본문 바로가기
KERD
논문KCI 등재

공정거래법상 집단소송제도의 도입을 위한 비교법적 연구

Comparative Study for Introducing Class Action System to the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trad Act in Korea

김광록
한국경영법률학회 (The Korean Academic Society Of Business Administration And Law)|2013.10|경영법률 (Journal of Business Administration & Law)|제24권 제1호|pp. 389-430

0

조회

0

다운로드

3

인용

0

참고문헌

키워드

공정거래법(Antitrust Act)집단소송(Class Action)증권관련집단소송(Securities Related Class Action)공정거래위원회(Fair trade Commission)불공정거래(Unfair Trade)부당공동행위(Kartel)
주제분류법학

초록

Recently needs of class action system in the antitrust and fair trade market are becoming hot issues in Korea. A class action, originated in the United States, is a form of lawsuit in which a large group of people collectively bring a claim to court and the US allows ant type of class actions. Actually, in 1990, the Korean government tried to introduce the US type of class action system with an enactment of, so called, the "Class Dispute Settlement Procedure Act."However this trial had been ceased for many operational reasons in 1996. But, the needs of class action system has been occurred and the Korean government decided to introduced only the securities related class action in Korean financial market and the Securities Related Class Action Act has been effective since 2005. In that, only securities related class action is allowed in Korea at this moment. In the meanwhile, the New Administration and some National Assemblymen announced that our society needs a new class acton system in the he antitrust and fair trade market in Korea and there are some submitted bills that are amending the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act. All these bills introduce the US type of class action and borrow the provisions of the Securities Related Class Action Act for amending the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act. Therefore this Article comparatively examines the bills in details first and analyses the class action system in the United States, the United Kingdom, the EU, Germany, France, and some other countries on order to suggest some betterment of Korean Class Action under the Korean fair trade act.

Abstract

Recently needs of class action system in the antitrust and fair trade market are becoming hot issues in Korea. A class action, originated in the United States, is a form of lawsuit in which a large group of people collectively bring a claim to court and the US allows ant type of class actions. Actually, in 1990, the Korean government tried to introduce the US type of class action system with an enactment of, so called, the "Class Dispute Settlement Procedure Act."However this trial had been ceased for many operational reasons in 1996. But, the needs of class action system has been occurred and the Korean government decided to introduced only the securities related class action in Korean financial market and the Securities Related Class Action Act has been effective since 2005. In that, only securities related class action is allowed in Korea at this moment. In the meanwhile, the New Administration and some National Assemblymen announced that our society needs a new class acton system in the he antitrust and fair trade market in Korea and there are some submitted bills that are amending the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act. All these bills introduce the US type of class action and borrow the provisions of the Securities Related Class Action Act for amending the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act. Therefore this Article comparatively examines the bills in details first and analyses the class action system in the United States, the United Kingdom, the EU, Germany, France, and some other countries on order to suggest some betterment of Korean Class Action under the Korean fair trade act.

참고문헌 (53)

