening, unilaterally setting a supply price that is substantially lower not only for the new store, but for all of the enterprise's stores nationwide.
⑩ 取引の相手方から,社外秘である製造原価計算資料,労務管理関係資料等を提出させ,当該資料を分析し,「利益率が高いので値下げに応じられるはず」などと主張し,著しく低い納入価格を一方的に定めること。
[10] Causing a counterparty to submit confidential materials for the calculation of manufacturing costs, labor management-related materials, etc., analyzing those materials, and unilaterally setting a substantially lower supply price by, for example, insisting that the counterparty "should be able to agree to a price reduction because its profit margin is high."
(具体例)
(Actual Examples)
X社は,年2回行われる特別感謝セール及び年間約50回行われる火曜特売セールに際し,一部の店舗において,売上げ増加等を図るため,当該店舗の仕入担当者から,仲卸業者に対し,当該セールの用に供する青果物について,あらかじめ仲卸業者との間で納入価格について協議することなく,例えば,火曜特売セールの前日等に,チラシに掲載する大根,きゅうり,トマト等の目玉商品を連絡し,同商品について仲卸業者の仕入価格を下回る価格で納入するよう一方的に指示する等して,当該セールの用に供する青果物と等級,産地等からみて同種の商品の一般の卸売価格に比べて著しく低い価格をもって通常時に比べ多量に納入するよう要請している。この要請を受けた仲卸業者の多くは,X社との納入取引を継続して行う立場上,その要請に応じることを余儀なくされている(平成17年1月7日勧告審決・平成16年(勧)第34号)。
At the time of its special appreciation sale held twice a year and its special Tuesday sale held about 50 times a year, Company X, with the aim of increasing its sales, has the staff members in charge of purchasing at some of its stores request intermediate wholesalers to supply a larger amount of goods than usual at substantially lower prices than the general wholesale price for the same type of goods, in terms of their grade and production area, etc., as the fruits and vegetables to be used for any of the abovementioned sales, without discussing the supply price with the intermediate wholesalers in advance. Such requests are made, for example, by informing the intermediate wholesalers about the featured goods printed on the sales flier, such as daikon radishes, cucumbers, and tomatoes, on the day immediately before a special Tuesday sale, and unilaterally instructing them to supply said goods at a price lower than their purchase price. Many of the intermediate wholesalers who have received such requests have been compelled to comply in order to continue their supply transactions with Company X. (JFTC recommendation decision, January 7, 2005)
イ やり直しの要請
B. Request to redo an order
(ア)取引上の地位が相手方に優越している事業者が,正当な理由がないのに,当該取引の相手方から商品を受領した後又は役務の提供を受けた後に,取引の相手方に対し,やり直しを要請する場合であって,当該取引の相手方が,今後の取引に与える影響等を懸念してそれを受け入れざるを得ない場合には,正常な商慣習に照らして不当に不利益を与えることとなり,優越的地位の濫用として問題となる(注26)(注27)。
(a) If a enterprise who has a superior bargaining position over a counterparty requests the counterparty to redo the order, without justifiable grounds, after the enterprise has received the goods or services from the counterparty, and if the counterparty has no choice but to comply with that request due to concerns about the possible effects of refusal on future transactions, a request to redo an order unjustly imposes a disadvantage on the counterparty in light of normal business practices, and this is an issue in terms of abuse of a superior bargaining position (Note 26) (Note 27).
(注26)「やり直し」は,独占禁止法第2条第9項第5号ハの「取引の相手方に不利益となるように取引の条件を(中略)変更し,又は取引を実施すること。」に該当する。
(Note 26) "Redoing" falls under "changing the trade terms or executing transactions in a way that is disadvantageous to the counterparty" as set forth in Article 2, paragraph (9), item (v), (c) of the Antimonopoly Act.
