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 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 Superior Bargaining Position under the Antimonopoly Act 公正取引委員会 the 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。 Abuse of superior bargaining position is banned by the Act on Prohibition of Private Monopolization and Maintenance of Fair Trade (Act No. 54 of 1947; hereinafter referred to as the "Antimonopoly Act") as a form of unfair trade practices. 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 abuse of superior bargaining position have been enshrined into law 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; hereinafter referred to as the "Act Amending the Antimonopoly Act"). (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 the same paragraph, prescribes the matters concerning abuse of superior bargaining position: (i) provisions of paragraph (13) (Unjust Interference with Appointment of Officer of One's Transacting Party ) of the designation of unfair trade practices applicable to all business types (Fair Trade Commission Notification No. 15 of 1982); and (ii) unfair trade practices applicable only to specific business types (hereinafter referred to as "special designations"). 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 abuse of 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 (the Japan Fair Trade Commission Notice 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 Assign the Transport and Custody of Articles (the Japan Fair Trade Commission Notice 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 (the Japan Fair Trade Commission Notice 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。 Taking any act specified in one of the following, in an unjust manner in light of normal business practices, by making use of one's superior bargaining position over the other party: 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) having the transacting party in regular transactions (including a party with whom one seeks to newly conduct regular transactions; the same applies in (b) below) purchase goods or services other than the one pertaining to the transactions; 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) having the transacting party in regular transactions provide for oneself 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 goods pertaining to transactions from the transacting party, having the party take back the goods pertaining to the transactions after receiving the goods from the party, delaying the payment of the transaction value to the party or reducing the amount of that payment, or otherwise establishing or changing the trade terms or executing transactions in a way disadvantageous to the party; 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 has become liable for ordering payment of a surcharge for any abuse of superior bargaining position that falls under Article 2, paragraph (9), item (v) of the Antimonopoly Act and that satisfies certain requirements. (Note 2) Thus, the Japan Fair Trade Commission has formulated these "Guidelines Concerning Abuse of Superior Bargaining Position under the Antimonopoly Act" from the viewpoint of increasing the transparency of law enforcement and foreseeability for entrepreneurs in regard to abuse of superior bargaining position, clarifying the concept under the Antimonopoly Act with regard to the abuse of 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 the provisions of Article 2, paragraph (9), item (v) of the Antimonopoly Act to an abuse of superior bargaining position that falls under that item, the provisions on abuse of superior bargaining position designated pursuant to the provisions of Article 2, paragraph (9), item (vi) of the Antimonopoly Act are not applied to the same abuse. （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) To date, the Japan Fair Trade Commission has formulated and made public the following guidelines in order to prevent in advance violations of the Antimonopoly Act, such as abuse of superior bargaining position, in 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＞ ○　「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 (the Japan Fair Trade Commission, 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 Superior Bargaining Position in Service Transactions under the Antimonopoly Act (the Japan Fair Trade Commission, 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) The term "abuse of superior bargaining position" as used in Sections I through IV refers to the abuse of 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 Section I. Basic Concept of the Regulation of the Abuse of 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 trade terms between entrepreneurs are basically left to the independent judgment of the transacting parties. Therefore, as a matter of course, the trade terms of either party could become disadvantageous compared to those of the other party or to those under a previous contract in a 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 who has superior bargaining position over the other party makes use of such position to impose a disadvantage on that other party, in an unjust manner in light of normal business practices, the act would impede transactions conducted based on the free and voluntary decisions of the other party, and put the other party in a disadvantageous competitive position against its competitors, while putting the party having superior bargaining position in an advantageous competitive position against its competitors. Since such act poses the risk of impeding fair competition, it is regulated under the Antimonopoly Act as "abuse of superior bargaining position," which constitutes a form 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 determined case-by-case, taking account factors including the degree of the disadvantage at issue and the extensiveness of the act. For example, the act is likely to be found to impede fair competition (i) when the party having superior bargaining position organizationally imposes a disadvantage on a large number of transacting parties, or (ii) when the party having superior bargaining position imposes a disadvantage only on a specific transacting party, but the degree of disadvantage is high or the act, if left unaddressed, is likely to have an impact on other transacting parties. （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 the main subcontracting entrepreneurs and subcontractors as provided under the Act against Delay in Payment of Subcontract Proceeds, Etc. to Subcontractors (Act No. 120 of 1956; hereinafter referred to as the "Subcontract Act") as well as the category of (i) entrusting manufacturing, (ii) entrusting repairs, (iii) entrusting information-based product creations, or [4] entrusting provision of services as provided under the Subcontract Act, the transactions are regulated under the Subcontract Act. In respect to the basic approach to the application of the Subcontract Act, the "Guidelines on Application of the Act against Delay in Payment of Subcontract Proceeds, Etc., to Subcontractors" (Secretary General Notice No. 18 of 2003) have been formulated and publicized. 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. Acts that are categorized as abuse of superior bargaining position are those performed "in an unjust manner in light of normal business practices by making use of one's superior bargaining position over the other party" and fall under any of the categories of Article 2, paragraph (9), item (v), (a) through (c) of the Antimonopoly Act. 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 "in an unjust manner in light of normal business practices by making use of one's superior bargaining position over the other party," and Section IV explains the concept of "abuse of superior bargaining position" for each type of act 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 the following Sections also present "Case Examples" and "Supposed Examples" in order to help understand which specific acts fall under abuse of superior bargaining position. The "Case Examples" are examples of acts that were at issue in past decisions or cease and desist orders. Meanwhile, the "Supposed Examples" are examples of supposed acts that could cause a problem; if those acts fall under Article 2, paragraph (9), item (v) of the Antimonopoly Act, they cause a problem as abuse of 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 acts, including those that are not exemplified here, would cause a problem as abuse of superior bargaining position is determined case-by-case 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 superior bargaining position is set forth in the "Guidelines Concerning Distribution Systems and Business Practices under the Antimonopoly Act" (General Secretariat, the Japan Fair Trade Commission, 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 Section II. Concept of "Making Use of One's Superior Bargaining Position Over the Other Party" 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 superior bargaining position over the other party (Party B), it is construed that Party A does not need to have a market-dominant position nor an equivalent absolutely dominant bargaining position and that it is sufficient if it has a relatively superior bargaining position as compared to the other transacting party. What it means by Party A having superior bargaining position over Party B who is a transaction counterpart, is that when Party A makes a request, etc., that is substantially disadvantageous for Party B, Party B would be unable to avoid accepting such a request, etc., due to the fact that when it becomes difficult for Party B to continue transactions with Party A, Party B's business management would be substantially impeded. 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 superior bargaining position, the degree of dependence by Party B on the transactions with Party A, position of Party A in the market, the possibility of Party B changing its business counterpart, 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 superior bargaining position in transactions with Party B is determined by comprehensively considering the concrete facts set forth in the following (1) through (4). Accordingly, it should be noted that, not only in transactions between large enterprises and small and medium-sized enterprises but also in transactions between large enterprises, as well as transactions between small and medium-sized enterprises, there are some cases where one transacting party is deemed to have superior bargaining position in transactions over other parties. （１）乙の甲に対する取引依存度 (1) Degree of dependence by Party B 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。 