제조물책임 면책특약의 효력에 관한 연구
A Study on the Effect of Special Agreement Concerning Exemption
0
조회
0
다운로드
6
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
More than 10 years after the enforcement of the Product Liability Law since 2002, it has been brought up for the necessity of recheck and revision by some legal experts. This research inquires into the desirable direction of the product liability focusing on Article 6 of the Product Liability Law. The problems are presumed to the result of legislative compromise reflecting policy consideration for a business operator, although it has not been identified the reason why the special agreement concerning exemption between concerned parties had inserted into the product liability law which does not consist of contractual responsibility. Special provision on Product Liability Law which limits or excludes from responsibility to the covering of damages becomes invalid under the main body of Article 6 of the Product Liability Law. As a result of invalidation of the special agreement concerning exemption, a manufacturer cannot protest about his/her indemnification. Also he/she takes responsibility for compensation for the damage from a product defect. The law takes on the character of a compulsory provision based on the invalidation provision of the special agreement concerning exemption. The condition of Article 6, however, recognizes effect restrictively, so the character of a compulsory provision of the Product Liability Law is relaxed within thepurview of the condition. Consequently, regulations of the product liability law become a character of imperfect compulsory provision. This character of imperfect compulsory provision makes the Product Liability Law imperfect. It would be more appropriate to delete that section which stipulates permission of special agreement concerning exemption from Article 6 of the Product Liability Law. The manufacturer who has dominant market power, holds a prominent position in comparison with a sales businessman in a market. In this case, a sales businessman would force to take what a manufacturer offers. A sales businessman could not claim for damages occurring from defective product against a manufacturer when special agreement concerning exemption has been accepted. A consumer could hold a sales businessman accountable for a defective product, since the former purchases through the latter. Therefore current situation of legislation should be improved through law revision.
Abstract
More than 10 years after the enforcement of the Product Liability Law since 2002, it has been brought up for the necessity of recheck and revision by some legal experts. This research inquires into the desirable direction of the product liability focusing on Article 6 of the Product Liability Law. The problems are presumed to the result of legislative compromise reflecting policy consideration for a business operator, although it has not been identified the reason why the special agreement concerning exemption between concerned parties had inserted into the product liability law which does not consist of contractual responsibility. Special provision on Product Liability Law which limits or excludes from responsibility to the covering of damages becomes invalid under the main body of Article 6 of the Product Liability Law. As a result of invalidation of the special agreement concerning exemption, a manufacturer cannot protest about his/her indemnification. Also he/she takes responsibility for compensation for the damage from a product defect. The law takes on the character of a compulsory provision based on the invalidation provision of the special agreement concerning exemption. The condition of Article 6, however, recognizes effect restrictively, so the character of a compulsory provision of the Product Liability Law is relaxed within thepurview of the condition. Consequently, regulations of the product liability law become a character of imperfect compulsory provision. This character of imperfect compulsory provision makes the Product Liability Law imperfect. It would be more appropriate to delete that section which stipulates permission of special agreement concerning exemption from Article 6 of the Product Liability Law. The manufacturer who has dominant market power, holds a prominent position in comparison with a sales businessman in a market. In this case, a sales businessman would force to take what a manufacturer offers. A sales businessman could not claim for damages occurring from defective product against a manufacturer when special agreement concerning exemption has been accepted. A consumer could hold a sales businessman accountable for a defective product, since the former purchases through the latter. Therefore current situation of legislation should be improved through law revision.