  1. 증권집단소송제도와 회계인프라의 정비방향, "고인묵", 금융감독원, ~ (2005)
  2. 권혁재, "독일의 단체소송제도", ~ (2010)
  3. 權赫宰, "영국의 집단소송제도", 저스티스, 76, pp.145~166 (2003), 한국법학원
  4. 권혁재, "프랑스의 단체소송 제도", 법학논고, (35), pp.329~352 (2011), 법학연구원
  5. 김광록, "미국 증권집단소송의 최근 동향과 우리나라 증권관련집단소송법에 대한 시사점", 기업법연구, 25(2), pp.291~322 (2011), 한국기업법학회
  6. 김광록, "증권집단소송의 최근 동향으로 본증권관련집단소송법의 발전적 개선을 위한 제언", 상사판례연구, 26(3), pp.329~366 (2013), 한국상사판례학회
  7. 김철용, "우리나라 집단소송법의 제정을 위한 독일공법분야의 단체소송 운용실태에 관한 연구", 일람법학, 3 (1998), 건국대학교 법학연구소
  8. 김홍규, "집단분쟁처리절차법의 제정에 관하여", 민사법학, (11-12) (1995), 한국민사법학회
  9. 문기석, "미국집단소송제의 최근 동향에 대한 고찰- 美國 2005년 集團訴訟 公正法을 중심으로 -", 기업법연구, 21(3), pp.455~474 (2007), 한국기업법학회
  10. 소비자 피해구제 활성화를 위한 소송제도 발전방안 연구, "박희주", 한국소비자원, ~ (2007)
  11. 오재창, "공익관련 집단소송제 도입방안 - 집단소송법 시안에 관한 개요 및 개선방향을 중심으로", 저스티스, 통권 : 72 (2003)
  12. 유병현, "증권관련집단소송법 제정안에 대한 검토", 상사법연구, 20(4) (2002), 한국상사법학회
  13. 이명민, "독일 소비자단체소송의 민사소송법으로의 편입가능성", 동아법학, (59), pp.287~323 (2013), 법학연구소
  14. 이세인, "증권관련집단소송제도 운영에 관한 제안 -미국의 입법례 및 소송현황을 중심으로-", 기업법연구, 19(4), pp.379~402 (2005), 한국기업법학회
  15. 이재혁, "증권관련집단소송법의 도입에 따른 남소방지방안에 관한 소고", 상장협, (48) (2003), 한국상장회사협의회
  16. 정영수, "미국 집단소송의 쿠폰화해에 관한 고찰", 법조, 57(11), pp.89~121 (2008), 법조협회
  17. 정영환, "신민사소송법", pp.876~ (2009), 세창출판사
  18. 주진열, "최근 공정거래관련 집단소송제 도입을 위한 공정거래법개정안에 대한 고찰", 법학논총, 29(4), pp.555~577 (2012), 법학연구소
  19. 최난설헌, "공정거래법상 집단소송제 도입을 위한 논의와 최근 동향", 선진상사법률연구, (63), pp.80~110 (2013), 법무부
  20. 함영주, "집단소송제에 대한 연구 및 입법의 최근 동향 – 분쟁해결시스템간의 경쟁의 관점에서 –", 민사소송, 16(1), pp.327~360 (2012), 한국민사소송법학회[DOI]
  21. 김희원, "새누리 경실모, ‘갑을관계민주화법’ 발의", 폴리뉴스, ~ (2013)
  22. 박대로, "우윤근, 집단소송법 발의", 뉴시스, ~ (2013)
  23. 여현호, "증권 집단소송제 도입 미뤄질듯", 한겨레, ~ (2002)
  24. 징벌적 손해배상·집단소송제 확대 … 기업활동 제한 … 소비자 권익 침해, "한국경제", 2012
  25. 진상현, "김기현 ‘집단소송, 공정거래법에 넣는 건 부적절’", 머니투데이, ~ (2013)
  26. "독점규제 및 공정거래에 관한 법률 일부개정법률안", ~ (2012)
  27. "독점규제 및 공정거래에 관한 법률 일부개정법률안", ~ (2013)
  28. "독점규제 및 공정거래에 관한 법률 일부개정법률안", ~ (2013)
  29. "독점규제 및 공정거래에 관한 법률 일부개정법률안(대안)", ~ (2013)
  30. 薮口, "現代形訴にける當事者の擴大(1): 選定當事者制度の再構成", 上智法學論集, 37 (1993)
  31. 新堂幸司, "現代型訴訟 とその役割", 基本法學, 8 (1983), 岩波書店․昭五八
  32. Brian Ellman, "The Evolving Standards for Class Certification in Antitrust Cases", Analysis Group, ~ (2011)
  33. Christopher A. Kitchen, "Interlocutory Appeal of Class Action Certifi- cation Decisions Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f): A Proposal for a New Guideline", Colum. Bus. L. Rev, 2004, pp.231~ (2004)
  34. David L. Ratner, "Securities Regulation in a Nutshell" (1998), West Pub
  35. Deborah R. Hensler, "Class Action Dilemmas : Pursuing Public Goals for Private Gain, Executive Summary", Rand Institute for Civil Justice (1999)
  36. Department of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, "Private Actions in Competition Law: A consultation on options for reform - government response", ~ (2013)
  37. White Paper on Damages actions for breach of the EC antitrust rules, "EC", COM, ~ (2008)
  38. Edward M. Spiro, "New Amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure", New York Law Journal, 230(109) (2003)
  39. Elizabeth J. Goldstein, "Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23: A Need for Technical Innovation", Dick. L. Rev, 104, pp.653~ (2000)
  40. "Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 23", ~ (1987)
  41. "Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Notes of Advisory Committee on 2003 amendments to Rules", ~
  42. Guido Calabresi, "Class action in the U.S. experience: the legal perspective, In The Law and Economics of Class Actions in Europe: Lessons from America" (2012), Edward Elgar Publisher
  43. John Shad, "Introduction to Securities Class Actions: Abuses and Remedies", ~ (1996)
  44. Lawrence J. White, "Private Antitrust Litigations: New Evidence, New Learning" (1988), MIT Press
  45. NERA Economic Consulting, "Recent Trends in Securities Class Action Litigation: 2012 Full-Year Review" (2012), NERA Pubication
  46. Richard M. Phillips, "Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995: Rebalancing Litigation Risks and Rewards for Class Action Plaintiffs, Defendants and Lawyers", Bus. Law, 51, pp.1009~ (1995)
  47. Robert J. Herrington, "The Numbers Game: Dukes and Concepcion" (2012), American Bar Association
  48. Rodolfo Batiza, "Sources of the Field Civil Code : The Civil Law Influences on a Common Law Code", Tul. L. Rev, 60, pp.799~ (1985)
  49. Roy L. Brooks, "Legalines" (1993), Civil Procedure, Chicago, Harcourt Brace Legal and Professional Publications, Inc
  50. Scott L. Nelson, "The Class Action Fairness Act of 2005: An Analysis", 2005 ABA Annual Meeting, Section of Litigation : The Class Action Fairness Act: Reform or Revolution? (2005)
  51. Thomas D. Rowe, Jr, "State and Foreign Class-Action Rules and Statutes: Differences from and Lessons for Federal Rule 23", Western State University Law Review, 35(1) (2008)
  52. Timothy K, Roake, "The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995" (1996), Fenwick & West LLP
  53. UK, "Private Actions in Competition Law: A Consultation on Options for Reform", ~ (2012)

