본문 바로가기
KERD
논문KCI 등재

집단적 소비자피해 구제제도로서 ‘독일 경쟁법상’ 이익환수청구권 제도에 관한 법적 고찰

The Legal Consideration for the Profit Confiscation Right under the Act Against Unfair Competition (UWG) as a Remedies of Collective Consumer Damages

0

조회

0

다운로드

8

인용

0

참고문헌

키워드

초록

The Act Against Unfair Competition (UWG), Section 10(1) provide that whoever, while acting with intent, uses an illegal commercial practice pursuant to Section 3 or Section 7, thereby making a profit to the detriment of numerous purchasers, can be sued for surrender of such profit to the Federal budget by those entitled, pursuant to Section 8 subsection (3), numbers 2 to 4, to assert a cessation and desistance claim. In Germany, as shown above, Section 10(1) UWG contains a new remedy that has been hotly debated, both in Parliament and in the legal profession. It stipulates that the offender may be ordered to pay over to the Treasury any profits made as a result of an intentional violation of the Act when those profits were made at the expense of a multitude of customers. Such an order may be applied for by competition firms, qualified entities, Chambers of Industry and Trade, and Craft Chambers, though not by individual competitors or consumers. The new sanction is primarily aimed at cases of dispersed damages, i.e., violations affecting a multitude of customers but causing only minor individual damage. Individual customers affected by such violations generally refrain from enforcing their claims, not least because of the possibly high costs of taking legal action. This results in such violations often going unpunished. The listed associations and entities in VZBV can now apply for the profits of such violations to be skimmed and paid over to the Treasury, after deduction of certain expenses (Sec. 10(2) UWG). Whether this new sanction will prove to be effective remains to be seen. The Act (UWG), by and large, constitutes an acceptable and balanced framework for doing business and advertising in the German market. Whether it will actually “spur the German economy by transforming it into a flexible business location”seems at least doubtful. I believe, however, it is worth reviewing whether Korean legal system acceptable the profit confiscation right under the Act Against Unfair Competition (UWG) as a remedies of collective consumer damages.

Abstract

The Act Against Unfair Competition (UWG), Section 10(1) provide that whoever, while acting with intent, uses an illegal commercial practice pursuant to Section 3 or Section 7, thereby making a profit to the detriment of numerous purchasers, can be sued for surrender of such profit to the Federal budget by those entitled, pursuant to Section 8 subsection (3), numbers 2 to 4, to assert a cessation and desistance claim. In Germany, as shown above, Section 10(1) UWG contains a new remedy that has been hotly debated, both in Parliament and in the legal profession. It stipulates that the offender may be ordered to pay over to the Treasury any profits made as a result of an intentional violation of the Act when those profits were made at the expense of a multitude of customers. Such an order may be applied for by competition firms, qualified entities, Chambers of Industry and Trade, and Craft Chambers, though not by individual competitors or consumers. The new sanction is primarily aimed at cases of dispersed damages, i.e., violations affecting a multitude of customers but causing only minor individual damage. Individual customers affected by such violations generally refrain from enforcing their claims, not least because of the possibly high costs of taking legal action. This results in such violations often going unpunished. The listed associations and entities in VZBV can now apply for the profits of such violations to be skimmed and paid over to the Treasury, after deduction of certain expenses (Sec. 10(2) UWG). Whether this new sanction will prove to be effective remains to be seen. The Act (UWG), by and large, constitutes an acceptable and balanced framework for doing business and advertising in the German market. Whether it will actually “spur the German economy by transforming it into a flexible business location”seems at least doubtful. I believe, however, it is worth reviewing whether Korean legal system acceptable the profit confiscation right under the Act Against Unfair Competition (UWG) as a remedies of collective consumer damages.