(注27)取引の相手方から商品を受領する前又は役務の提供を受ける前に,給付内容を変更し,当初の給付内容とは異なる作業をさせる場合については,「減額」(第4の3(4)参照)又は「その他取引の相手方に不利益となる取引条件の設定等」(第4の3(5)ウ参照)として優越的地位の濫用の問題となり得る。
(Note 27) If, before receiving goods or being provided with services by a counterparty, a enterprise changes the details and causes the counterparty to engage in work that is different from what was initially decided on, this falls under "price reduction" (refer to IV. 3 (4)) or "establishment of other trade terms that are disadvantageous to the counterparty" (referred to IV. 3 (5) C) and may be an issue in terms of abuse of a superior bargaining position.
(イ)他方,①商品又は役務の内容が発注時点で取り決めた条件に満たない場合,②あらかじめ当該取引の相手方の同意を得て,かつ,やり直しによって当該取引の相手方に通常生ずべき損失を自己が負担する場合,③具体的な仕様を確定させるために試作品を作製することを含む取引において,当該試作品につきやり直しを要請し,かつ当該やり直しに係る費用が当初の対価に含まれていると認められる場合には,正常な商慣習に照らして不当に不利益を与えることとならず,優越的地位の濫用の問題とはならない。
(b) On the other hand, [1] if goods or services do not meet the conditions decided on at the time of the order was placed; [2] if it is based on the prior consent of the counterparty and the enterprise bears the loss that the counterparty would normally incur to redo the order; or [3] if the enterprise requests the counterparty to redo a prototype, in transactions that include the creation of a prototype, in order to determine a specific specification, and expenses for redoing the prototype are found to be included in the initial consideration, such a request does not unjustly impose a disadvantage on the counterparty in light of normal business practices, and there is no issue in terms of abuse of a superior bargaining position.
(想定例)
(Potential Examples)
① 商品又は役務の受領前に,自己の一方的な都合により,あらかじめ定めた商品又は役務の仕様を変更したにもかかわらず,その旨を取引の相手方に伝えないまま,取引の相手方に継続して作業を行わせ,納入時に仕様に合致していないとして,取引の相手方にやり直しをさせること。
[1], Causing the counterparty to continue working without notifying it of changes, and to redo the order on the grounds that such goods or services did not meet the specifications at the time of delivery, in spite of the fact that the enterprise had changed the specifications of goods or services that were decided on in advance before receiving the goods or services, purely to suit its own circumstances.
② 委託内容について取引の相手方に確認を求められて了承したため,取引の相手方がその委託内容に基づき製造等を行ったにもかかわらず,給付内容が委託内容と異なるとして取引の相手方にやり直しをさせること。
[2] Causing the counterparty to redo a consignment, on the grounds that the goods, etc., provided by the counterparty differ from what was supposed to be provided in the consignment, in spite of the fact that the enterprise was requested by the counterparty to confirm the details of the consignment and has agreed to them, because of which the counterparty has manufactured the goods or engaged in other work based on that consignment.
③ あらかじめ定められた検査基準を恣意的に厳しくして,発注内容と異なること又は瑕疵があることを理由に,やり直しをさせること。
[3] Arbitrarily making the predetermined inspection standards stricter and causing the counterparty to redo an order, on the grounds that the provided goods, etc., differ from what was ordered or that they are defective.
④ 取引の相手方が仕様の明確化を求めたにもかかわらず,正当な理由なく仕様を明確にしないまま,取引の相手方に継続して作業を行わせ,その後,取引の相手方が商品を納入したところ,発注内容と異なることを理由に,やり直しをさせること。
[4] Causing the counterparty to continue engaging in work without clarifying the specifications and without justifiable grounds for not clarifying them, in spite of the fact that the counterparty requested the enterprise to clarify the specifications, and subsequently causing the counterparty to redo the order on the grounds that the goods differ from what was ordered.
ウ その他
C. Other
(ア)前記第4の3(1)から(4)まで並びに第4の3(5)ア及びイの行為類型に該当しない場合であっても,取引上の地位が優越している事業者が,一方的に,取引の条件を設定し,若しくは変更し,又は取引を実施する場合に,当該取引の相手方に正常な商慣習に照らして不当に不利益を与えることとなるときは,優越的地位の濫用として問題となる。
(a) Even if conduct does not fall under any of the categories of conduct listed from IV. 3 (1) through (4), and in IV. 3 (5) A and B above, if a enterprise who has a superior bargaining position in transactions over a counterparty unilaterally determines or changes the trade terms or implements transactions, and if such conduct unjustly imposes a disadvantage on the counterparty in light of normal business practices, this becomes an issue in terms of abuse of a superior bargaining position.
