사업자의 불법행위와 소비자피해에 대한 민사적 구제제도에 관한 연구-미국의 주소비자보호법을 중심으로-
A Study on Businesses’ Tortious Trade Practices and Consumers’ Civil Remedy -Focusing on American State Consumer Laws-
0
조회
0
다운로드
1
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
According to the traditional civil law system, the Korean law system separates civil torts and crimes: crimes are “public” and torts “private.” Under the Korean law, tort law is concerned solely with compensation whereas criminal law is concerned solely with compensation. As a result, injured persons’ remedy is the problem of civil remedy procedures, and the wrongdoers’ punishment and the deterrence of their unlawful conducts is the problem of administrative deposition and criminal punishment. For this reason, in Korea, statutory damages or punitive damages in civil action are not generally allowed. Thus, injured consumers are only able to demand the restitution for actual damages, through a complicated civil procedure. In the civil action, consumers should prove their actual damages to recover their damages. However, while the damage sustained by each individual consumer is relatively small, litigation fees of individual suits are quite high. Accordingly, It is not expected for individual consumer to bring small claims to courts. To make consumer action practical and economical, the majority of American state consumer laws provide for one or more of treble damages, punitive damages, or statutory minimum damages, and class actions. In addition, many state consumer laws adopted one-way fee shifting rule on attorney fee in consumer actions. Therefore, this paper comparatively introduced and analyzed American consumer laws to plug the holes in consumer fraud enforcement. This paper asserted the necessity to introduce statutory damages and class in the area of Korean consumer laws. Korea adopts the loser pay rule on attorney fee in civil action, but as far as consumer claims are concerned, the rule is not effective because the award of attorney fee has a statutory cap. Thus, this paper emphasized that Attorney fee shifting should be enhanced to make small claims such as consumer complains more practical. However, this paper expressed the negative opinion regarding the introduction of pure punitive damages because of constitutional problems such as due process and proportionality.
Abstract
According to the traditional civil law system, the Korean law system separates civil torts and crimes: crimes are “public” and torts “private.” Under the Korean law, tort law is concerned solely with compensation whereas criminal law is concerned solely with compensation. As a result, injured persons’ remedy is the problem of civil remedy procedures, and the wrongdoers’ punishment and the deterrence of their unlawful conducts is the problem of administrative deposition and criminal punishment. For this reason, in Korea, statutory damages or punitive damages in civil action are not generally allowed. Thus, injured consumers are only able to demand the restitution for actual damages, through a complicated civil procedure. In the civil action, consumers should prove their actual damages to recover their damages. However, while the damage sustained by each individual consumer is relatively small, litigation fees of individual suits are quite high. Accordingly, It is not expected for individual consumer to bring small claims to courts. To make consumer action practical and economical, the majority of American state consumer laws provide for one or more of treble damages, punitive damages, or statutory minimum damages, and class actions. In addition, many state consumer laws adopted one-way fee shifting rule on attorney fee in consumer actions. Therefore, this paper comparatively introduced and analyzed American consumer laws to plug the holes in consumer fraud enforcement. This paper asserted the necessity to introduce statutory damages and class in the area of Korean consumer laws. Korea adopts the loser pay rule on attorney fee in civil action, but as far as consumer claims are concerned, the rule is not effective because the award of attorney fee has a statutory cap. Thus, this paper emphasized that Attorney fee shifting should be enhanced to make small claims such as consumer complains more practical. However, this paper expressed the negative opinion regarding the introduction of pure punitive damages because of constitutional problems such as due process and proportionality.