참고문헌 (44)
- 강동근, "제조물책임법" (2002), 가림M&B
- 권대우, "製造物責任의 成立要件", 민사판례연구, (27), pp.471~511 (2005), 민사판례연구회
- 권대우, "독일법상 제조물책임과 유럽공동체의 입법지침", 판례실무연구, 3 (1999), 비교실무연구회
- 권오승, "제조물 책임법" (2003), 법문사
- 김민중, "제조물책임에서 입증책임의 분배", 저스티스, 33(3), pp.211~227 (2000), 한국법학원
- 김상용, "제조물책임의 법리구성", 인권과 정의 (1994)
- 김성천, "제조물책임법의 조기입법 필요성에 관한소고", 손해보험, (366), pp.25~33 (1999), 대한손해보험협회
- 김종현, "자동차의 전자제어장치의 오작동으로 인한 자동차 제조사의 제조물책임의 성립 여부 - 독일 연방대법원의 자동차 에어백 사건을 중심으로 -", 재산법연구, 29(4), pp.101~118 (2013), 한국재산법학회
- 김진호, "제조물책임법" (2002), 법률서원
- 김창남, "제조물책임 대책실무" (2002), 동현출판사
- Gregory D.S. Kim, "선진국 사례중심으로 본 제조물책임법" (2003), 북스힐(주)
- 문성제, "제조물책임의 이론적 기초", 비교법학연구, pp.127~174 (2005), 한국비교법학회
- 민중기, "제조물책임의 성립요건과 입증책임의 분배", 법조 (2000), 법조협회
- 박규용, "산업사회의 도래와 제조물책임에 관한 법리", 법학연구, (10) (2002), 한국법학회
- 박규용, "독일의 제조물안전법과 제조물책임", 비교사법, 11(4), pp.357~386 (2004), 한국비교사법학회
- 박규용, "중국의 제조물책임법에 관한 연구- 중국 권리침해책임법 제5장을 중심으로 -", 재산법연구, 30(3), pp.333~364 (2013), 한국재산법학회
- 박동진, "제조물책임법 개정과 관련한 주요 쟁점", 한국비교사법학회 2012.4 제76회 학술대회 발표문 (2012), 한국비교사법학회
- 제조물책임법 개정방안 연구, "박동진", 법무부
- 백승흠, "미국 제조물책임법상 웨이드-키튼 테스트와 그 제한", 재산법연구, 29(4), pp.313~337 (2013), 한국재산법학회
- 송오식, "한도 정환담교수 정년기념논문집", pp.49~72 (2006), 용봉민사법학회
- 제조물책임법의 경제적 효과와 입법방향, "양준모", 한국소비자원, ~, pp.공청회결과보고서 96-01
- 양창수, "프랑스의 새로운 제조물책임법", 민법연구, 6
- 연기영, "생산물책임법의 제정과정과 주요내용", 한국민사법학회 주제발표자료, ~ (2002)
- 윤종진, "國際製造物責任의 準據法에 관한 硏究", 법학연구, (16), pp.429~453 (2004), 한국법학회
- 윤진수, "한국의 제조물책임 : 판례와 입법", 법조, 51(7)통권 : 550, pp.44~69 (2002), 법조협회
- 이종인, "제조물책임과 제품안전성의 법경제학" (2006), 한국학술정보
- 임은하, "제조물책임법상 결함의 개념과 유형에 관한 고찰", 법조, 56(1), pp.144~175 (2007), 법조협회
- 정대륜, "프랑스에서의 제조물책임", 판례실무연구, 3 (1999), 비교실무연구회편
- 정용수, "제조물책임의 개정방안" (2010), 한국소비자원
- 최문기, "제조물책임법상의 소비자보호에 관한 일고찰", 경성법학, 13(1), pp.67~98 (2004), 경성대학교 법학연구소
- 최동식, "제조물책임법상 결함 개념과 개발위험의 항변", 한양법학, 14, pp.143~186 (2003), 한양법학회
- 최명구, "자동기어변속장치를 장착한 자동차급발진과 제조물책임― 대법원 2004.3.12 선고 2003다16771판결에 대한 평석 ―", 민사법학, (28), pp.111~152 (2005), 한국민사법학회
- 제조물책임법 도입의 법적 사회적 파급효과분석, "최병록", 한국소비자원, ~, pp.한국소비자원 연구보고서 96-05
- 최병록, "우리나라 제조물책임(PL)판례 : 2002년 7월 제조물책임법 시행 전⋅후 판례의 비교분석을 통하여", 법학논고, 22, pp.173~212 (2005), 경북대학교 출판부
- 한봉희, "제조물책임법" (1997), 대왕사
- 한삼인, "제조물책임법의 판례분석", 법과 정책, (10), pp.261~278 (2004), 제주대학교
- 홍성재, "특정물의 하자로 인한 담보책임의 본질", 저스티스, 34(4), pp.5~33 (2001), 한국법학원
- 升田純, "註解 製造物責任法" (1997), 商事法硏究會
- 竹內昭夫, "わが國の製造物責任法" (1989), 有斐閣
- 平野裕之, "製造物責任の理論と法解釋" (1989), 信山出版社
- Mark A. Geistfeld, "Principles of Products Liability" (2006), Foundation Press
- Noel, "Manufactureer’s Liability for Negligence", Tenn L.Rev, 33, pp.444~ (1996)
- Robert E. Litan, "Liability-Perspectives and Policy" (1988), Brookings Institution
- Terrence F. Kiely, "Understanding Products Liability Law" (2006), LexisNexis