The degree of dependence by Party B on the transactions with Party A is, if Party B supplies goods or services to Party A in the transactions, 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 dependency by Party B on the transactions with Party A is high, it would be highly necessary for Party B to carry out transactions with Party A and therefore, when it becomes difficult to continue 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) Position of Party A 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。 The position of Party A 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 has a high ranking, Party B can expect to increase its transaction volume or amount through transactions with Party A, and it would be highly necessary for Party B to carry out transactions with Party A and therefore, when it becomes difficult to continue 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 its business counterpart 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 its business counterpart is determined by considering the possibility of Party B starting transactions with or increasing its transactions with entrepreneurs 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 the other entrepreneurs, or if Party B has made a large investment in association with the transactions with Party A, it would be highly necessary for Party B to carry out transactions with Party A and therefore, when it becomes difficult to continue 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。 The other concrete facts indicating the need for Party B to carry out transactions with Party A is determined by considering the amount of transactions with Party A, the future growth potential of Party A, the importance for Party B of handling the goods or services subject to the transactions, the securing of trustworthiness of Party B 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, when Party A supplies goods or services to Party B, those goods or services have a strong brand power, if the trustworthiness of the goods or services handled by Party B increases through the transactions with Party A, or if Party A's business size is substantially larger than that of Party B, it would be highly necessary for Party B to carry out transactions with Party A and therefore, when it becomes difficult to continue transactions with Party A, Party B's business management would likely be substantially impeded. 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 convenience store chain 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 convenience store chain industry, and the fifth highest in the whole retail industry. The number of Company X's stores and the amount of sales are increasing every year. Also, Company X's chain stores have earned a high level of consumer's trust for providing lines of goods 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 of those stores are large, Company X is an extremely influential business partner for manufacturers, sellers, and wholesalers (hereinafter referred to as "daily goods suppliers") of daily goods handled by Company X's chain stores. At the same time, daily goods suppliers have a strong desire to continue their supply transactions with Company X, because consumer's trust in their goods has increased as a result of their goods being handled by Company X's chain stores, amongst other reasons. Accordingly, most of the daily goods suppliers that engage in continuous transactions with Company X are in a position where they are unable to avoid accepting various requests from Company X, apart from trade terms such as the quality and supply price of the supplied goods, in continuing their supply transactions with Company X (the Japan Fair Trade Commission Recommendation Decision, No. 18 of 1998, 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 entrepreneurs, particularly small and medium-sized enterprises, engaged in financial transactions with Bank X (hereinafter referred to as the "borrower entrepreneurs"), 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 entrepreneurs' demand for funds, to be provided by loans from financial institutions, is 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 entrepreneurs to immediately refinance the loans from Bank X 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 - Since the borrower entrepreneurs, when purchasing land or equipment for their business activities, proceeded with the contract to purchase the land or equipment after it has been suggested that the entrepreneurs will be granted a loan from Bank X, it is difficult for the entrepreneurs to procure funds by another method if the entrepreneurs are not granted the loan. 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）。 There are entrepreneurs which have difficulty in procuring funds through loans from financial institutions other than Bank X in lieu of loans from Bank X for the time being (hereinafter referred to as "borrower entrepreneurs"). Since the business activities of the borrower entrepreneurs would be impeded if the entrepreneurs are not granted loans from Bank X, they are in a position where they are unable to avoid accepting various requests from Bank X that are not covered under the trade terms of the loans, in continuing their financial transactions with Bank X, and they are in a weaker position than Bank X in the transactions. (JFTC Recommendation Decision, No. 20 of 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] Convenience stores directly operated by Company X (hereinafter referred to as "directly-operated stores") and convenience stores operated by entrepreneurs who are members of Company X's franchise chain (the entrepreneurs are hereinafter referred to as "franchise members" and the stores are hereinafter referred to as "franchise stores") are located nationwide except in some regions. 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 entrepreneur among the entrepreneurs 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。 Where Company X concludes a franchise-store basic contract with the franchise members, the contract forbids the franchise members from becoming members of a franchise chain of an entrepreneur engaged in a convenience-store franchise business other than Company X 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 franchise-store basic contract, Company X presents the goods recommended to be sold at the franchise stores (hereinafter referred to as the "recommended goods") 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 the 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 franchise-store basic contract, provides guidance and assistance concerning the management of the franchise stores to franchise members through the management advisors, and franchise members manage their franchise stores in accordance with the content of such 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, when it becomes difficult to continue transactions with Company X, the franchise members' business management would be substantially impeded, and therefore, the franchise members are in a position where they are unable to avoid accepting various requests from Company X. Accordingly, Company X has 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. Also, when a party who has superior bargaining position carries out transactions by unjustly imposing a disadvantage on the other party, such act is generally recognized as an act "making use" of superior bargaining position. 第３　「正常な商慣習に照らして不当に」の考え方 Section III. Concept of "In an Unjust Manner 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, "in an unjust manner in light of normal business practices," indicates that the presence or absence of abuse of superior bargaining position is determined case-by-case from the viewpoint of maintaining and promoting fair competition where entrepreneurs 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 practices that are approved from the viewpoint of the maintenance and promotion of fair competition. Therefore, an act is not immediately 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 Section IV. Categories of Acts That Constitute Abuse of 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 superior bargaining position" for each category of act, mainly for those acts that clearly constitute abuse of 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。 Acts that could become a problem as the abuse of superior bargaining position are not restricted to the categories of acts shown below. In order to prevent various acts that could become a problem as abuse of superior bargaining position in advance, it is desirable for the transacting parties to clarify and confirm in writing matters including the specific content of and the evaluation standards of quality 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 or 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) Having the other party in regular transactions (including a party with whom one seeks to newly conduct regular transactions; the same apply in (b) below) purchase goods or services other than the one pertaining to the transactions; 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 pertaining to the transaction" in these provisions includes not only the goods or services supplied directly by a party, but also goods or services supplied by entrepreneurs 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）。 Meanwhile, "having... purchase" includes not only the case of specifying the purchase in the trade terms or the case of imposing a disadvantage against a failure to make the purchase, but also the case in which the purchase is found to be unavoidable in effect. (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 "having... 