(イ)次に掲げる想定例は,通常,これまでに述べた行為類型のいずれにも当てはまらないものと考えられるが,独占禁止法第2条第9項第5号ハに該当すれば,優越的地位の濫用として問題となる。
(b) The following potential examples could not be made to generally fit under any of the categories of conduct described earlier. However, if the conduct falls under the provisions of Article 2, paragraph (9), item (v), (c) of the Antimonopoly Act, it becomes an issue in terms of abuse of a superior bargaining position.
(想定例)
(Potential Examples)
① 取引の相手方が取引に係る商品を実際に使用し,又は役務の提供を実際に受けた後に対価の支払を受けることとされている場合において,自己の一方的な都合により,当該取引の相手方がまだ実際に商品を使用していない又はまだ役務の提供を実際に受けていないにもかかわらず,当該取引の相手方に対価を前倒しして支払わせること。
[1] Where the consideration is to be paid after the counterparty actually uses the goods or is actually provided with the services subject to the transaction, causing the counterparty to move up the payment of the consideration purely to suit the enterprise's own circumstances, in spite of the fact that the counterparty has yet to actually use the goods or has yet to actually be provided with the services, .
② 特定の仕様を指示して部品の製造を発注し,これを受けて取引の相手方が既に原材料等を調達しているにもかかわらず,自己の一方的な都合により,当該取引の相手方が当該調達に要した費用を支払うことなく,部品の発注を取り消すこと。
[2] Cancelling an order for components purely to suit the enterprise's own circumstances, without paying the counterparty's necessary procurement expenses, in spite of the fact that the enterprise has ordered goods to be manufactured by designating certain specifications and the counterparty has procured the raw materials, etc., based on that order.
③ 取引の相手方に対し,新たな機械設備の導入を指示し,当該機械設備の導入後直ちに一定数量を発注することを説明して発注を確約し,当該取引の相手方が当該機械設備の導入等の取引の実現に向けた行動を採っているのを黙認していたにもかかわらず,自己の一方的な都合により,発注数量を著しく減少する又は発注を取り消すこと。
[3] Substantially reducing the volume of an order or cancelling the order purely to suit the enterprise's own circumstances, in spite of the fact that the enterprise has directed the counterparty to introduce new machinery and equipment, has explained and committed to the counterparty that it would place an order of a certain volume immediately after the introduction of that machinery and equipment, and has given its implicit approval to the fact that the counterparty is taking such actions as the introduction of machinery and equipment for the transaction with the enterprise.
④ 取引の相手方に対し,債務超過等業績が不振な会社の振り出した手形,手形サイトが著しく長い手形等の支払期日までに一般の金融機関による割引を受けることが困難な手形を交付し,通常よりも割高な割引料を負担させること。
[4] Delivering an order of payment that is difficult for a general financial institution to discount by the due date, such as an order of payment drawn by a company with poor performance, including a negative net worth, or an order of payment that is substantially long-sighted, and thereby causing the counterparty to bear discount fees that are higher than usual.
⑤ 取引の相手方に対し掛け売りに伴う債権保全のために必要な金額を超えた,著しく高額な保証金を一方的に定め,当該保証金を預託させること。
[5] Unilaterally deciding that deposit monies will be of a substantially high amount exceeding the necessary amount to preserve the enterprise's receivables arising from sales on credit, and causing the counterparty to make that deposit.
⑥ 取引の相手方が納期までに納品できなかった場合又は取引の相手方が納入した商品に瑕疵があった場合に,当該取引の相手方に対して課すペナルティについて,その額や算出根拠等について当該取引の相手方と十分協議することなく一方的に定め,納品されて販売していれば得られた利益相当額又は当該瑕疵がなければ得られた利益相当額を超える額を負担させること。
[6] Unilaterally deciding the penalty to be imposed on the counterparty when it has failed to deliver goods by the delivery date or when the goods delivered are defective, without sufficiently discussing the penalty amount and the basis for the calculation of the amount, etc., with the counterparty, and causing the counterparty to pay an amount exceeding the amount equivalent to the profit that would have been gained if the goods had been delivered and sold or if the goods had not been defective.
