집단적 소비자 분쟁을 해결하기 위한 소송제도 정비 방안에 관한 소고 - 부권소송에 관한 미국의 제도를 포함하여 -

Abstract

In this article, we discuss measures to improve litigation systems for resolving collective consumer disputes. Starting from a comparative legal perspective, we examined the U.S. systems of class actions and parens patriae actions. We found that the U.S. has both class actions, which can be led by individuals, and parens patriae actions, which can be led by state governments. Parens patriae actions are widely used in consumer litigation and contribute to the public interest. Additionally, the European Union recently amended its collective redress directive to allow consumer organizations to claim damages on behalf of individual consumers, which should be a reference for my country in the future. To this end, it is necessary to regulate the areas of securities-related class actions and consumer organization lawsuits as special cases of general civil litigation based on current law, thereby promoting the unity of legal principles. While theoretically structuring the issue of consumer organization lawsuits as a two-stage relief lawsuit is a meaningful attempt from a comparative legal perspective, this article examines the possibility of theoretically structuring class actions and collective actions within the framework of the current Civil Procedure Act. In our country, collective actions have already been introduced in the Securities-Related Class Action Act and the Framework Act on Consumers, so it seems appropriate to first utilize the existing systems and ensure their smooth operation. In particular, in the case of consumer organization lawsuits, organizations that can play a public interest role similar to the U.S. parens patriae actions can perform this role, and it is considered that the current plaintiffs in collective actions can substitute for this role in my country. Therefore, it is one of the reasonable alternatives to progressively supplement the draft of the Collective Action Act discussed in 1996 to improve collective dispute resolution mechanisms. Fundamentally, individuals should focus on protecting private interests, and organizations should focus on protecting public interests, so it is appropriate to grant the right to sue for collective dispute resolution to both parties. Thus, my country should introduce full-scale collective actions, recognizing both class actions and collective actions. Subsequently, the issue of how to incorporate damages into collective actions remains. Although my country separately regulates class actions and collective actions, the draft of the Collective Action Act once attempted to regulate them together, and it has been theoretically and comparatively verified that damages can be claimed in collective actions. Considering that it is difficult to directly apply the U.S. parens patriae actions to our country, but it is acceptable to grant the right to sue to organizations performing public interest roles similar to those of U.S. state governments, and that such a right to sue can coexist with class actions to create synergy, it is believed that my country can also achieve similar effects by allowing class actions and collective actions to coexist. The system should be set up so that consumers use class actions when pursuing private interests and organizations use collective actions when contributing to the public interest.