본문 바로가기
KERD
논문KCI 등재

유전자변형생물체에 관한 나고야 추가의정서의 민사법적 책임의 한계

Limitation of Civil Liability and Legal Norms of Nagoya-Kuala Lumpur Supplementary Protocol on Liability and Redress to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety

문상혁|방재호
생명의료법연구소 (Ewha Institute for Biomedical Law & Ethics)|2013.06|생명윤리정책연구 (Asia Pacific Journal of Health Law & Ethics)|제7권 제1호|pp. 31-58|DOI 10.38046/apjhle.2013.7.1.002

0

조회

0

다운로드

4

인용

0

참고문헌

키워드

불법행위torts liabilityCartagena Protocol on Biosafety유전자변형생물체Convention on Biological Diversity(CBD)GMO(Genetically Modified Organism)카르타헤나 의정서LMO(Living Modified Organisms)바이오안전성에 관한 카르타헤나의정서의 책임 및 구제에 관한 나고야-쿠알라룸푸르 추가의정서생물다양성에 관한 협약

초록

「Additional Protocol regarding Responsibility and Aid」only prescribes a part of the conditions of civil responsibility and delegates the rest to the domestic law, and thus can be said to be a non-contained structure. Thus, this can be said to be applicable only if supplemented by implementing legislation. Therefore, now it is time for Korea to determine the method of implementing legislation. There are largely three methods to go about the implementation legislation. First is applying the current law, second is legislating a separate special law for genetically modified organisms, and third is applying the combination of special laws prepared separately from the current law. Accordingly, when there is a loss due to a genetically modified organism, the legal concept for responsibility according to the current law can be summarized into product responsibility, environmental policy basic law, contract responsibility, and illegal activity responsibility. First, in case of product responsibility, non-fault responsibility element is introduced for the defect in manufacturing, but fault responsibility element is introduced for design defects or indication defects with the structure where the issue of development risk is evaluated at the stage of defect. Therefore, the product responsibility law is quite inadequate as the legal system to represent the position of the importing country. Also, even if genetically modified organisms are included in the scope of products, it is almost impossible to prove the causal relationship between the design/manufacturing defects for the genetically modified organisms which are products of high-degree science technology and the damage. Second, in case of environment policy law, there is the problem that it cannot be applied to environment pollution damage that occurs outside ‘business site and such.’ Also, for genetically modified organisms, in most case the genetically modified foods are delivered to the final consumer through many stages of distribution networks. The environment policy law, however, cannot be applied to accidents that occurs while moving from the business site to another. Third, in case of contract responsibility, it is possible to constitute a legal theory of contract responsibility when there is a damage between the corresponding parties. The damage regarding genetically modified organisms, however, is generally the damage to crops of nearby farmers by the farmer growing the genetically modified seeds, or the damage incurred to the consumer after a complex distribution process. Therefore, in this case it is difficult to constitute a legal theory by the contract responsibility. Fourth, in case of illegal activity responsibility, most information regarding the genetically modified organisms is accumulated by large corporations, and the information is not provided to the victims. Accordingly, the victims in most cases lack the technical knowledge on the technical area of the science technology, and it is practically impossible for the victim to prove the damage from which the dispute arises. In such cases, the consumer rights may be protected by the legal analysis relieving the burden of proof for such conditions, or by probability theory/preemptive presumption theory, but it poses the concern that it may hinder the legal safety in that the criteria of legal analysis is unclear. Therefore, the application of the current law in the method of implementing legislation of additional protocol is limited. Therefore, in future, there should be studies on the method of legislating a separate special law or applying the combination of special laws prepared separately from the current law in preparation of the implementing regulations according to Article 12 of 「Additional Protocol for Responsibility and Aid」.