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) When an entrepreneur who has superior bargaining position over a transacting party requests that transacting party to purchase goods or services other than those pertaining to the transactions in question, and if it is unavoidable for the transacting party to accept the request from concerns about the possible effects on future transactions even where the transacting party does not require those goods or services in performing its business and does not wish to purchase them, the act would unjustly impose a disadvantage on the transacting party in light of normal business practices, and cause a problem as abuse of 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, when an entrepreneur who has superior bargaining position over a transacting party, upon placing an order for the manufacture of goods or the provision of services by designating certain specifications, has that transacting party purchase raw materials required for manufacturing those goods or 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, the act would not unjustly impose a disadvantage on the transacting party in light of normal business practices, and therefore does not cause a problem as abuse of superior bargaining position. 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] An entrepreneur has a transacting party purchase goods or services by making a request that could be taken to mean that the purchase would have an influence on future transactions, such as suggesting the termination of transactions with that transacting party 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] An entrepreneur has a transacting party, purchase goods or services by having a person, such as a staff member in charge of purchasing, who could have an influence on the transactional relationship with the transacting party request the purchase. 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] An entrepreneur has a transacting party purchase goods or services by organizationally or systematically requesting the purchase. 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] An entrepreneur has a transacting party purchase goods or services when the transacting party has expressed its intention not to make a purchase or when the transacting party is clearly found to have no intention of making a purchase even in the absence of such expression, by repeatedly requesting that the purchase be made or by unilaterally sending goods to the transacting party. 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] An entrepreneur requests a transacting party with whom the entrepreneur places an order for the processing of components to recommend a purchaser of the goods produced by a manufacturer who is a transaction partner of the entrepreneur, and has the transacting party purchase those goods should the transacting party fail to recommend 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 receipt and placement of orders, an entrepreneur, despite the fact that a transacting party has already signed a contract with another entrepreneur on internet services that can address the computerization, and therefore has been receiving the services, requests the transacting party to designate and use an internet service provider that provides more expensive internet services, and has the transacting party use the provider, suggesting that the entrepreneur would not continue transactions with the transacting party. 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 during the off season at its six hotels located in Hokkaido, prepares hotel vouchers that can be used at those hotels within a limited period, and determines in advance the number of hotel vouchers which Company X is to request each supplier, etc. to purchase. ・　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 requests the purchase of the hotel vouchers in writing, and if there is no offer to purchase, 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 make the purchase. ・　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 - Company X requests the suppliers, etc. to purchase the hotel vouchers by having a person who could have an influence on the supply transactions directly hand over the number of hotel vouchers for which a purchase is requested, along with a document requesting the purchase of the hotel vouchers. 等の方法により宿泊券を購入するよう要請している。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 the request are unable to avoid accepting the request in order to continue the supply transactions with Company X. (JFTC Recommendation Decision No. 31 of 2004, 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 receiving a request for a new loan or for the renewal of an existing loan from a borrower entrepreneur, Bank X proposes the purchase of interest-rate swaps to the borrower entrepreneur in the process of advancing the procedure related to the loan. If the borrower entrepreneur does not accept the proposal, Bank X makes it unavoidable for the borrower entrepreneur to purchase the interest-rate swaps by the following methods: ・　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 conditions would be set for the loan if the borrower entrepreneur 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）。 - By having the staff member in charge visit the borrower entrepreneur together with its superior who is in a managerial position make repeated requests that the borrower entrepreneur make the purchase, Bank X requests the purchase of interest-rate swaps, hinting that the purchase of the interest-rate swaps is a requirement for providing the loan, or that more disadvantageous conditions than usual conditions would be set for the loan if the borrower entrepreneur fails to purchase the interest-rate swap. (JFTC Recommendation Decision No. 20 of 2005, 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 the suppliers to purchase electric products, clothing, and other goods. Many of the suppliers and the employees of the suppliers who received such a request were in a position where they were unable to avoid accepting the request in order for the suppliers to continue their transactions with Company X, and purchased those 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) Having the other party in regular transactions to provide for itself 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 the provision of money as a monetary contribution, financial assistance, or under any other title, the provision of labor services, etc. （１）協賛金等の負担の要請 (1) Request for payment of 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. When an entrepreneur who has superior bargaining position in transactions over a transacting party requests the transacting party to pay money under the title of monetary contribution, etc., and if the amount of the monetary contribution, to be paid, the basis for the calculation of the amount, and the use of the money have not been made clear between the entrepreneur and the transacting party, thereby imposing a disadvantage on the transacting party the cost of which the transacting party cannot calculate in advance, or if the payment turns out to be a burden which exceeds the scope found reasonable considering the direct benefit etc. (Note 9), to be acquired by the transacting party, thereby imposing a disadvantage on the transacting party (Note 10), such an act would unjustly impose a disadvantage on the transacting party in light of normal business practices, and would cause a problem as abuse of 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 that when an entrepreneur has a transacting party pay a portion of expenses required for preparing or distributing advertisements as monetary contribution in order to advertise the goods supplied by a transacting party, but such an act leads to sales promotion of the goods supplied by the transacting party. It does not include an indirect benefit such as the case where the payment of a monetary contribution, etc. that has an advantage for 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) In this case, even if the conditions for the payment of a monetary contribution, etc. has been made clear between the entrepreneur and the transacting party, the act would cause a problem as an abuse of 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. There are cases where an entrepreneur requests a transacting party to pay a monetary contribution, etc. as part of the required expenses in holding an event or placing an advertisement. While such request is often made by distributors, when a distributor requests a supplier to pay a monetary contribution, etc., the payment of the expenses could, at times, give the supplier a direct benefit, such as the payment leading to sales promotion for the supplied goods. When a monetary contribution, etc. is paid by the transacting party on its own intention, considering that the contribution is within the scope of the direct benefit to be acquired by the payment, the request for the payment would not unjustly impose a disadvantage on the transacting party in light of normal business practices, and therefore does not cause a problem as abuse of superior bargaining position. 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] An entrepreneur requests, and has a transacting party pay a monetary contribution, etc. for holding an event, refurbishing the selling space, or placing an advertisement that does not directly contribute to the sales promotion of the transacting party'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] An entrepreneur requests, and has a transacting party pay a monetary contribution as measures for improving the settlement of accounts of the entrepreneur. 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] An entrepreneur has a transacting party pay, at the time of opening its new store or refurbished store, an amount equivalent to a certain percentage of the transacting party's amount of supply to the store as a monetary contribution over a fixed period, without clarifying the amount of the payment, the basis for the calculation of the amount, and 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] When it had been decided in advance that an entrepreneur receives a rebate on attaining a certain sales volume during a fixed period, the entrepreneur requests, and has a transacting party pay, the rebate in spite of the fact that the entrepreneur 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] When placing an advertisement for a discount sale upon opening a new store or refurbished store, an entrepreneur requests, and has a transacting party 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] An entrepreneur unilaterally requests a supplier to pay a fee for a facility ("center fee") for its distribution operation, such as a logistics center, without sufficiently discussing the amount of the fee and the basis for the calculation of the amount with the supplier, and has the supplier to pay an amount that exceeds a reasonable amount of fee for the level of use of the facility. 