하도급법상 3배 배상제도와 의무고발 요청제도의 합리적 운용에 관한 고찰
A Study on the Rational Operation of the Triple Compensation System and the Mandatory Criminal Charge Request System under the Subcontract Act in Korea
0
조회
0
다운로드
1
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
In this article, I will try to find a way to rationally operate the triple compensation system including the punitive elements introduced in the Fair Subcontract Transactions Act (‘Subcontract Act’) in Korea and the system to request to file a mandatory criminal charge, and proceed with discussion in a way that concludes by suggesting an improvement plan to pursue effective policy mix. In the case of a triple compensation system, it is necessary to find a rational operation plan in such a way as to establish a standard so that an appropriate calculation can be made in calculating the compensation amount. In this regard, the public enforcement of violations of the Subcontract Act should seek improvement measures in terms of the selection of the enforcement method that is appropriate to the nature of the violation and the effective allocation of the enforcement resources of the Korea Fair Trade Commission (‘KFTC’). When the level of administrative enforcement for violations of the Subcontract Act is adjusted considering the role of the triple compensation system, a foundation can be created in which the total of enforcement combined with public enforcement and private enforcement will be suitable for achieving appropriate level of deterrence. On the other hand, a violation that is subject to criminal punishment should be confined to such cases as it is not possible to realize the purpose of the law unless the penalty is applied because of the seriousness of the illegality and the severity of the act in light of the purpose of the Act. Therefore, it is necessary to judge whether or not the complementary role of criminal punishment is required by 'social harm-based standard' together with 'act-based standard'. In short, the problem of improvement for rational operation of the triple compensation system and mandatory criminal charge request system under the Subcontract Act should be approached from the viewpoint of pursuit of optimal enforcement through establishment of complementary relation between public enforcement and private enforcement.
Abstract
In this article, I will try to find a way to rationally operate the triple compensation system including the punitive elements introduced in the Fair Subcontract Transactions Act (‘Subcontract Act’) in Korea and the system to request to file a mandatory criminal charge, and proceed with discussion in a way that concludes by suggesting an improvement plan to pursue effective policy mix. In the case of a triple compensation system, it is necessary to find a rational operation plan in such a way as to establish a standard so that an appropriate calculation can be made in calculating the compensation amount. In this regard, the public enforcement of violations of the Subcontract Act should seek improvement measures in terms of the selection of the enforcement method that is appropriate to the nature of the violation and the effective allocation of the enforcement resources of the Korea Fair Trade Commission (‘KFTC’). When the level of administrative enforcement for violations of the Subcontract Act is adjusted considering the role of the triple compensation system, a foundation can be created in which the total of enforcement combined with public enforcement and private enforcement will be suitable for achieving appropriate level of deterrence. On the other hand, a violation that is subject to criminal punishment should be confined to such cases as it is not possible to realize the purpose of the law unless the penalty is applied because of the seriousness of the illegality and the severity of the act in light of the purpose of the Act. Therefore, it is necessary to judge whether or not the complementary role of criminal punishment is required by 'social harm-based standard' together with 'act-based standard'. In short, the problem of improvement for rational operation of the triple compensation system and mandatory criminal charge request system under the Subcontract Act should be approached from the viewpoint of pursuit of optimal enforcement through establishment of complementary relation between public enforcement and private enforcement.
참고문헌 (23)
- 권오승, "독점규제법" (2018), 법문사
- 권오승, "독점규제법: 이론과 실무" (2017), 법문사
- 오승돈, "하도급법" (2017), 지식과감성
- 하도급거래의 공정성 제고를 위한 제도개선과제, "이수일", 한국개발연구원, ~, pp.정책연구시리즈 2012-09 (2012)
- 신고사건 효율적 처리를 위한 방안 연구, "조성익", 한국개발연구원, 공정거래위원회, ~ (2015)
- 권영준, "불법행위법의 사상적 기초와 그 시사점 - 예방과 회복의 패러다임을 중심으로 -", 저스티스, (109), pp.73~107 (2009), 한국법학원
- 김용길, "하도급법상의 징벌배상제도에 관한 고찰", 기업소송연구, (10) (2012), 기업소송연구회
- 김태선, "미국 배액배상제도 및 법정손해배상제도의 도입에 관한 소고", 민사법학, 66, pp.239~275 (2014), 한국민사법학회
- 성승제, "「하도급거래 공정화에 관한 법률」상 3배배상제도 검토", 법학논총, 34(3) (2014), 전남대학교 법학연구소
- 유진희, "하도급법의 집행상의 쟁점", 비교사법, 20(1), pp.191~238 (2013), 한국사법학회[DOI]
- 이민호, "공정거래법 위반행위와 손해의 인과관계 - 미국에서의 논의를 중심으로 -", 법조, 61(2), pp.37~94 (2012), 법조협회[DOI]
- 이인규, "양벌규정에 관한 고찰", 법학연구, 36(1) (1995), 부산대학교 법학연구소
- 이종구, "소비자피해구제의 실효성 보장을 위한 법정손해배상제도의 도입에 관한 연구 - 미국 주소비자보호법을 중심으로-", 소비자문제연구, 44(2), pp.125~146 (2013), 한국소비자원[DOI]
- 이창현, "전산장애로 인한 손해배상에 관한 연구", 법과 기업 연구, 5(3), pp.135~164 (2015), 법학연구소
- 정환, "하도급법상 징벌적 손해배상제도", 경쟁법연구, 27, pp.37~65 (2013), 한국경쟁법학회
- 지철호, "최근 개정 하도급법의 쟁점과 전망", 2011 서울대학교 경쟁법센터 제2차 정책세미나 ‘개정 하도급거래의 공정화에 관한 법률의 쟁점과 전망’ 자료집 (2011)
- 최영홍, "대규모유통업법의 제정과 운용상 쟁점", 경쟁법연구, 25, pp.3~36 (2012), 한국경쟁법학회[DOI]
- 최경진, "법정손해배상제도의 도입에 관한 연구 - 한미자유무역협정에 따른 민법과의 조화를 중심으로 -", 중앙법학, 13(3), pp.203~240 (2011), 중앙법학회[DOI]
- 최경진, "새로 도입된 법정손해배상에 관한 비판적 검토 - 개인정보보호 관련법에서의 법정손해배상을 중심으로 -", 성균관법학, 27(2), pp.175~208 (2015), 법학연구원[DOI]
- 홍대식, "카르텔 규제의 집행 — 행정적 집행수단과 법원의 역할을 중심으로 —", 경쟁법연구, 12 (2005)
- 홍대식, "시장경제와 사회조화" (2015), 법문사
- Baldwin, Robert, "Martin Cave, and Martin Lodge, Understanding Regulation: Theory, Strategy and Practice" (2012), Oxford University Press
- Stephen J. Shapiro, "Overcoming Under-Compensation and Under-Deterrence in Intentional Tort Cases: Are Statutory Multiple Damages the Best Remedy?", Mercer L. Rev, 62, pp.449~ (2010)
