소비자불매운동과 채권침해의 위법성- 대법원 2001. 7. 13. 선고 98다51091 판결을 중심으로-
Consumer Boycotts and intentional interference with business relations : Focused On The Supreme Court Case Of 98Da51091 Decided On July 13, 2001
0
조회
0
다운로드
3
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
In the Supreme Court Case involving secondary consumer boycott in 2001, the Supreme Court held that secondary consummer boycott is an inducing breach of contract or refusal to deal, an intentional interference with contractual rights. In Korean legal theory and cases, an intentional interference with contractual rights is recognized a kind of torts. Korean Court have recognized an intentional interference with contractual only in the exceptional instances when it is regarded as a breach of public policy. This Article argues that nonviolent secondary consumer boycott itself can not be treated as a breach of public policy. In determining whether a nonviolent secondary consumer boycott may be tortious invasion of business relationship, this article suggests the following should be considered. ① the nature of the actor's conduct, ② the actor's motive, ③ the interests of the other with which the actor's conduct interferes, ④ the interests sought to be advanced by the actor, ⑤ the social interests in protecting the freedom of action of the actor and the contractual interests of the other. The American Restatement of the Law of Torts (second) §767 provides same factors to help determine whether an interference with contract or prospective economic relations is not improper. Also, these are exactly the same factors that Korean Supreme Court considered when it recognizes an intentional interference with contractual as a breach of public policy.
Abstract
In the Supreme Court Case involving secondary consumer boycott in 2001, the Supreme Court held that secondary consummer boycott is an inducing breach of contract or refusal to deal, an intentional interference with contractual rights. In Korean legal theory and cases, an intentional interference with contractual rights is recognized a kind of torts. Korean Court have recognized an intentional interference with contractual only in the exceptional instances when it is regarded as a breach of public policy. This Article argues that nonviolent secondary consumer boycott itself can not be treated as a breach of public policy. In determining whether a nonviolent secondary consumer boycott may be tortious invasion of business relationship, this article suggests the following should be considered. ① the nature of the actor's conduct, ② the actor's motive, ③ the interests of the other with which the actor's conduct interferes, ④ the interests sought to be advanced by the actor, ⑤ the social interests in protecting the freedom of action of the actor and the contractual interests of the other. The American Restatement of the Law of Torts (second) §767 provides same factors to help determine whether an interference with contract or prospective economic relations is not improper. Also, these are exactly the same factors that Korean Supreme Court considered when it recognizes an intentional interference with contractual as a breach of public policy.
참고문헌 (21)
- 곽윤직, "채권총론" (2009), 박영사
- 곽윤직, "채권각론" (2009), 박영사
- 김일수, "형법각론" (2007), 박영사
- 김봉수, "인터넷상에서의 불매운동과 그 법적 한계 - 제3자를 대상으로 한 불매운동의 합법성 판단을 중심으로 -", 형사법연구, 21(1), pp.303~328 (2009), 한국형사법학회
- 김재형, "민법론Ⅲ" (2007), 박영사
- 박경신, "소비자들의 2차불매운동의 합법성, (2008-2009) 한국과 표현의 자유" (2009), 경인문화사
- 박흥대, "제3자의 계약침해와 불법행위", 판례연구, 15 (2003), 부산판례연구회
- 배종대, "형법각론" (2007), 홍문사
- 엄동섭, "영미법상 제3자의 계약침해", 민사법학, (27), pp.177~212 (2005), 한국민사법학회
- 윤근수, "제3자에 의한 채권침해", 판례연구, 20 (2009), 부산판례연구회
- 이규호, "판례실무연구V" (2001), 비교법실무연구회
- 이우영, "미국의 위헌심사기준으로서의 ‘이중 기준(二重 基準) (Double Standard)’", 서울대학교 법학, 50(1), pp.419~454 (2009), 법학연구소
- 이재상, "형법각론" (2007), 박영사
- 임지봉, "업무방해죄의 적용에 관한 헌법적 고찰 ― 헌법재판소 결정의 규범적 이해 ―", 노동법학, (34), pp.109~134 (2010), 한국노동법학회
- 주승희, "소비자불매운동의 의의 및 법적 허용 한계 검토", 경영법률, 19(3), pp.515~542 (2009), 한국경영법률학회
- Barbara J. Anderson, "Secondary Boycotts and The First Amendment", U. Chi. L. Rev, 51(811)
- Harvard Law Review Association, "Political Boycott Activity and the First Amendment", Harv.L.Rev, 91(659) (1978)
- Lawrence A. Alexander, "Consumer Boycotts and Freedom of Association: A Comment on A Recently Proposed Theory", SanDiego L. Rev, 22(555)
- Michael C. Harper, "The Consumer's Emerging Right to Boycott: NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware and Its Implications for American Labor Law", Yale L, J, 93(409)
- Patrick M. Fahey, "Advocacy Group Boycotting of Network Television Advertisers and Its Effects on Programming Content", U. Pa. L. Rev, 140(647)
- W. Page Keeton., "Prosser and Keenton, on Torts, W. Page Keeton" (1984)