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] An entrepreneur suspends the acceptance of the supply of goods in respect to transactions, which have been continued in order to gain money under the pretext of a "newly-introduced monetary contribution," and thereafter has the transacting party resume supply of the same goods. Through these measures, the entrepreneur requests the transacting party to provide money and has the transacting party pay the money. 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 and its three subsidiaries' stores, requested the suppliers who supply goods to each division that purchase prepared foods or other goods, etc., to make the supply prices of specific goods to be supplied by the suppliers upon the store-opening lower than the usual supply prices, obtained for example by multiplying the usual supply prices by a certain percentage, under the title of "instant discount," thereby forcing the suppliers to provide economic benefits equivalent to the difference between the price and the usual supply price, without clarifying the basis for the calculation of the amount, and the purpose of the payment in advance, in order to secure those stores' gross profits. Many of the suppliers, etc. who have received the request were in a position where they were unable to avoid meeting the request in order to continue the supply transactions with Company X, and have provided the economic benefits. (Cease and Desist Order No. 15 of 2008; June 23, 2008) （２）従業員等の派遣の要請 (2) Request for dispatch of 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 an entrepreneur who has superior bargaining position in transactions over a transacting party requests the transacting party to dispatch, employees, etc. (Note 11), and if the cases in which they are to be dispatched and the conditions for the dispatch have not been made clear between the entrepreneur and the transacting party, thereby imposing a disadvantage on the transacting party the cost of which the transacting party cannot calculate in advance, or if the burden to be borne by the transacting party exceeds the scope found reasonable considering the direct benefit, etc. (Note 12), to be acquired by the transacting party through the dispatch of employees, etc., thereby imposing a disadvantage on the transacting party (Note 13), the act would unjustly impose a disadvantage on the transacting party in light of normal business practices, and would cause a problem as abuse of 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 applies when an entrepreneur has a transacting party pay equivalent personnel costs in lieu of dispatching 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 transacting party employs in order to accept the 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 that if an entrepreneur has a transacting party dispatch employee, etc., of a transacting party to retail stores of the entrepreneur and sell goods to consumers, the act leads to an increase in sales of the goods supplied by the transacting party or a direct understanding of a trend in consumer needs by the transacting party. This does not include an indirect benefit that makes future transactions advantageous through the dispatch of employee, etc. （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) In this case, even if the conditions for the dispatch of employees, etc. have been made clear between the entrepreneur and the transacting party, the act would cause a problem as abuse of 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. There are cases where a manufacturer or a wholesaler, upon the request of a retailer such as a department store or a supermarket, dispatches employees, etc. for selling, etc. goods manufactured or supplied by the manufacturer or wholesaler. The dispatch of employees, etc. could be advantageous at times, such as allowing the manufacturer or wholesaler to directly ascertain the trend of consumer needs, or allowing the retailer to supplement a lack of expert knowledge about the goods. When employees, etc. are dispatched by the own intention of the transacting party within the scope of the direct benefit to be acquired by the dispatch, the request for the dispatch would not unjustly impose a disadvantage on the transacting party in light of normal business practices, and therefore does not cause a problem as abuse of superior bargaining position. The same applies when an entrepreneur has made an agreement (Note 14) regarding the conditions for the dispatch of employees, etc. in advance with the transacting party, and pays the expenses normally required for the 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 substantial intentions of both parties coincide, and that the transacting party has satisfactorily agreed on the terms and conditions after sufficient discussions between the parties. The same applies to the concept of an "agreement" in regard to "return of goods" (Section IV. 3 (2)). 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] An entrepreneur requests, and has a transacting party dispatch employees, etc., of the transacting party to engage in operations that only benefit the entrepreneur without paying the expenses for 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] An entrepreneur has a supplier dispatch employees, at the time of a discount sale upon opening its own new store or refurbished store, in order to have the employees engage in sales operations, and has the employees engage in the sales operations of not only the goods supplied by the supplier, but also the goods of other suppliers, thereby causing the supplier that has dispatched the employees to bear a burden that exceeds the scope found reasonable considering 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] While offering to bear the expenses for the dispatch of employees, etc. by transacting parties, an entrepreneur merely decides on a uniform amount of daily allowance as dispatch expenses, and although expenses such as transportation expenses and accommodation expenses are incurred depending on the individual transacting party's circumstances, the entrepreneur has the transacting parties 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] When an entrepreneur bears the expenses for the dispatch of employees, etc. by transacting parties, and the expenses to be borne include daily allowances, transportation expenses, and accommodation expenses, an entrepreneur uniformly decides that the daily allowance should be set at an amount lower than an appropriate amount corresponding to the salary of the employee, etc. or the content of the work pertaining to the dispatch. 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] An entrepreneur has a transacting party pay the wage for a part-time worker whom it has they have employed for its inventory operations. 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] If a contract only stipulates that a transacting party transports goods to a warehouse of an entrepreneur, and the entrepreneur has the transacting party engage free of charge in loading and unloading work, etc., in the warehouse of the entrepreneur, which has not been set forth in the contract in advance. 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）。 Company X, at the time of opening its new store or refurbished store, has suppliers engage in work such as displaying goods, replenishing stock, and providing customer services (hereinafter referred to as "open work") at the store, irrespective of whether the goods are those supplied by the suppliers, and without making an agreement with the suppliers about the conditions for the dispatch of employees, etc. in advance, requests the suppliers to dispatch employees, etc. by informing the suppliers of the store, date, and time when Company X needs the suppliers' employees to be dispatched to engage in open work. Many of the suppliers who received such a request were in a position where they were unable to avoid accepting the request in order to continue the transactions with Company X, and have dispatched their employees, etc., while Company X has not paid the expenses normally required for the 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 the request is other than that for the payment of monetary contribution, etc., or the dispatch of employee, etc., if an entrepreneur who has superior bargaining position over a transacting party, without reasonable grounds, requests a transacting party to provide free of charge a design drawing or an intellectual property right such as a patent right on a die (including a wooden die and other types similar to a metal die; the same applies hereunder) or the like not contained in the order, as well as the provision of services other than the dispatch of employee, etc., or other economic benefits, and if the transacting party would be unable to avoid accepting the requests due to concerns about the possible effects on future transactions, such act would unjustly impose a disadvantage on the transacting party in light of normal business practices and therefore cause a problem as abuse of 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 in the case of having a transacting party provide economic benefits free-of-charge, but also when an entrepreneur who has superior bargaining position over a transacting party has a transacting party provide economic benefits at an unjustly lower price in light of normal business practices, the act would cause a problem as abuse of superior bargaining position. In determining whether the acts constitute abuse of superior bargaining position, the concept described in "unilateral decision on a consideration for transactions" (Section 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 economic benefits would not unjustly impose a disadvantage on the transacting party in light of normal business practices, and therefore does not cause a problem as abuse of superior bargaining position. 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] When rights such as a copyright or a patent right, etc., are created or belong to a transacting party in transactions, an entrepreneur, on the grounds that those rights are acquired in the course of transactions with the entrepreneur, unilaterally has the transacting party transfer those rights to the entrepreneur exceeding the scope of use, which is the purpose of preparation of drawings. 