독점규제법 위반행위로 인한 손해배상소송에 있어서 경제적 증거에 대한 규범통제
A study on the Economic Evidence in Antitrust Damage Suits
0
조회
0
다운로드
5
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
The role of expert testimony is very important in antitrust damage suits, especially in estimation of the amount of damages using econometric techniques. However, as lay judges are not familiar with statistical methodologies on which economic evidence based, concerns have been raised regarding the quality and integrity of expert testimony. In spite of differences in civil law procedures, testimonies of expert witness as in the U.S. courts can also be used as economic evidences in Korean courts. In evaluating economic evidences, the Daubert test of U.S. about relevance and reliability of evidences can help in our antitrust cases. Implementing abilities of courts filtering is necessary. We may expect that judges can assess economic evidences with the help of the expert commissioner under the Civil Procedure Act. We seek to estimate correct amount of damages, however, a counter-factual world which economic evidences suggest contains unknown certainty. Too much emphasis on correctness is impractical. Even though we must avoid mere speculation or guess in estimating damages, the danger of uncertainty bears on infringer.
Abstract
The role of expert testimony is very important in antitrust damage suits, especially in estimation of the amount of damages using econometric techniques. However, as lay judges are not familiar with statistical methodologies on which economic evidence based, concerns have been raised regarding the quality and integrity of expert testimony. In spite of differences in civil law procedures, testimonies of expert witness as in the U.S. courts can also be used as economic evidences in Korean courts. In evaluating economic evidences, the Daubert test of U.S. about relevance and reliability of evidences can help in our antitrust cases. Implementing abilities of courts filtering is necessary. We may expect that judges can assess economic evidences with the help of the expert commissioner under the Civil Procedure Act. We seek to estimate correct amount of damages, however, a counter-factual world which economic evidences suggest contains unknown certainty. Too much emphasis on correctness is impractical. Even though we must avoid mere speculation or guess in estimating damages, the danger of uncertainty bears on infringer.
참고문헌 (21)
- Hovenkamp, "The Antitrust Enterprise : Principle and Execution", pp.77~78 (2005), Harvard University Press
- 이호영, "경쟁법 사건절차상 경제전문가 증언의 활용에 관한 연구", 경쟁법연구, 20, pp.66~106 (2009), 한국경쟁법학회
- 이기종, "공정거래법상 손해배상청구소송에 있어서의 경제분석에 관한 연구", 상사법연구, 25(3), pp.293~325 (2006), 한국상사법학회
- 이시윤, "신 민사소송법", pp.445~ (2008), 박영사
- 강수미, "사감정의 소송법상 취급", 민사소송, 10(2), pp.98~119 (2006), 한국민사소송법학회
- 강현중, "민사소송법", pp.560~ (2004), 박영사
- 이준호, "미연방법원에 있어서의 전문가증언의 허용여부, In 재판자료 제80집 외국사법연수논집", pp.317~ (1998), 법원도서관
- 주진열, "공정거래소송에 있어서 경제적 증거 평가에 대한 일고찰", 경쟁법연구, 19, pp.159~192 (2009), 한국경쟁법학회
- 이규호, "민사소송법상 과학적 증거", 비교사법, 14(3), pp.199~240 (2007), 한국비교사법학회
- James Langenfeld, "Daubert and other gatekeeping challenges of antitrust experts", Antitrust, 25(3) (2011)
- Lawrence F. Ranallo, "Pricewaterhouse Coopers LLP", Daubert Challenges to Financial Experts : an 11 - Year Study of Trends and Outcomes, ~ (2011)
- Kentucky Speedway, "LLC v. National Association of Stock Car Auto Racing 588 F.3d 908", 6thCir, ~ (2009)
- 조홍식, "경제학적 논증의 법적 지위", 서울대학교 법학, 48(4), pp.124~178 (2007), 법학연구소
- 박완규, "Gujarati의 계량경제학", pp.20~34 (2009), 도서출판 지필
- 류근관, "담합으로 인한 손해액 산정에 있어서 경제 분석 상의 주요 쟁점", 응용경제, 12(2), pp.87~112 (2010), 한국응용경제학회
- Stephen Breyer, "Economic Reasoning and Judicial Review"", the AEI-Brookings joint center 2003 distinguished lecture, pp.12~13
- Commission of the European Communities, "Draft Guidance Paper : Quantifying Harm in Actions for Damages based on Breaches of Article 101 or 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union", 37~106 (2011)
- 윤진수, "法의 解釋과 適用에서 經濟的 效率의 考慮는 가능한가?", 서울대학교 법학, 50(1), pp.39~81 (2009), 법학연구소
- 주진열, "카르텔 손해액 추정을 위한 계량경제분석의 규범적 통제", 법학연구, 22(1), pp.157~202 (2012), 법학연구원[DOI]