하도급법 상의 징벌적 손해배상제도의 고찰
A Study of Punitive Damages in Fair Subcontract Transactiom Act
0
조회
0
다운로드
11
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
Punitive damages are to emphasize civil penalties to assaulters commit malice torts, as a unique legal system in Anglo-American law. Purposes of punitive damages are not only punishments but deterrence and precautionary about intended torts. In U.K. appeared punitive damages (That occasion, U.K gave name ‘exemplary damages’.) permit very limited level, and U.S. expanded it continues subjects of debate, dealing with standards of several cases. It introduced treble damages like punitive damages distinguish other damages with revised Fair Subcontract Transaction Act in Korea. That is to say social efforts for reduction broken out problems when accomplished customary subcontract transaction. We didn’t insist entirety punitive damages, but treble damages role in limited, because it is in principal that primary adopt making up for the deficit about real damages in our civil law as civil liability. It is second reason that technique pirate in our Fair Subcontract Transaction Act resemble to treble damages in Intellectual Property law and The Patent law in U.S. . Finally, we can trace reason from South Korea-United States FTA didn’t accept but U.S. argued triple damages for IPL. Punitive damages are for appropriate protection method about torts that frequently happen in multiple modern society, and it is nothing question about it. But as early stage of introduction, there are vague its criterion or penalty. Hence we’ll have to establish this system through study problems with our conflicted legal system and cases in U.S.
Abstract
Punitive damages are to emphasize civil penalties to assaulters commit malice torts, as a unique legal system in Anglo-American law. Purposes of punitive damages are not only punishments but deterrence and precautionary about intended torts. In U.K. appeared punitive damages (That occasion, U.K gave name ‘exemplary damages’.) permit very limited level, and U.S. expanded it continues subjects of debate, dealing with standards of several cases. It introduced treble damages like punitive damages distinguish other damages with revised Fair Subcontract Transaction Act in Korea. That is to say social efforts for reduction broken out problems when accomplished customary subcontract transaction. We didn’t insist entirety punitive damages, but treble damages role in limited, because it is in principal that primary adopt making up for the deficit about real damages in our civil law as civil liability. It is second reason that technique pirate in our Fair Subcontract Transaction Act resemble to treble damages in Intellectual Property law and The Patent law in U.S. . Finally, we can trace reason from South Korea-United States FTA didn’t accept but U.S. argued triple damages for IPL. Punitive damages are for appropriate protection method about torts that frequently happen in multiple modern society, and it is nothing question about it. But as early stage of introduction, there are vague its criterion or penalty. Hence we’ll have to establish this system through study problems with our conflicted legal system and cases in U.S.
참고문헌 (36)
- 김재중, "대체 형벌로서의 징벌적 손해배상 제도", 형사법연구, (26), pp.675~696 (2006), 한국형사법학회
- James B. Sales, "Punitive Damagea: A Relic That Has Outlived Its Origins", Vanderbilt Law Review, 37, pp.1157~ (1984)
- John C. Coffee, "Paradigms Lost: The Blurring of the Criminal and Civil Law Models-And What Can Be Done About It", The Yale Law Journal, 101(8), pp.1878~ (1992)
- "BMW of North America v. Gore, 517 U.S.559", ~
- 노병호, "중국소비자권익보호법", 법학연구, 12, pp.35~ (2001)
- 장재옥, "징벌적 손해배상과 법치국가의 원리", 중앙대법학논문집, 20, pp.218~ (1995), 중앙대학교
- Sales-Cole, Jr., "Punitive Damages : A Relic That Has Outlived Its Origins", Vanderbilt L. Rev, 37(1117), pp.1126~1130 (1984)
- 김도형, "징벌적 손해배상제도 도입에 관한 소고", 경성법학, 17(1), pp.190~191 (2008), 경성대학교 법학연구소
- 김성천, "징벌적 손해배상제도와 소비자피해구제", pp.17~18 (2003), 한국소비자보호원
- 이점인, "징벌적 손해배상제도의 도입 필요성과 가능성에 대한 일고찰", 동아법학, 38, pp.196~, 동아대학교 법학연구소
- D. G. Owen, "Punitive Damages in Product Liability Litigation", Mich. L. Rev, 74, pp.1263~1264 (1976)
- T. Sedgwick, "On Damages" vol. 1 9th ed", pp.727~
- 김재국, "징벌적 손해배상", 민사법연구, 5, pp.103~104 (1996)
- 윤정환, "징벌적 손해배상에 관한 연구", 재산법연구, 9(1), pp.146~ (1992), 한국재산법학회
- 박동진, "독일의 민사손해배상법제와 징벌적 손해배상법리", pp.131~ (2007), 한국법제연구원
- "日本最高裁判所 裁時 第1199號", 3~ (1997)
- 田泰弘, "涉外民事事件の實務と問題點", 自由と正義, 31(11), pp.22~ (1980), 日本辯護士連蛤膾
- 石黑一憲, "現代國際私法(上)", pp.497~ (1986), 東京大學出版部
- 송오식, "불법행위법의 새로운 전개", 전남대학교 법률행정논총, 17, pp.210~ (1997)
- "MBC 추적 60분 2010.07.21", ~ (2010)
- 李命甲, "現代不法行爲法論에 관한 硏究", 박사, pp.1986
- 강지영, "친기업 이명박 정부라 해도 ‘징벌적 손해배상제도’ 도입해야", 진보적시사종합지 월간말, 71~ (2008)
- 황찬현, "손해배상책임에 관한 현행법의 규정과 입법론적 검토", 정보법학, (3), pp.331~ (1999)
- 송오식, "불법행위법의 새로운 전개", 전남대학교 법률행정논총, 17, pp.210~ (1997)
- 李命甲, "現代不法行爲法論에 관한 硏究", 박사, pp.1986
- 곽윤직, "채권각론", pp.738~ (1993), 박영사
- 권용우, "채권각론", pp.561~ (1987), 법문사
- 김증한, "채권각 론", pp.526~ (1988), 박영사
- 이재훈, "판례불법행위법(I)", pp.2~ (1984), 법조문화사
- Laurance M. Leshin, "Constitutionall Challanges to Punitive Damages", Federation of Insurance& Corp. Counsel Quarterly, 40(31) (1989)
- 이재상, "형사소송법(제5판)", pp.613~ (1997), 박영사
- 오문완, "징벌적 손해배상제도의 도입 -노동법에서의 논의를 시작하며-", 노동법연구, 13, pp.12~442 (2002), 서울대학교노동법연구회
- 田中英夫, "前揭論文", pp.164~165
- "Pacific Mutural Life Insurance Co. v. Haslip, 499 U.S. 1, 42", ~ (1991)
- 경제개혁리포트, , 경제개혁 연구소, ~, pp.2009-7, 2009-10, 2010-1호