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] In spite of the fact that the provision of design drawings is not contained in the order, an entrepreneur has a transacting party provide design drawings of dies free of charge. 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] An entrepreneur, due to reasons specific to the entrepreneur, has a transacting party retain components for repairs, dies, etc., to be kept by the entrepreneur, or provide maintenance, etc., for retention, free of charge. 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] In spite of the fact that an entrepreneur is responsible because of defects of components or raw materials supplied by the entrepreneur or defects in designs made by the entrepreneur, etc., when an end user raises a complaint, the entrepreneur does not assume any responsibility and has a transacting party take measures to settle all complaints, including payment of compensation for damages to the end user, free of charge. 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] In supplying goods, an entrepreneur unilaterally has a transacting party, without sufficient discussion with the transacting party, collect industrial waste or transportation equipment, etc., of other entrepreneurs, which the transacting party is not obligated to collect, 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 goods pertaining to transactions from the other party, causing the party to take back the goods pertaining to the transactions after receiving the goods from the party, delaying the payment of the transaction value to the party or reducing the amount of the payment, or otherwise establishing or changing the trade terms or implementing transactions in a way disadvantageous to the party; 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 in payment," and "price reduction" as examples of acts that could lead to abuse of superior bargaining position, but it also includes various other acts that impose disadvantage on a transacting party. 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. When an entrepreneur who has superior bargaining position in transactions over a transacting party, after concluding a contract to purchase goods from the transacting party, refuses to receive (Note 16) all or part of the goods without reasonable grounds, and if it is unavoidable for the transacting party to accept the refusal due to concerns about the possible effects on future transactions, the act would unjustly impose a disadvantage on the transacting party in light of normal business practices, and cause a problem as abuse of 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. It also includes the case where the entrepreneur does not receive all or part of the goods on the delivery date by unilaterally postponing the delivery date or by unilaterally canceling 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 on receiving the provision of supply of services from a transacting party, if an entrepreneur refuses to receive all or part of the supply of the services without reasonable grounds, the refusal falls under "changing trade terms or executing transactions in a way disadvantageous to the party" set forth in Article 2, paragraph (9), item (v), (c) of the Antimonopoly Act and may cause a problem as abuse of superior bargaining position (refer to Section 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, (i) when there are grounds attributable to the transacting party's side, such as the goods purchased from the transacting party being defective, the goods delivered being different from the goods ordered, or where the aim of the sales could not be achieved since the goods were not delivered in time for the delivery date, (ii) when the entrepreneur decides conditions for return of goods based on an agreement with the transacting party in purchasing the goods and does not receive the goods in accordance with those conditions (Note 18), or (iii) when the entrepreneur obtains the consent (Note 19) of the transacting party in advance and bears the loss that should normally occur (Note 20) on by the transacting party as a result of the refusal to receive the goods, the act would not unjustly impose a disadvantage on the transacting party in light of normal business practices, and therefore does not cause a problem as abuse of 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 the case where the conditions for the refusal to receive the goods are decided 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 "obtain the consent of" means to obtain the transacting party's manifestation of an intention of acceptance and that the transacting party was satisfied to give its consent. The same applies to the concept of "obtain the consent of" in regard to "return of goods" (Section IV. 3(2)), "delay in payment" (Section IV. 3(3)), and "request for redoing" (Section 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 should normally occur" means a loss within the scope of reasonable consequence, which arises as a result of refusing to receive goods. For example, it includes (i) expenses equivalent to a decrease in value due to a drop in the market for the goods or the shortening of the use-by date due to the lapse of time, (ii) expenses required for physical distribution, and (iii) expenses for the disposal of the goods. The same applies to the concept of "loss that should normally occur " in "return of goods" (Section IV. 3(2)), "delay in payment" (Section IV. 3(3)), and "request for redoing" (Section IV. 3(5) B). 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] When a transacting party has manufactured goods based on an order from an entrepreneur, and tried to deliver the goods, the entrepreneur refuses to receive the goods on the grounds that the goods are no longer required due to slack sales or due to a refurbishment of the selling 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] An entrepreneur arbitrarily makes the predetermined inspection standard stricter, and refuses to receive the goods on the grounds that the goods differ from those 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] In spite of the fact that an entrepreneur has ordered goods to be manufactured by designating certain specifications, the entrepreneur refuses to receive the goods on the grounds that its customer has cancelled the order for the goods, or of changing their sales plan. 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] In spite of the fact that a transacting party asked an entrepreneur to clarify the specifications, an entrepreneur has not clarified the specifications without reasonable grounds and has the transacting party continue engaging in work. Thereafter when the transacting party tries to deliver the goods, the entrepreneur refuses to receive the goods on the grounds that the goods differ from those 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] After placing the order, an entrepreneur unilaterally shortens the delivery date agreed on in advance, without considering the transacting party's circumstances, and refuses to receive goods on the grounds that the delivery was not made in time for the shortened 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] Although a contract provides that an entrepreneur is to inspect goods by each lot, and is to only refuse to receive a lot with defective goods included, the entrepreneur refuses to receive all lots when defective goods are found in one lot, without inspecting the other lots. 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] When an entrepreneur instructs a transacting party to adopt certain specifications and continues placing orders for manufacturing components, the entrepreneur, as it they no longer needs to use the components due to a reason specific to the entrepreneur, rejects to receive the components with the same level as those which the entrepreneur determined to meet the specifications and passed the inspection at the time of supply in the past on the grounds that the components have a minor damage, dent, etc., which would not bear any influence on the performance of the components, such as durability and toughness. 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. When an entrepreneur who has superior bargaining position in transactions over a transacting party returns goods which the entrepreneur has received from the transacting party, and the circumstances and conditions under which goods are to be returned have not been made clear between the entrepreneur and the transacting party, thereby imposing a disadvantage on the transacting party the cost of which the transacting party cannot calculate in advance, or in other cases where the entrepreneur, without reasonable grounds, returns goods which it has received from the transacting party and if it is unavoidable for the transacting party to accept the return from concerns about the possible effects on future transactions, the act would unjustly impose a disadvantage on the transacting party in light of normal business practices, and would cause a problem as abuse of 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, (i) when there are grounds attributable to the transacting party, such as the goods purchased from the transacting party being defective, the goods delivered being different from the goods ordered, or the target of the sales could not be achieved since the goods were not delivered in time for the delivery date, goods are returned within the scope of a quantity that is found to be reasonable in light of those grounds, within a reasonable period of time from the day of the receipt of the goods (Note 21), (ii) when conditions for returning goods have been decided on based on the agreement with the transacting party when purchasing the goods, and the goods are returned in accordance with those conditions (Note 22), (iii) when the entrepreneur obtains the consent of the transacting party in advance and bears the loss that should normally occur the transacting party from the return of the goods, or (iv) when the transacting party offers to accept the return of goods, and the disposal of the goods by the transacting party directly benefits the transacting party (Note 23), such act would not unjustly impose a disadvantage on the transacting party in light of normal business practices, and therefore does not cause a problem as abuse of 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 individual cases, if there is a defect that may be discovered immediately or if the goods differ from those ordered, the goods need to be returned promptly within an average period required for inspection after receiving the goods. The same applies to the concept of a "reasonable period of time" in "price reduction" (Section 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。 