공정거래법의 사적집행수단: 국가후견소송(parens patriae action)을 중심으로
Parens patriae action as a Private Enforcement Mechanism of Korean Competition Law
0
조회
0
다운로드
3
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
This article explores the concept of parens patriae action and analyzes its optimal design as a new private enforcement mechanism of Korean competition law. While other mechanisms such as class action, punitive damage claims and private action for injunction have been actively discussed in the framework of private antitrust enforcement, surprisingly few studies have been conducted on the issues addressed by parens patriae action. Enabling state attorneys general to seek for monetary damages on behalf of the citizens, the parens patriae action in the United States is considered as a greater protection mechanism for small consumers. The distinctive feature of simplifying the problem of measuring and distributing damages makes parens patriae actions noteworthy compared to class actions. The key issue is how to design the parens patriae action in the context of Korean litigation system in order to maximize its merits while minimizing any possible side effect. This article seeks the answer in three aspects. The first aspect is designing the requirements for filing the suit in line with the legislative purpose of parens patriae action. Ongoing discussions in the United States on restriction of the “standing” requirement in reaction to the abuse in parens patriae action have important implications. The second aspect is designing the procedure in detail, which raises issues such as whether the KFTC or MOJ shall perform the litigation and how to design notification hurdles or opt-out options. The third matter is the damages: the scope, demonstration and distribution. If legislated with in-depth attention to the addressed issues, the parens patriae action may be a valuable tool in the field of private antitrust litigation.
Abstract
This article explores the concept of parens patriae action and analyzes its optimal design as a new private enforcement mechanism of Korean competition law. While other mechanisms such as class action, punitive damage claims and private action for injunction have been actively discussed in the framework of private antitrust enforcement, surprisingly few studies have been conducted on the issues addressed by parens patriae action. Enabling state attorneys general to seek for monetary damages on behalf of the citizens, the parens patriae action in the United States is considered as a greater protection mechanism for small consumers. The distinctive feature of simplifying the problem of measuring and distributing damages makes parens patriae actions noteworthy compared to class actions. The key issue is how to design the parens patriae action in the context of Korean litigation system in order to maximize its merits while minimizing any possible side effect. This article seeks the answer in three aspects. The first aspect is designing the requirements for filing the suit in line with the legislative purpose of parens patriae action. Ongoing discussions in the United States on restriction of the “standing” requirement in reaction to the abuse in parens patriae action have important implications. The second aspect is designing the procedure in detail, which raises issues such as whether the KFTC or MOJ shall perform the litigation and how to design notification hurdles or opt-out options. The third matter is the damages: the scope, demonstration and distribution. If legislated with in-depth attention to the addressed issues, the parens patriae action may be a valuable tool in the field of private antitrust litigation.
참고문헌 (27)
- 신동권, "독점규제법" (2017), 박영사
- 이상돈, "공익소송론" (2006), 세창출판사
- "주석 민사소송법" (2012), 한국사법행정학회
- 서정, "한국의 사적 집행 사례와 시사점", 경쟁법연구, 28, pp.144~175 (2013), 한국경쟁법학회
- 이선희, "한국 경쟁법의 사적 집행제도의 개요와 향후 발전방향", 경쟁법연구, 29, pp.279~307 (2014), 한국경쟁법학회
- 공정거래 법집행체계 개선방안연구 - 부권소송과 한국형 디스커버리 도입을 중심으로 -, "김윤정", 한국법제연구원, ~ (2017)
- 이규호, "公正去來法分野에 있어 美國의 父權訴訟(Parens Patriae Action)에 대한 硏究", 법학연구, 15(1), pp.151~190 (2005), 법학연구원
- 이문지, "미국의 반트러스트 국가후견소송", 경영법률, 10 (2000), 경영법률학회
- 공익소송 제도의 현황과 개선방안, "김태호", 사법정책연구원, ~ (2016)
- 이정수, "증권불공정거래 규제영역에서의 공익소송 연구－현행 증권불공정거래 규제체계에 대한 비판적 검토 및그 보완을 위한 부권소송의 도입방안 연구－", 증권법연구, 14(3), pp.121~152 (2013), 한국증권법학회
- 신영수, "경쟁법의 사적 집행 활성화; 전제와 현실, 그리고 과제", 법학논고, (36), pp.169~194 (2011), 법학연구원[DOI]
- 김차동, "집단소송제 및 징벌적 손해배상제도 도입시 증가될 것으로 예상되는 공정거래법 위반행위 억지효과에 관한 실증적 분석", 경쟁법연구, 29, pp.359~400 (2014), 한국경쟁법학회
- 유정화, "미국의 부권소송(Parens Patriae Action)에 관한 연구- 우리나라 독점규제법 분야에의 도입가능성을 중심으로 -", 고려법학, (89), pp.209~251 (2018), 법학연구원[DOI]
- "Hawaii v. Standard Oil Co. of Cal., 405 U.S. 251, 26263, 92 S. Ct. 885, 31 L. Ed. 2d 184, 1972 Trade Cas. (CCH), 15 Fed. R. Serv. 2d 1384, 2 Envtl. L. Rep. 2013", ~ (1972)
- "Georgia v. Pennsylvania Railroad Co.,324 U.S. 439", ~ (1945)
- "California v. Frirto-Lay, Inc., 474 F.2d 774 (9th Cir. 1973)", ~ (1973)
- "State v. Marsh and McLennan Companies, Inc., 286 Conn. 454, 944 A.2d 315, 323, 2008-1 Trade Cas. (CCH)", ~ (2008)
- William B. Rubenstein, "Newberg on Class Actions" (2017)
- "Kansas v. UtiliCorp United, Inc., 497 U.S. 199, 110 S. Ct. 2807, 111 L. Ed. 2d 169, 1990-1 Trade Cas. (CCH)", ~ (1990)
- Patrick Hayden, "Parens Patriae, the Class Action, Fairness Act, and the Path Forward: The Implications of Mississippi ex rel. Hood v. AU Optics Corp", The Yale Law Journal, 124(2) (2014)
- Margaret H. Lemos, "Aggregate Litigation Goes Public: Representative Suits by State Attorneys General", Harvard Law Review, 126(2) (2012)
- JAMES WM. MOORE, "MOORE’s FEDERAL PRACTICE - CIVIL. Alfred L. Snapp & Son, Inc. v. Puerto Rico ex rel. Barez, 458 U.S. 592, 607", ~ (1982)
- Alexander Lemann, "Sheep in Wolves’ Clothing: Removing Parens Patriae Suits under the Class Action Fairness Act", Columbia Law Review, 111(1) (2011)
- "Support Ministries v. Village of Waterford, NY, 808 F. Supp. 120, 272, 275", N.D.N.Y, ~ (1992)
- "Reiter v. Sonotone Corp., 442 U.S. 330, 34142, 99 S. Ct. 2326, 60 L. Ed. 2d 931, 1979-1 Trade Cas. (CCH), 27 Fed. R. Serv. 2d 653", ~ (1979)
- "Kansas v. UtiliCorp United, Inc., 497 U.S. 199, 219, 110 S. Ct. 2807, 111 L. Ed. 2d 169, 1990-1 Trade Cas. (CCH)", ~ (1990)
- Joseph M. McLaughlin, "McLaughlin on Class Actions: Law and Practice" (2017), Thomson Reuters