Abstract

「Additional Protocol regarding Responsibility and Aid」only prescribes a part of the conditions of civil responsibility and delegates the rest to the domestic law, and thus can be said to be a non-contained structure. Thus, this can be said to be applicable only if supplemented by implementing legislation. Therefore, now it is time for Korea to determine the method of implementing legislation. There are largely three methods to go about the implementation legislation. First is applying the current law, second is legislating a separate special law for genetically modified organisms, and third is applying the combination of special laws prepared separately from the current law. Accordingly, when there is a loss due to a genetically modified organism, the legal concept for responsibility according to the current law can be summarized into product responsibility, environmental policy basic law, contract responsibility, and illegal activity responsibility. First, in case of product responsibility, non-fault responsibility element is introduced for the defect in manufacturing, but fault responsibility element is introduced for design defects or indication defects with the structure where the issue of development risk is evaluated at the stage of defect. Therefore, the product responsibility law is quite inadequate as the legal system to represent the position of the importing country. Also, even if genetically modified organisms are included in the scope of products, it is almost impossible to prove the causal relationship between the design/manufacturing defects for the genetically modified organisms which are products of high-degree science technology and the damage. Second, in case of environment policy law, there is the problem that it cannot be applied to environment pollution damage that occurs outside ‘business site and such.’ Also, for genetically modified organisms, in most case the genetically modified foods are delivered to the final consumer through many stages of distribution networks. The environment policy law, however, cannot be applied to accidents that occurs while moving from the business site to another. Third, in case of contract responsibility, it is possible to constitute a legal theory of contract responsibility when there is a damage between the corresponding parties. The damage regarding genetically modified organisms, however, is generally the damage to crops of nearby farmers by the farmer growing the genetically modified seeds, or the damage incurred to the consumer after a complex distribution process. Therefore, in this case it is difficult to constitute a legal theory by the contract responsibility. Fourth, in case of illegal activity responsibility, most information regarding the genetically modified organisms is accumulated by large corporations, and the information is not provided to the victims. Accordingly, the victims in most cases lack the technical knowledge on the technical area of the science technology, and it is practically impossible for the victim to prove the damage from which the dispute arises. In such cases, the consumer rights may be protected by the legal analysis relieving the burden of proof for such conditions, or by probability theory/preemptive presumption theory, but it poses the concern that it may hinder the legal safety in that the criteria of legal analysis is unclear. Therefore, the application of the current law in the method of implementing legislation of additional protocol is limited. Therefore, in future, there should be studies on the method of legislating a separate special law or applying the combination of special laws prepared separately from the current law in preparation of the implementing regulations according to Article 12 of 「Additional Protocol for Responsibility and Aid」.

참고문헌 (78)