Meanwhile, even when returning goods within a reasonable period of time, goods are not allowed to be returned without a limit. For example, defective goods or goods that differ from those ordered are allowed to be returned, but returning other goods (excluding goods that can only be sold with those goods as a set) together with those goods is not recognized as the return of goods "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 the case where the return of goods within the scope of a specific quantity within a specific period from the day of the receipt of the goods or the return of the goods within the scope of a specific quantity against the total quantity of the goods received follows normal business practices, and the conditions for returning the goods are decided within the scope of the normal 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" means a benefit that actually arises, for example, when a supplier collects the goods it has delivered, which remain unsold at a store of the transacting party, and delivers new goods, thereby leading to an increase in sales of the supplier. It does not include an indirect benefit such as that when the return of goods has an advantage to the transacting party for future transactions. ①　展示に用いたために汚損した商品を返品すること。 [1] An entrepreneur returns goods that have been damaged due to 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] An entrepreneur returns goods with retail price stickers attached thereto which 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] An entrepreneur unilaterally and independently decides on a sell-by date which is shorter than the freshness date decided on by a manufacturer, and returns 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] An entrepreneur returns goods which are its own private brand goods. ⑤　月末又は期末の在庫調整のために返品すること。 [5] An entrepreneur returns 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] An entrepreneur returns goods on the grounds of the refurbishment of the store or selling space or a change in the shelf arrangement conducted 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] An entrepreneur returns goods on the grounds that the goods remained unsold after discount sales has ended. 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] An entrepreneur returns goods merely on the grounds that the goods were returned from a customer who purchased the goods. 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] In spite of the defect that can be immediately discovered, an entrepreneur returns goods to a transacting party on the grounds that a defect was found, long after the average period of time required for inspection has passed. 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 refurbishing its store, Company X requests the suppliers of those goods sold at the store which Company X has decided no longer to sell at that store and other stores to accept the return of those goods, in spite of the fact that there are no grounds attributable to those suppliers, no conditions have been decided on regarding the return of goods based on an agreement with those suppliers in advance, and the acceptance of the return of those goods does not directly benefit the suppliers. Many of the suppliers who have received the request were in a position where they were unable to avoid meeting the request in order to continue the transactions with Company X, and have accepted the return of the goods, while Company X has not borne the loss that should normally occur those suppliers as a result of the return of the goods. (Cease and Desist Order No. 7 of 2009; June 19, 2009) 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. When an entrepreneur who has superior bargaining position in transactions over a transacting party fails to pay the consideration on the due date for the payment decided under a contract, without reasonable grounds, and if it is unavoidable for the transacting party to accept the failure of payment due to concerns about the possible effects on future transactions, the act would unjustly impose a disadvantage on the transacting party in light of normal business practices, and would cause a problem as abuse of 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 in the case where an entrepreneur pays a consideration after the due date for payment decided under a contract, but also in the case where an entrepreneur who has superior bargaining position in transactions unilaterally sets the due date for payment on a later date or arbitrarily defer the arrival of the due date for payment, the act is likely to unjustly impose a disadvantage on the transacting party in light of normal business practices, and cause a problem as abuse of 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, when an entrepreneur obtains the consent of the transacting party in advance, and bears the loss that should normally occur in regard to the transacting party as a result of delay in payment of a consideration, the act would not unjustly impose a disadvantage on the transacting party in light of normal business practices, and therefore does not cause a problem as abuse of superior bargaining position. 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] An entrepreneur fails to pay a consideration by the due date for payment decided under a contract due to reasons specific to the entrepreneur 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, in spite of the fact that a consideration is to be paid after the delivery of the first installment, the entrepreneur unilaterally changes the payment conditions, and delays the payment of the consideration on the grounds that the delivery of all installments has not been completed. 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] In spite of the fact that provision of goods has been completed, an entrepreneur fails to pay a consideration by the due date decided on under a contract by arbitrarily delaying the receipt and inspection of those goods. 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] When a consideration is to be paid after an entrepreneur actually uses the goods or services pertaining to a transaction, the entrepreneur substantially delays the period for using those goods from the originally planned period, due to reasons specific to the entrepreneur. 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] When an entrepreneur has received highly expensive goods, components, etc., in spite of the fact that it concluded a contract incorporating a lump-sum payment, the entrepreneur changes the lump-sum payment to an installment payment made over the years due to reasons specific to the entrepreneur, and refuses the lump-sum payment. 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. When an entrepreneur who has superior bargaining position in transactions over a transacting party reduces the price decided on under a contract, without reasonable grounds, after purchasing goods or services, and if it is unavoidable for the transacting party to accept the reduction due to concerns about the possible effects on future transactions, the act would unjustly impose a disadvantage on the transacting party in light of normal business practices, and would cause a problem as abuse of 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 applies in the case of a substantial price reduction without changing the price decided on under a contract, by changing the specifications of the goods or the services. 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, (i) when there are grounds attributable to the transacting party's side, such as the goods purchased from the transacting party or the services provided by the transacting party being defective, the goods delivered or the services provided being different from the goods or services ordered, or the target of the sales could not be achieved since the goods were not delivered in time for the delivery date, the price is reduced within the scope of an amount that is found to be reasonable in light of the grounds, within a reasonable period of time from the day of the delivery of the goods or the provision of the services (Note 24), or (ii) when a request for 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, the act would not unjustly impose a disadvantage on the transacting party in light of normal business practices, and therefore does not cause a problem as abuse of 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) Meanwhile, even in the case of price reduction within a reasonable period of time, the price is not allowed to be reduced without a limit. For example, if goods are defective, the price needs to be reduced within the scope of justly evaluated amount in accordance with the degree of the defect. However, price reduction above that level is not recognized as a price reduction "within the scope of amount that is found to be reasonable." 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] In spite of having received the provision of goods or services, an entrepreneur reduces the price decided on under a contract, due to reasons specific to the entrepreneur, such as a business downturn, budget shortfall, or cancellation by a customer. 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] An entrepreneur arbitrarily makes the predetermined inspection standards stricter, and has a transacting partner 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] As a result of having requested, due to reasons specific to the entrepreneur, a change of specifications, or the redoing or additional provision of the goods or services subject to the transactions, even though the entrepreneur promised to pay a consideration for the substantially increased workload of the transacting party, the entrepreneur only pays the consideration decided on under the initial contract. 