In order to decide whether or not the competition actions of a business is "likely to impede fair competition", it has to be considered, collectively or separately, whether or not the "methods of competition" used by the business are fair, or whether or not the "result of competition" impairs "the function of free competition in the market". An obviously unfair method may create liability, since it has the factors making it "likely to impede fair competition". Therefore such an act may equal "definite illegality". When the unfairness of the competition method does not reach the level of defined illegality, it should be considered whether or not the competition results in increase or decrease of competition in the market, and decisions should be made on the basis of both factors. If the action decreases competition, it should be determined from the standard whether or not the method is reasonably "likely to impede fair competition".

1. The Method of Competition

   Each paragraph in Article 19 already defines the well!Xknown methods of unfair competition; for example, paragraphs 3 and 4 define competition by means of coercion, and paragraph 5 defines acquisition, by means of coercion, inducement with profit, or other improper means, of the secret of production and sales information, information concerning trading counterparts or other confidential technologies of another enterprise. The above actions are generally prohibited by criminal law, and therefore their illegality or unfairness is beyond question ( Article 317 of the Criminal Code: the crime of disclosing industrial or commercial secrets obtained at work; Article 304: the crime of coercion ). Asto the other situations, each case has to be separately scrutinized and determined to what extent commercial and social ethics are violated, in order to decide whether or not the action is unfair and therefore is illegal.

2. The Result of Competition

   When the unfairness of competitive act is not obvious, and therefore is not definitely illegal, consideration should be given to whether or not the results increases or decreases competition in the marketplace. Here it is not necessary for the action to have already affected market competition. A likelihood of causing a decrease in market competition is adequate to constitution a violation. It has to be decided whether the action impairs competition in the market, and after that the economic analysis by the "reasonableness principle" should be applied, to decide whether the action has factors making it likely to impede fair competition.