(ウ)なお,次のとおり,フランチャイズ・チェーンの本部が,加盟者に対し,見切り販売の取りやめを余儀なくさせ,加盟者が自らの合理的な経営判断に基づいて自己の負担を軽減する機会を失わせている行為が,優越的地位の濫用として問題となったことがある(注28)。
(c) The conduct described below whereby the headquarters of a franchise chain compelled a franchise member to stop selling goods at a close-out price, thereby depriving the franchise member of the opportunity to reduce its burden based on its own reasonable management decisions, was found to be an issue in terms of abuse of a superior bargaining position (Note 28).
(注28)このような行為も,独占禁止法第2条第9項第5号ハに該当する行為である。なお,フランチャイズ取引における優越的地位の濫用についての考え方の詳細については,「フランチャイズ・システムに関する独占禁止法上の考え方について(平成14年4月24日公正取引委員会)」を参照されたい。
(Note 28) Such conduct also falls under Article 2, paragraph 9, item (v), (c) of the Antimonopoly Act. Regarding the details of the concept of abuse of a superior bargaining position in franchise transactions, refer to Guidelines Concerning the Franchise System under the Antimonopoly Act. (Fair Trade Commission on April 24, 2002)
(具体例)
(Actual Examples)
X社は,自己のフランチャイズ・チェーンの加盟者が経営するコンビニエンスストアで廃棄された商品の原価相当額の全額が加盟者の負担となる仕組みの下で,
Company X has a system through which the franchise members of its franchise chain have to bear the entire amount equivalent to the cost of goods discarded at the convenience stores managed by the franchise members. Company X has taken the following measures under this system.
ア 経営相談員は,加盟者がデイリー商品(品質が劣化しやすい食品及び飲料であって,原則として毎日店舗に商品が納入されるものをいう。以下同じ。)の見切り販売を行おうとしていることを知ったときは,当該加盟者に対し,見切り販売を行わないようにさせる
A. If a management consultant finds out that a franchise member intends to sell daily goods (foods and beverages that are highly perishable and those that are delivered to stores daily, same below) at a close-out price, he/she causes the franchise member not to sell the goods at a close-out price.
イ 経営相談員は,加盟者が見切り販売を行ったことを知ったときは,当該加盟者に対し,見切り販売を再び行わないようにさせる
B. If a management consultant finds out that a franchise member has sold goods at a close-out price, he/she causes the franchise members never to sell goods at a close-out price again.
ウ 加盟者が前記ア又はイにもかかわらず見切り販売を取りやめないときは,経営相談員の上司に当たる従業員らは,当該加盟者に対し,加盟店基本契約の解除等の不利益な取扱いをする旨を示唆するなどして,見切り販売を行わないよう又は再び行わないようにさせる
C. If a franchise member does not stop selling goods at a close-out price in spite of the measures set forth in A. or B. above, the management consultant's superior causes the franchise member not to sell goods at a close-out price or never to sell goods at a close-out price again by suggesting that the franchise member will receive disadvantageous treatment, such as the cancellation of the basic franchise-store contract.
など,見切り販売を行おうとし,又は行っている加盟者に対し,見切り販売の取りやめを余儀なくさせ,もって,加盟者が自らの合理的な経営判断に基づいて廃棄に係るデイリー商品の原価相当額の負担を軽減する機会を失わせている(平成21年6月22日排除措置命令・平成21年(措)第8号)。
In this manner, Company X compels franchise members who intend to sell or are selling goods at a close-out price to stop selling goods at a close-out price, thereby depriving them of the opportunity to reduce a burden equivalent to the cost of the daily goods discarded, based on their own reasonable management decisions. (Cease and Desist Order No. 8 of 2009; June 22, 2009)