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] An entrepreneur has a transacting party give an amount of discount equivalent to the amount of the discount by the entrepreneur, on the grounds that the entrepreneur has sold the goods at a discount during a discount sales period or to cover the decrease in profit due to the discount sales. 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] Every month, in order to secure a certain level of profitability, an entrepreneur calculates the amount necessary for securing profitability, and has a transacting party give an amount of discount equivalent thereto. 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] In spite of having placed an order for the manufacture of goods, an entrepreneur calculates the amount necessary for attaining the cost reduction target their company has established, and has a transacting party give an amount of discount equivalent thereto. 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] In spite of the fact that a transacting party bears the expenses for preparing the provision of goods or services to an entrepreneur, such as making a capital investment or arranging personnel based on a request from the entrepreneur, the entrepreneur cancels, due to reasons specific to the entrepreneur, a part of the transaction of the goods or services, and reduces the amount of the consideration pertaining to the reduced portion of the transactions from the consideration decided on under a contract. 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] An entrepreneur, without consulting with a supplier, only pays the consideration obtained by deducting differences of sales prices between its own store and other stores 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] An entrepreneur reduces a consideration set forth in a contract without paying the amount equivalent to the consumption tax or local consumption tax, or by rounding down of fractions 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] In spite of the fact that an entrepreneur has changed designs or delayed the provision of drawings, etc., due to reasons specific to the entrepreneur, the entrepreneur does not agree to the extension of the delivery date, and only pays the consideration obtained by deducting a penalty imposed for late delivery. 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）。 With regard to goods handled by each division that purchases food, confectionary, and sundries, Company X has decided to conduct discount sales of the goods, on the grounds that the turnover of the goods is low, the store is to be closed, the sales period for seasonal goods has ended, or the goods have been damaged as a result of falling from the display shelf, or for other reasons, and has requested the suppliers of the goods subject to the discount sales to reduce, from the supply prices, an amount calculated by a method such as multiplying the price before the discount by 50 percent. Many of the suppliers who have received the request were in a position where they were unable to avoid accepting the request in order to continue the supply transactions with Company X, and have given a 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) Establishments, etc. of other trade terms disadvantageous to the transacting party 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 an act does not fall under any of the categories of acts listed in Section IV. 1, Section IV. 2 and Section IV. 3 (1) through (4) above, if an entrepreneur who has superior bargaining position in transactions over a transacting party determines or changes the trade terms or implements transactions in such a manner that would unjustly impose a disadvantage on the transacting party in light of normal business practices, the act causes a problem as abuse of 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。 In principle, when negotiations on trade terms are not sufficient, the transacting party tends to believe that the trade terms, etc., have been decided unilaterally. Therefore, when presenting the trade terms, etc., to a transacting party, it is desirable for an entrepreneur who has superior bargaining position in transactions to sufficiently explain to the transacting party the reason for presenting the trade terms, etc. ア　取引の対価の一方的決定 A. Unilateral decision 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) When an entrepreneur who has superior bargaining position in transactions over a transacting party unilaterally requests a transacting party to carry out transactions for either an extremely low or extremely high consideration, and if it is unavoidable for the transacting party to accept the request due to concerns about the possible effects on future transactions, the act would unjustly impose a disadvantage on the transacting party in light of normal business practices, and would cause a problem as abuse of 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 the act constitutes abuse of superior bargaining position is determined after comprehensively considering the method for deciding on the consideration, such as whether or not the entrepreneur conducted sufficient discussions with the transacting party when deciding on the consideration, as well as whether or not the consideration is discriminatory in comparison to the consideration for other transacting parties, whether or not the consideration is lower than the transacting party's purchase price, the difference between the normal purchase price or selling 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 disadvantageous to the transacting party" 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, (i) when a request to carry out transactions at a lower consideration or a higher consideration on the grounds that there is a competitor seeking to carry out the transactions at the requested amount of consideration, or for other reasons, is made as part of the negotiations on the consideration, and where the amount is found to reflect the supply-and-demand relationship, or (ii) when a request is found to be justly reflecting the difference in the trade terms, such as when goods are purchased at a lower price than usual for the purpose of purchasing a larger volume than usual (meaning a volume discount) for conducting discount sales, etc., the act would not unjustly impose a disadvantage on the transacting party in light of normal business practices, and therefore does not cause a problem as abuse of superior bargaining position. 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] An entrepreneur unilaterally sets a unit price that has been presented by a transacting party for a large-lot order as the unit price for a small-lot order. 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] In spite of the fact that a transacting party's personnel expenses and other costs have substantially increased as a result of an entrepreneur having placed an order with a short delivery date, the entrepreneur unilaterally decides on the same unit price as when placing an order with the usual 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] In spite of the fact that a transacting party's workload has increased and the transacting party's personnel expenses and other costs have substantially increased as a result of an entrepreneur designating special specifications that are not designated in usual orders, or instructing a change in the delivery frequency, the entrepreneur unilaterally decides on the same unit price as when placing usual orders. 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] An entrepreneur unilaterally decides on a unit price which is substantially lower or substantially higher than the usual price, based solely on its budget 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] An entrepreneur unilaterally decides on a unit price substantially lower or substantially higher than the usual price through uniformly lowering or raising the unit price by a certain percentage, by using a unit price that has been decided on through consulting with some transacting parties or a unit price calculated based on an unreasonable criteria to revise the unit price for another transacting party, or by the periodical revision of the unit price which is not based on transacting parties' 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] 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 the return of goods is possible, an entrepreneur treats specific transacting parties in a discriminatory manner, and unilaterally decides on an amount of consideration substantially lower or substantially higher than those of other transacting parties. 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] An entrepreneur, without consulting with a supplier, decides on a supply price that is lower than the supplier's purchase price with regard to the goods which the entrepreneur sells at a discount sale, and by unilaterally instructing the supplier to deliver the goods at that price, the entrepreneur has the supplier deliver goods at a price substantially lower than the supplier's usual supply 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] In spite of the fact that a transacting party's costs have substantially increased due to a price hike in raw materials, etc., an increase in research and development expenses in line with improvement in the quality of parts and components, and in response to environmental control, an entrepreneur unilaterally decides on the same unit price as the conventional unit price. 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] An entrepreneur, at the time of a discount sale upon opening its new store, unilaterally decides a substantially lower price not only for supply of goods to the new store but also for supply of goods to nationwide stores of the entrepreneur. 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] An entrepreneur has a transacting party submit their confidential materials for calculating manufacturing costs, labor management-related materials, etc., analyzes those materials, and unilaterally decides on a substantially lower supply price, by insisting for example that the transacting party "can agree to a price reduction because the profit margin is high." 