참고문헌 (42)
- 고형석, "소비자보호법" (2008), 세창출판사
- 정종섭, "헌법학원론" (2006), 박영사
- 박준서, "주석민법 채권각칙(6)" (2004), 한국사법행정학회
- 2006 연구보고서, "사법개혁추진위원회", 사법개혁추진위원회, ~ (2006)
- 단체소송의 대상범위 확대에 관한 연구, "박희주", 한국소비자보호원, ~ (2012)
- 권영준, "불법행위법의 사상적 기초와 그 시사점 - 예방과 회복의 패러다임을 중심으로 -", 저스티스, (109), pp.73~107 (2009), 한국법학원
- 김도연, "집단분쟁조정제도에 관한 소고", 경성법학, 16(2) (2007), 경성대학교 법학연구소
- 김태선, "징벌적 손해배상제도에 대한 고찰 - 민법개정에 따른 도입논의와 관련하여 -", 민사법학, 50, pp.235~274 (2010), 한국민사법학회
- 조성국, "일본의 사소제도에 개정에 대하여", 공개경쟁, (67) (2001)
- 윤석찬, "징벌적 손해배상책임에 관한 소고 - 독일법체계의 관점에서 -", 재산법연구, 29(4), pp.141~160 (2013), 한국재산법학회
- 이상돈, "집단소송에 대한 비판적 연구", 민사소송, 8(1), pp.306~334 (2004), 한국민사소송법학회
- 이문지, "미국연방거래위원회법 제5조와 불공정거래행위 금지의 법리", 안암법학, 5 (1997), 고대학교 법학연구원
- 이종구, "소비자피해구제의 실효성 보장을 위한 법정손해배상제도의 도입에 관한 연구 - 미국 주소비자보호법을 중심으로-", 소비자문제연구, 44(2), pp.125~146 (2013), 한국소비자원
- 최경진, "법정손해배상제도의 도입에 관한 연구 - 한미자유무역협정에 따른 민법과의 조화를 중심으로 -", 중앙법학, 13(3), pp.203~240 (2011), 중앙법학회
- 최진이, "증권관련 집단소송법의 問題點과 改善方案에 관한 硏究", 기업법연구, 23(1), pp.299~332 (2009), 한국기업법학회
- 함영주, "“불법집단행위에 관한 집단소송법안”과 “집단소송법안”에 대한 의견", 민사소송, 13(1), pp.693~704 (2009), 한국민사소송법학회
- 홍대식, "가격담합으로 인한 공정거래 손해배상소송에서의 손해액 산정: 실증경제분석 증거에 대한 법원의 수용 사례 및 기준을 중심으로", 비교사법, 19(2), pp.703~746 (2012), 한국비교사법학회[DOI]
- 허경옥, "소비자피해구제를 위한 집단피해소송법 제정에 관한 소고 :집단소송법과 단체소송법을 중심으로", 소비자학연구, 9(1), pp.3~ (1998)
- American Bar Association, "Section of Antitrust Law, Consumer Protection Handbook" (2004), American Bar Association
- Christopher R. McLennan, "The Price of Justice: Allocating Attorneys’ Fees in Civil Litigation", Fl. Coastal L. Rev, 12, pp.357~ (2011)
- Dorsey D. Ellis, Jr., "Fairness and Effciency in the Law of Punitive Damages", S CAL. L. REv, 56, pp.1~ (1982)
- David A. Rice, "Exemplary Damages in Private Consumer Actions", Iowa L. Rev, 55, pp.307~ (1969)
- David A. Root, "Attorney Fee-Shifting in America: Comparing, Contrasting, and Combining the “American Rule” and “English Rule", Ind. Int’l & Comp. L. Rev, 15, pp.583~ (2005)
- Deborah R. Hensler, "Revisiting the Monster: New Myths And Realities of Class Action and Other Large Scale Litigation", Duke J. Comp. & Int’l L, 11, pp.179~ (2001)
- Geraldine Alexis, "Punitive Damages: Is Bifurcation Right For Your Case?", Antitrust ABA, 16, pp.82~ (2002)
- Gordon N.Griffin, "Reinventing Adequacy: The Need for Standardized Regulation", Geo. J. Legal Ethics, 23, pp.603~604 (2010)
- Henry N. Butler, "Reforming State Consumer Protection Liability: An Economic Approach", COLUM. BUS. L. REV, 1 (2010)
- James R. Maxeiner, "Section II. C: Civil Procedure: Cost and Fee Allocation in Civil Procedure", Am. J. Comp. L, 58, pp.195~ (2010)
- Jeff Sovern, "Private Actions Under the Deceptive Trade Practices Acts: Reconsidering the FTC Act as Rule Model", Ohio St. L.J, 52, pp.437~ (1991)
- John F. Vargo, "The American Rule on Attorney Fee Allocation: The Injured Person’s Access to Justice", Am. U.L. Rev, 42, pp.1567~ (1993)
- Marshall J. Breger, "Compensation Formulas for Court Awarded Attorney Fees", Law & Contemp. Probs, 47, pp.249~ (1984)
- Matthew D. Klaiber, "A Uniform Fee-Setting System For Calculating Court-Awarded Attorneys’ Fees: Combining Ex Ante Rates With A Multifactor Lodestar Method and a Performance-Based Mathematical Model", Md. L. Rev, 66, pp.228~ (2006)
- Pamel Samuelson, "Statutory Damages in Copyright Law: A Remedy in need of Reform", Wm. & Mary L. Rev, 51, pp.439~ (2009)
- Richard A. Epstein, "Class Actions: Aggregation, Amplification, and Distortion", U. CHI. LEGAL F, pp.475~ (2003)
- Ryan P. O’Quinn, "Fair Is Fair-Reshaping Alaska’s Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Act", Alaska L. Rev, 28, pp.295~ (2011)
- Sheila B. Scheuerman, "Due Process Forgotten: The Problem of Statutory Damages and Class Actions", Mo. L. Rev, 74, pp.103~ (2009)
- "Consumer Protection in the United States: An Overview, in Strengthening the Consumer Protection Regime (forthcoming)"[URL]
- Stark, "Does Fraud Pay? An Empirical Analysis of Attorney’s Fees Provisions in Consumer Fraud Statutes", CLEV. ST. L. REV, 56, pp.483~ (2008)
- Stephen J. Shapiro, "Overcoming Under-Compensation and Under-Deterrence in Intentional Tort Cases: Are Statutory Multiple Damages the Best Remedy?", Mercer L. Rev, 62, pp.449~ (2010)
- Victor E. Schwartz, "Common-Sense Construction of Consumer Protection Acts", U. Kan. L. Rev, 54, pp.1~ (2005)
- "까사미아 침대 벌레 논란 까사미아, ‘전액 환불’ 약속"[URL]
- "배상면주가, ‘과징금 900만원법인고발’뿐… ‘솜방망이’ 논란: 공정위, 조정단계서 과징금 60% 이상 깎아 줘… “개인고발 안 해 엄벌의지 의문”"[URL]