참고문헌 (39)

  1. 권오승, "독점규제법 30년", pp.102~103 (2011), 법문사
  2. 권혁재, "일본 소비자 계약법상의 단체소송제도", 법조, 58(4), pp.166~226 (2009), 법조협회
  3. 박해식, "공정거래법상 부당지원행위를 한 자에게 부과되는 과징금의 법적 성격", 경쟁법연구, 8, pp.240~ (2002)
  4. 서희석, "소비자기본법 30년과 소비자법의 구조전환 - 소비자법의 제3의 물결을 위하여 -", 법조, 60(3), pp.84~147 (2011), 법조협회
  5. 이명민, "독일 소비자단체소송의 민사소송법으로의 편입가능성", 동아법학, (59), pp.287~323 (2013), 법학연구소
  6. 장혜림, "獨占規制法 違反行爲者를 被告로 하는 間接購買者 損害賠償請求訴訟의 法的 問題", 상사법연구, 27(1), pp.35~77 (2008), 한국상사법학회
  7. 정영수, "소비자단체소송에 관한 고찰", 법조, 56(3), pp.5~42 (2007), 법조협회
  8. Volker Emmerich, "부정경쟁방지법", pp.237~ (1996), 삼지원
  9. 宗田貴行, "独禁法民事訴訟", pp.197~ (2008), レクシスネクシス・ジャパン
  10. 宗田貴行, "消費者法の新展開" (2009), 慶應義塾大学出版会
  11. 宗田貴行, "団体訴訟の新展開", pp.47~ (2006), 慶應義塾大学出版会
  12. 春日偉知郎, "民事証拠法論―民事裁判における事案解明", 商事法務, pp.247~ (2009)
  13. Alexisande, "Die zivilrechtlichen Ansprüche im Kartellrecht nach der 7. GWBNovelle", 113~ (2007)
  14. Baumbach, "Wettbewerbsrecht, 22 Aufl.", pp.142~ (2001), Einl. UWG Rn
  15. Baumbach, "Wettbewerbsrecht" (2004)
  16. Egels, "Vom Lauterkeitsrecht zum Verbraucherschutz: UWG-Reform", ~ (2003)
  17. Fezer, "Lauterkeitsrecht", ~ (2005)
  18. Harte, "Gesetz gegen den unlauteren Wettbewerb", ~ (2004)
  19. Hefermehl, "Wettbewerbsrecht, 24 Aufl." (2006)
  20. Jauernig, "Zivilprozessrecht, 29 Aufl." (2007)
  21. Köhler, "UWG Reform und Verbraucherschutz", GRUR, 265~ (2003)
  22. Piper, "Gesetz gegen den unlauteren Wettbewerb" (2006)
  23. Piper, "UWG Kommentar, 4 Aufl.", pp.62~ (2006)
  24. Piper, "UWG 5., Aufl" (2009)
  25. Sack, "Der Gewinnabschöpfungsanspruch von Verbänden in der geplanten UWG-Novelle", WRP, pp.549~554 (2003)
  26. Sieg Eiselen, "Proving the Quantum of Damages", Journal of Law and Commerce, 25, pp.375~ (2006)
  27. Stadler, "Der Reformvorchlag der UWG-Novelle für eine Verbandsklage auf Gewinnabschöpfung", WRP, pp.559~
  28. Zöller, "Zivilprozessordnung, 26 Aufl.", ~ (2007)
  29. "BR-Drucksache 623", 06, BGBl I S. 2840
  30. "BR-Drucksache 301-03", ~
  31. "BT-Drucksache 15", 1487
  32. "BT-Drucksache 15", 3640
  33. "BT-Drucksache 15", 5049
  34. "BT-Plenarprotokoll, 16", 59
  35. "Richtlinie über unlautere Geschäftspraktiken (2005", 29, ~
  36. BGH, "BGH, GRUR 1999, 924 ff", ~ (1999)
  37. BGH, "NJW 1974", ~ (1974)
  38. BGH, "NJW 1983", ~ (1983)
  39. BGH, "NJW 1992, 3096 ff, 3103", ~ (1992)

관련 논문AI추천

이 간행물의 다른 논문 (10건)