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 a special thank you sale conducted twice a year and Tuesday bargain sales conducted about 50 times a year, Company X, with the aim of increasing sales, has the staff members in charge of purchasing at the store request intermediate wholesalers to supply a larger amount of goods than usual at a substantially lower price than the general wholesale price for the same type of goods as the fruits and vegetables to be used for any of the sales above, in light of the grade or the production area, etc., without consulting the supply price with the intermediate wholesalers in advance. The request is made, for example, by informing the intermediate wholesalers about the featured goods to be shown on the sales flyer, such as Japanese radish, cucumbers, and tomatoes, on the day immediately before the Tuesday bargain sale, and unilaterally instructing them to supply the goods at a price lower than their purchase price. Many of the intermediate wholesalers who have received the requests are in a position where they are unable to avoid accepting the request in order to continue the supply transactions with Company X. (JFTC Recommendation Decision No. 34 of 2004, January 7, 2005) イ　やり直しの要請 B. Request for redoing （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）。 When an entrepreneur who has superior bargaining position over a transacting party, without reasonable grounds, requests the transacting party redoing after the entrepreneur has received the goods or services from the transacting party, and it is unavoidable for the transacting party to accept the request due to concerns about the possible effects on future transactions, the act would unjustly impose a disadvantage on the transacting party in light of normal business practices, and therefore causes a problem as abuse of 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 trade terms or executing transactions in a manner disadvantageous to the transacting party" 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) Before receiving goods or receiving the provision of services from the transacting party, when an entrepreneur changes the details of the provision and has a transacting party conduct work different from that initially decided on, the act falls under "price reduction" (refer to Section IV. 3 (4)) or "establishments, etc. of other trade terms disadvantageous to the transacting party" (refer to Section IV. 3 (5) C) and may cause a problem as abuse of 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, (i) when the content of goods or services do not meet the conditions decided on at the time of placing orders, or (ii) when an entrepreneur bears the loss that should normally occur for redoing, based on the prior consent of the transaction party, or (iii) when the entrepreneur requests the transacting party to redo a prototype in transactions that include the creation of the prototype, in order to determine a specific specification, and expenses for the redoing are found to be included in the initial consideration, the act would not unjustly impose a disadvantage on the transacting party in light of normal business practices, and therefore does not cause a problem as abuse of superior bargaining position. 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] Before receiving the goods or services, in spite of the fact that an entrepreneur has changed specifications of goods or services decided on in advance due to a reason specific to the entrepreneur, the entrepreneur has a transacting party continue working without notifying the transacting party of the change and to redo the work on the grounds that the goods or services did not meet the specifications at the time of delivery. 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] In spite of the fact that an entrepreneur was requested by a transacting party to confirm the details of entrustment and has agreed to them, and therefore the transacting party has manufactured goods or engaged in other work based on the entrustment, the entrepreneur has the transacting party redo the work, on the grounds that the goods, etc., provided by the transacting party differ from those entrusted. 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] An entrepreneur arbitrarily makes the predetermined inspection standards stricter, and has a transacting partner re-provide goods, etc., on the grounds that the provided goods, etc., differ from those 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] In spite of the fact that a transacting party requested an entrepreneur to clarify the specifications, the entrepreneur does not clarify the specifications without reasonable grounds and has a transacting party continue engaging in work. Thereafter when the transacting party delivered the goods, the entrepreneur has the transacting party redo the work on the grounds that the goods differ from those 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 when an act does not fall under any of the categories of acts listed in Section IV. 3 (1) through (4), and Section IV. 3 (5) A and B above, if an entrepreneur who has superior bargaining position in transactions over a transacting party unilaterally determines or changes the trade terms or implements transactions and the act unjustly imposes a disadvantage on the transacting party in light of normal business practices, the act causes a problem as abuse of 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 Supposed Examples are generally considered not to fall under any of the categories of acts stated earlier. However, if they fall under the provisions of Article 2, paragraph (9), item (v), (c) of the Antimonopoly Act, the act causes a problem as abuse of superior bargaining position. 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] When consideration is to be paid after a transacting party actually uses the goods or actually receives the provision of services pertaining to the transaction, in spite of the fact that the transacting party has not actually used the goods or has not actually received the provision of the services, an entrepreneur has the transacting party make advance payment of the consideration due to reasons specific to the entrepreneur. 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] In spite of the fact that an entrepreneur has ordered goods to be manufactured by designating certain specifications and the transacting party has procured raw materials, etc., based on the order, the entrepreneur cancels the order for components due to reasons specific to the entrepreneur, without paying the transacting party's expenses required for the procurement. 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] In spite of the fact that an entrepreneur has directed a transacting party to introduce new machinery and equipment, has explained to and made a commitment to the transacting party that the entrepreneur will place an order for a certain volume immediately after the introduction of the machinery and equipment, and has given implicit approval to the fact that the transacting party is taking actions for realizing the transaction with the entrepreneur such as the introduction of machinery and equipment, the entrepreneur substantially reduces the volume of the order or cancels the order due to reasons specific to the entrepreneur. 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] An entrepreneur delivers a bill that is difficult for a general financial institution to discount by the due date such as a bill drawn by a company with poor performance, including insolvency, or a bill with substantially long maturities, and has the transacting party 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] An entrepreneur unilaterally decides a substantially high amount of guarantee deposit, which exceeds the necessary amount to preserve entrepreneur's receivables arising from sales on credit, and has a transacting party make a guarantee 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] When a transacting party fails to deliver goods by the delivery date or the goods delivered are defective, an entrepreneur unilaterally decides a penalty to be imposed on the transacting party, without sufficiently discussing the penalty amount and the basis for the calculation of the amount, etc., with the transacting party, and has the transacting party 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) As described below, there was a case where the headquarters of a franchise chain made it unavoidable for a franchise member to stop selling goods at a close-out price, thereby depriving a franchise member of the opportunity to reduce its burden based on its own reasonable management decisions. The act imposed disadvantage on the transacting party, and therefore caused a problem as abuse of 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 an act also falls under Article 2, paragraph 9, item (v), (c) of the Antimonopoly Act. For details of the concept on abuse of superior bargaining position in franchise transactions, refer to "Guidelines Concerning the Franchise System under the Antimonopoly Act." (Fair Trade Commission, April 24, 2002) 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 in which the franchise members of its franchise chain are to bear the entire amount equivalent to the cost of the goods disposed 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 seeks to sell daily goods (foods and beverages of which quality is easy to deteriorate and also those which are delivered to stores every day; the same applies hereinafter) at a close-out price, the consultant inhibits the franchise member from selling 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, the consultant inhibits the franchise members from selling 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）。 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 supervisor inhibits the franchise member from selling goods at a close-out price or from selling goods at a close-out price again by suggesting that the franchise member would receive disadvantageous treatment, such as the cancellation of the franchise-store master contract. In this way, Company X makes it unavoidable for the franchise member who seeks to sell or is selling goods at a close-out price to stop selling goods at a close-out price, thereby depriving the franchise members of the opportunity to reducing their burden regarding the amount equivalent to the cost of daily goods disposed, based on their own reasonable management decisions. (Cease and Desist Order No. 8 of 2009; June 22, 2009)