  1. "Cartahena Protocol on Biosafety to the Convention on Biological Diversity Article 4 (Scope)", ~
  2. 박원석, "LMO", GMO 규제법률 도입방법에 대한 비교법적 고찰 - 한국, 미국, 유럽연합을 중심으로 -, 2010, pp.12(1), 261~291[DOI]
  3. "바이오안전성의정서 제27조(책임 및 구제)", ~
  4. 장호민, "유전자변형생물체 Q&A·용어집", pp.6~ (2011), 한국바이오안전성정보센터
  5. 최승환, "LMO책임복구 추가의정서(안) 평가와 전망", BIOSAFETY, 11(2), pp.29~ (2010), KBCH
  6. 장호민, "바이오 안전성 의정서와 책임·구제 추가 의정서", pp.6~7 (2011), 바이오안전성센터
  7. "책임 및 구제에 관한 추가의정서 제1조", ~
  8. "책임 및 구제에 관한 추가의정서 제2조", ~
  9. 최승필, "바이오안전성의정서 추가의정서상의 손해배상에 관한 법적문제", 환경법연구, 34(1), pp.129~173 (2012), 한국환경법학회[DOI]
  10. 최승환, "LMO 책임복구 추가의정서의 주요 내용과 평가", BIOSAFETY, 11(3), pp.42~ (2010), KBCH
  11. 박기주, "나고야-쿠알라룸푸르 추가의정서의 설립과정과 향후과제-유전자변형생물체(LMO)의 환경방출사례를 중심으로", 과학기술법연구, 17(2), pp.18~, 한남대학교 과학기술법연구원
  12. LMO포럼운영위원회, "책임·구제 추가의정서 및 LMO법 일부 개정안 설명회", 제5차 LMO포럼 세미나, pp.14~ (2011)
  13. "책임 및 구제에 관한 추가의정서 제10조", ~
  14. 遺傳子組換食品の製造物責任, "升田純", ~, pp.NBL, No.726 (2001)
  15. 김민중, "외국(유럽·일본)의 제조물책임입법동향", 인권과 정의, pp.72~ (1994)
  16. 이영규, "유전자변형식품사고시 민사책임", 법학논총, 24(3), pp.791~812 (2007), 법학연구소
  17. 윤석찬, "유전자변형(GMO) 생산물로 인한 손해발생과 책임법리에 관한 연구", 재산법연구, 26(3), pp.87~115 (2010), 한국재산법학회
  18. 김종현, "미가공1차 농수축산물의 결함으로 인한 제조물책임 - 독일 제조물책임법 제2조의 개정내용을 중심으로 -", 재산법연구, 22(1), pp.265~288 (2005), 한국재산법학회
  19. 김천수, "제조물책임법상 제조물의 개념", 성균관법학, 16(1), pp.35~66 (2004), 법학연구소
  20. "Restatement Third, torts products liability §19", ~
  21. "일본 제조물책임법 제2조", ~
  22. 안법영, "의료와 제조물책임", 고려법학, 40, pp.179~ (2003), 고려대학교 법학연구원
  23. 한국소비자보호원, "제조물책임법 해설 및 사례", 26~ (2002)
  24. 강봉석, "유전공학에서의 손해배상책임", 환경법연구, 24(1), pp.280~ (2002)
  25. 浦上秀司, "製造物責任(PL)實用便覽" (1993), (株)オフィス東和
  26. 지원림, "민법강의", pp.1662~ (2009), 박영사
  27. 박경재, "제조물책임법소고", 부산법조, 22, pp.122~ (2005), 부산지방변호사회
  28. 이은영, "채권각론", pp.908~ (2005), 박영사
  29. D. Owen, "Product Liability Law", pp.434~435 (2005), Thomson West
  30. 이영규, "식품사고와 제조물책임", 법과정책연구, 7(1), pp.145~172 (2007), 한국법정책학회
  31. 김형배, "민법학강의", pp.1736~ (2012), 신조사
  32. "Kramer v. Aventis CrosScience USA Holding, Inc.(In re StarLink Corn)212F. supp. 2d 828(N.D.Ⅲ.2002)", ~ (2002)
  33. Celeste Marie Steen, "FIFRA’s Preemption of Common Law Tort Actions Involving Genetically Engineered Pesticides", Ariz. L. Rev, 38(763), pp.789~ (1996)
  34. 김재수, "미국의 식품안전관리제도 현황과 시사점", 농촌경제, 28(4), pp.73~92 (2005), 재단법인 한국농촌경제연구원
  35. 김혜영, "유전자변형식품의 안전성 관리와 표시제 동향,", 자연과학연구소 논문지, 8(1) (2003), 용인대학교 자연과학연구소
