반덤핑조치와 기업가치

Abstract

While the purpose of FTA conclusion is to remove tariff and non-tariff barrier between contract nations and pursue the free trade, anti-dumping measures should be excluded between nations. However, the rise of anti-dumping corresponding to FTA reveals that there are anti-dumping measures between FTA contracted countries. The effects of FTA signs are summarized as follows. The sign leads to the abolition of tariff barrier, thus likely to giving damage on relevant industries due to overcompetitiveness as imports from contract countries rises. The only protective tool under the situation where there is no tariff barrier due to the effects of FTA is legitimately permitted trade relief measure. By implementing the most facilitating and selectively applicable anti-dumping into certain countries into FTA contract nations and thus protect national industry, its implication should be totally different before and after FTA sign. Moreover, different anti-dumping regulations appear by individual FTA signs as each nation applies its own different regulations associated with amendment into original FTA signs as the amendment of WTO anti-dumping agreement failed to reach an agreement in DDA negotiation. Accordingly, there could be different pattern of anti-dumping effects before and after FTA was completed. Thus, this paper compared 15 FTA antidumping regulations enacted by the Republic of Korea with WTO antidumping agreements and examined the effects of anti-dumping measures on export companies by using corporate stock reaction and capital market event study after FTA entering into effects. The comparison of FTA antidumping acts reveals that Korea intends to curb anti-dumping measures abuse by adopting WTO Plus anti-dumping regulation adding clear standards or new provisions than WTO antidumping agreements, except for the Korea-Chile FTA and the Korea-ASEAN FTA. This study also found that the initiation of anti-dumping investigation gave adverse effects on businesses before the final verdict delivers and the market recognizes this as information that cuts corporate value. Regarding final judgment demonstrated that D-2 as of final judgment date indicates significant positive abnormal excess earning rate at the significance level of around 5%, while imposition judgment showed no significant abnormal excess earning rate.