관련 논문AI추천

경쟁법 위반행위에 대한 집단소송제 연구김두진한국경쟁법학회 · 경쟁법연구2019 · 제39권 금융소비자 보호를 위한 집단소송제도의 개선방안 - 최근 증권관련 집단소송법의 개정 논의를 중심으로 -김홍기한국상사법학회 · 상사법연구2014 · 제33권 제2호국제 카르텔 행위에 대한 사적 집행제도의 발전 현황과 대응 방안김용진한국사법학회 · 비교사법2014 · 제21권 제1호최근 공정거래관련 집단소송제 도입을 위한 공정거래법개정안에 대한 고찰주진열법학연구원 · 법학논총2012 · 제29권 제4호집단소송법의 제정방향 - 한국형 집단소송제도의 설계 -서희석한국소비자법학회 · 소비자법연구2017 · 제3권 제1호증권집단소송의 최근 동향으로 본증권관련집단소송법의 발전적 개선을 위한 제언김광록한국상사판례학회 · 상사판례연구2013 · 제26권 제3호

이 간행물의 다른 논문 (14건)

이익공여금지규정을 둘러싼 제 문제－ 최근 일본에서의 논의를 중심으로 －이효경pp. 1-28「기업지배구조 상법개정안」에 관한 종합적 검토최완진pp. 29-63기관투자자로서 연기금의 주주권 행사에 대한 법적 고찰장우영pp. 65-96CEO Duality － 이사회의장과 대표집행임원의 겸직문제 －김정호pp. 97-128집행임원의 책임에 관한 회사법적 검토김홍식pp. 129-159
원문 보기