증권거래법과 집단소송제도에 관한 실증분석
An Empirical Analysis of the Securities Exchange Law and the Class Action
0
조회
0
다운로드
8
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
본고의 목적은 그동안 거대담론이나 (외국)사례소개가 큰 비중을 차지했던 증권관련집단소송제도에 관한 학계논의를 한 단계 발전시켜 한국에서의 관련 실증분석을 촉진시키려는 것이다. 하지만 아직 증권관련집단소송 자료의 축적이 부재하므로 본고에서는 차선의 방법을 선택한다. 구체적으로, 그간 집단소송제도와 관련된 법경제학이론을 바탕으로, 1) 증권거래법제와 2) 법원판결자료를 실증분석의 대상으로 활용한다. 이를 통하여, 증권거래법의 다수 손해배상조항들 중 5개를 선택하여 집단소송을 허용한 현재 법제의 적절성에 관하여 잠정적으로 검증한다. 대체로 긍정적인 검증결과가 나왔으나, 좀더 대규모의 표본으로써 시급히 재검증이 필요한 세부명제들도 발견되었다. 특히 자료수집의 물리적시간적 제약이 컸던 관계로 본고는 향후 본격적 연구를 수행하기 위한 다분히 pilot study의 성격을 띤다. 그럼에도 불구하고 본고는 집단소송 적용분야의 대폭 확대 주장에 관한 작금의 국내 찬반논쟁에 한 가지 유용한 분석기법을 제공할 수 있을 것으로 기대한다.
Abstract
Although the “Securities-Related Class Action Law” was introduced in 2005 to enhance the transparency of the securities market, the arguments by the pros and cons concerning this legislation have often been either rather dogmatic, or based simply on incomplete evidence from some cases oversees. The purpose of this paper is to help trigger a trend to undertake relevant empirical work in full force in Korea. This paper utilizes two sources of data for an empirical study: 1) the current Securities Exchange Law and 2) the actual court cases associated with securities transactions. The paper then intends to correctly understand whether the five liability clauses, which can be now subject to class action, have been properly selected out of the eighteen liability clauses presently stipulated in the Securities Exchange Law. To be sure, the empirical results of this paper are to be considered truly as a ‘pilot study’ due mainly to small sample size. However, this paper is believed to provide a useful methodological guideline in attempting to extend the scope of class action to other substantive areas of law in Korea. Finally, the paper suggests indispensible empirical research agenda in the imminent future.
참고문헌 (46)
- "선진화된 규제개혁: 기본원칙 및 방법에 관한 인식의 재정립", pp.128~189 (2005), 한국개발연구원
- "한국 집단소송제도의 효율성을 위한 법경제학적 소고 과학적 이해 및 생산적 연구방향의 제시", 16, pp.51~90 (2006), 한국경제연구학회
- "증권시장 위법행위들의 효율적 억지시스템에 관한 법경제학적 분석" (2006), 한국금융연구원
- "증권집단소송제도의 경제학" (2004), 자유기업원
- "증권관련집단소송제의 도입과 남소의 방지", (49), pp.3~19 (2004), 한국상장회사협의회
- "증권관련집단소송법 정부안에 대한 의견서" (2003)
- "증권관련집단소송법 시안 해설" (2001)
- "증권관련 집단소송제도의 법적ㆍ경제적 분석", 10(2), pp.65~122 (2001), 한국경제연구원
- "증권집단소송제 어떻게 보완되어야 하나" (2004)
- "증권관련집단소송제도의 도입과 기업의 대응방안" (2004), 한국상장회사협의회
- "증권관련집단소송의 남소방지대안", 12(1), pp.90~119 (2004), 한국민사법학회
- "Do the Merits Matter? A Study of Settlements in Securities Class Actions", 43, pp.497~598
- "Suing Solely to Extract a Settlement Offer", 17, pp.437~450 (1988)
- "A New Theory Concerning the Credibility and Success of Threats to Sue", 25, pp.1~25 (1996)
- "An Analysis of Fee Shifting Based on the Margin of Victory : On Frivolous Suits, Meritorious Suits, and the Role of Rule 11", 25, pp.371~403 (1996)
- "Ending Substance?s Indenture to Procedure The Imperative for Comprehensive Revision of the Class Action Damage Action", pp.299~344 (1980)
- "The Legal and Institutional Preconditions for Strong Securities Markets", 48, pp.781~855 (2001)
- "Class Certification and Substantive Merits", 51, pp.1251~1332 (2002)
- "The Evidence on Securities Class Action", 57, pp.1465~1525 (2004)
- "Class Wars:The Dilemma of the Mass Tort Class Action", 95, pp.1343~1465 (1995)
- "Attorney Fees in Class Action Settlement:An Empirical Study", 1, pp.27~78 (2004)
- "Contingent Fees and Agency Costs", 25, pp.503~533 (1996)
- "Asymmetric Rewards: Why Class Actions (May) Settle for Too Little", 48, pp.479~509 (1997)
- "Class Certification Based on Merits of the Claims", 69, pp.1~11 (2002)
- "Class Action Dilemmas: Pursuing Public Goals for Private Gain, Santa Monica" (2000), CA: Rand Institute for Civil Justice
- "The Effect of Frivolous Lawsuits on the Settlement of Litigation", 10, pp.3~27 (1990)
- "An Economic Analysis of the Choice between Enterprise and Personal Liability for Accidents", 70, pp.1345~1392 (1982)
- "Solving the Nuisance-Value Settlement Problem: Mandatory Summary Judgment", 90, pp.1849~1907 (2004)
- "Scrutiny of the Bounty:Incentive Awards for Plaintiffs in Class Litigation", 78, pp.286~290 (1990)
- "What Works in Securities Laws", 61, pp.1~32 (2006)
- "A Market Approach to Tort Reform via Rule 23", 80, pp.909~917 (1995)
- "Overlapping Class Actions", 71, pp.514~546 (1996)
- "Review of Merits in Class Action Certification", 33, pp.51~87 (2004)
- "Class Action Chaos?:The Theory of the Core and an Analysis of Opt Out Rights in Mass Tort Class Actions", 46, pp.85~161 (1997)
- "Strategic Behavior in Suit Bell Journal of Economics", pp.539~550 (1983)
- "The Economic Theory of Public Enforcement of Law", 38, pp.45~76 (2000)
- "Economic Analysis of Law" (1992), and Company
- "Procedural versus Substantive Controls of Mass Tort Class Actions", 26, pp.521~573 (1997)
- "Managerial Judges", 96, pp.374~448 (1982)
- "A Model in Which Suits Are Brought for Their Nuisance Value", 5, pp.3~13 (1985)
- "A Solution to the Problem of Nuisance Suits The Option to Have the Court Bar Settlement", 26, pp.42~51 (2006)
- "?Liability for Harm versus Regulation of Safety Journal of Legal Studies", pp.357~374 (1984)
- "?The Optimal Structure of Law Enforcement Journal of Law and Economics", pp.255~287 (1993)
- "?The Role of Judges in Settling Complex Cases University of Chicago Law Review", pp.337~365 (1986)
- "?An Efficiency Analysis of Vicarious Liability under the Law of Agency", pp.168~206 (1981)
- "?An Efficiency Analysis of Vicarious Liability under the Law of Agency", pp.168~206 (1981)