본문 바로가기
KERD
논문KCI 등재

不當廣告로 인한 소비자피해의 私法的 救濟에 관한 연구 -인쇄물광고를 중심으로-

he Study on the Relief by Private Law of Consumers' Damages due to Unfair Advertisement - Focused on the printed advertisement-

0

조회

0

다운로드

8

인용

0

참고문헌

키워드

주제분류법학

초록

Abstract

These days, consumers receive substantial amount of information about goods from advertisements. Consumers are highly unlikely to judge, assess, and discern objectively with his or her confined knowledge in a contemporary economic society. Accordingly, consumers are very much at the mercy of the information, i.e. advertisement, provided by business operators specialized in certain products. Sometimes, however, business operators intentionally give false impression on customers to boost the sales of their own goods by employing methods such as false advertisement, exaggerated advertisement and deceit advertisement. As a result, cases where the actual goods or services do not correspond with the advertisements although consumers have trusted the business operators’ advertisements and concluded their contracts are being caused at an alarming rate. Such cases are generally in two forms; the case where performing as the information given on the advertisements is possible, and the case where performing as the information given on the advertisements is not possible. In the latter case, demanding the business operator to perform as the advertisements is virtually impossible and if the contractual relationship is sustained, monetary damage to consumer increases and its retrieval may not be possible. In such case, consumers first have to withdraw from the contractual relationship, i.e. the confinement of contractual duty. The methods to withdraw from the contractual relationship for those who have trusted the deceptive advertisements and concluded their contracts include revocation of the expression due to frauds, revocation of the expression due to mistake, and cancellation of a contract due to default. In the former case, performing as the information given on the advertisements by business operators is the most desirable solution to consumers. The reason why consumers concluded their contracts is that they expected acquisition of goods or services claimed on advertisements. The means to exact performance from the business operators as information given on the advertisement include warranty liability against defects and default liability. Thus, this paper has contemplated on the methods to exact performance from business operators as the advertisements or to withdraw from the contractual relationship for those who concluded their contracts based on deceptive advertisements.

참고문헌 (40)

  1. 김상중, "계약목적물의 시가에 관한 잘못된 관념과 계약 당사자의 보호 - 착오와 사기를 이유로 한 의사표시의 취소에 관한 판례의 고찰을 통한 시론적 접근-", 법조, 54(1)통권 : 580, pp.167~187 (2005), 법조협회
  2. 김상중, "계약목적물의 시가에 관한 잘못된 관념과 계약 당사자의 보호 - 착오와 사기를 이유로 한 의사표시의 취소에 관한 판례의 고찰을 통한 시론적 접근-", 법조, 54(2)통권 : 581, pp.145~175 (2005), 법조협회
  3. 김상중, "상품의 표시ㆍ광고와 계약의 내용-건물분양계약을 중심으로 한 고찰", 서강법학연구, 8 (2006)
  4. 史東天, "獨逸 改正民法상 賣渡人의 瑕疵擔保責任에 관한 考察", 중앙법학, 4(1), pp.1~19 (2002), 중앙법학회
  5. 이상욱, "계약전의 정보제공의무와 착오" (1994), 남송한봉희교수화갑기념「현대민법의 과제와 전망」
  6. 임건면, "獨逸民法上 賣渡人의 瑕疵擔保責任에 있어서의 '瑕疵'의 槪念", 비교사법, 11(2), pp.145~174 (2004), 한국비교사법학회
  7. 최상호, "계약상의 정보제공의무에 관한 연구" (1994), 김형배교수화갑기념「채권법에 있어서 자유와 책임」
  8. 곽윤직, "채권각론" (2000), 박영사
  9. 곽윤직, "채권(5)" (1997), 박영사
  10. 김기선, "한국채권법각론" (1988), 법문사
  11. 김동석, "상사매도인의 하자담보책임에 관한 연구", pp.1988
  12. 김주수, "채권각론" (1992), 삼영사
  13. 김증한, "채권각론" (1988), 박영사
  14. 정해상, "민법학의 체계" (2008), 도서출판 아름다운 생각
  15. 櫻井 國郞, "廣告の法的意味" (1995), 勁草書房
  16. 澁谷達紀, "景品·表示の規制(2) - 廣告·表示の規制, 加藤一郞=竹內昭夫" (1988), 日本評論社
  17. 川端敏朗, "性質保證の法律的性質の一考察 「私法學硏究」 13号", 私法學硏究, (13) (1988), 駒澤大學
  18. Larenz, "Allgemeiner Teil des deutschen Bürgerlichen Rechts", ~ (1989), 7. Auflage, 1989, S.398
  19. Lehmann, "Vertragsanbahnung durch Werbung", 205~206
  20. Flume, "Allgemeiner Teil des Bürgerlichen Rechts", Das Rechtsgeschäft, 541~ (1979), 3. Auflage, 1979, S.541.
  21. 대법원, "8.13.선고,92다52665 판결", ~ (1993)
  22. 대법원, "6. 30. 선고, 95다2616, 2623 판결", ~ (1995)
  23. 대법원, "7. 28. 선고, 95다19515 판결", ~ (1995)
  24. 대법원, "5.7.선고,96다39455 판결", ~ (1997)
  25. 대법원, "2. 5. 선고, 2001도5789판결", ~ (2002)
  26. 대법원, "10. 12. 선고, 2004다48515 판결", ~ (2006)
  27. 대법원, "6. 1. 선고, 2005다5812, 5836 판결", ~ (2007)
  28. 대법원, "10. 23. 선고, 2007다44194 판결", ~ (2008)
  29. 서울고등법원, "10. 11. 선고, 94나3041 판결", ~ (1994)
  30. 서울중앙지법, "10.6.선고,2004가합4800 판결", ~ (2004)
  31. 서울지방법원, "3. 31. 선고, 97가합61423 판결", ~ (2000)
  32. 서울지방법원, "7.20.선고,99나77808 판결", ~ (2000)
  33. 서울지방법원, "9.28.선고,2005가합6359 판결", ~ (2006)
  34. 서울지방법원 서부지원, "8.19.선고,91가합4232 판결", ~ (1992)
  35. 인천지방법원, "11. 22. 선고, 2005가합6248 판결", ~ (2007)
  36. 부산지방법원, "3. 8. 선고, 2006가합20972 판결", ~ (2007)
  37. BGH NJW, "BGH NJW 1962, 1196", ~ (1962)
  38. BGH NJW, "BGH NJW 1979, 1983", ~ (1979)
  39. BGH, "25. 6. 1975, NJW 1975, 1693" (1975)
  40. BGHZ 78, 369, 372 f, = NJW 1981, 275, 276, "BGHZ 78, 369, 372 f, = NJW 1981, 275, 276", ~

관련 논문AI추천

이 간행물의 다른 논문 (19건)