  36. 최승환, "WTO 체제상 유전자변형식품에 대한 의무표시제의 합법성: EU의 관련 입법을 중심으로", 국제법무연구, 3(1) (1999), 경희대학교 국제법무대학원
  37. "EU 제조물책임지침 제4조", ~
  38. "프랑스 민법 제1386조", ~
  39. "대법원 2000. 2. 25. 선고 98다15934 판결", ~ (2000)
  40. "日本消費經濟新聞 第1575", ~ (2002)
  41. 김은진, "한미FTA가 국내 GMO관련 법제도에 미치는 영향", 원광법학, 23(2), pp.453~479 (2007), 법학연구소
  42. Horst Hasskarl, "Deutsches Gentechnikrecht", pp.129~ (2007)
  43. 이상정, "제조물책임법과 개발위험의 항변", 2003년 봄 학술대회, pp.157~ (2003), 한국상품학회
  44. 홍춘의, "제조물책임에 있어서의 결함개념", 재산법연구, 10(1), pp.52~ (1993)
  45. 권대우, "독일법상 제조물책임과 유럽공동체의 입법지침", 판례실무연구, Ⅲ, pp.511~ (2000)
  46. 제조물책임법의 제정에 관한 연구, "강창경", 한국소비자보호원, 80~, pp.한국소비자보호원연구회 보고서94-03 (1994)
  47. "소비자보호법(ConsumerProtection Act 1987)", ~ (1987)
  48. 조승현, "기업공공성과 제조물책임-제조물책임과 유전자조작 책임의 사례를 중심으로", 민주주의 법학연구회 2002년 심포지엄 (공공부문과 민주법학) 발표자료 (2002)
  49. 김성천, "유전자변형생물체와 제조물책임 문제에 대한 고찰", BIOSAFETY, 7(1)통권 : 26, pp.38~ (2006)
  50. 조승현, "유전자변형물의 법적 통제에 관한 연구", 한국방송통신대학교 논문집, (40), pp.272~ (2005)
  51. 김은진, "유전자변형생물체의 법적 규제에 관한 연구 : 지적재산권 제한 및 안전성 확보방안을 중심으로", 박사, 법학, pp.2006
  52. "환경보전법 제60조", ~ (1977)
  53. "환경정책기본법", ~
  54. 안법영, "환경오염 사고와 위험책임-일반조항적 위험책임구성을 위한 법정책적 소고, In 환경오염의 법적 구제와 개선책", pp.307~ (1996), 도서출판 소화
  55. 구연창, "환경보전법", pp.446~ (1981), 삼영사
  56. "환경분쟁조정법", ~
  57. 김홍균, "환경법-문제사례-", pp.36~37 (2007), 홍문사
  58. 강봉석, "유전공학에서의의 손해배상책임", 환경법연구, 24(1), pp.276~277 (2002), 환경법학회
  59. "인천지법 2004.10.22. 선고 2002가단23361 판결(확정)", ~ (2004)
  60. "BGH NJW 1960,1345", ~
  61. "BGHZ 55, 229; 54,332", ~
  62. 곽윤직, "채권총론", pp.89~ (2006), 박영사
  63. 김은진, "추가의정서 상의 GMO의 잠재적 위험에 따른 책임제도", 의생명과학과 법, 6, pp.86~ (2011), 원광대학교 법학연구소
  64. 김상용, "채권각론", pp.603~ (2011), 화산미디어
  65. 이재협, "유전자변형생물체 사고에 있어서 책임배상체계", 경희법학, 39(2), pp.192~ (2004), 경희대학교 법학연구소
  66. "대법원 2004. 11.26. 선고 2003다2123 판결", ~ (2004)
  67. 대법원, "대법원 2002. 10.22. 선고 2000다65666, 65673 판결", ~ (2002)
  68. 조승현, "추가의정서에 따른 GMO의 국가간 이동으로 인한 피해와 민사책임", 농업농민정책연구소, (33), pp.5~, 농업농민정책연구소
  69. "서울고등법원 1973.9.6. 선고 71나1620 판결", ~ (1973)
  70. "서울고등법원 1975.12.12. 선고 75나179판결", ~ (1975)
  71. 오현규, "위법성 판단기준으로서의 수인한도, In 민사판례연구 XXV", pp.282~ (2003), 박영사
  72. 정진명, "환경오염 피해에 대한 사법적 구제", 환경법연구, 21, pp.171~ (1999), 한국환경법학회
  73. 김형배, "위험책임체계와 특별법의 해석", 법학논집, 34, pp.146~152 (1998), 고려대학교 법학연구소
  74. 윤규한, "간접반증", 재판자료, 25, pp.386~ (1985), 대법원 법원행정처
  75. 오석락, "환경소송의 제문제", pp.93~ (1996), 삼영사
  76. 김홍엽, "민사소송법", pp.570~571 (2010), 박영사
  77. "독일 유전공학법 제32조", ~
  78. 문상혁, "유전자변형생물체에 관한 법적 규제와 손해배상책임", 박사, 민사법, pp.2010

관련 논문AI추천

나고야-쿠알라룸푸르 추가의정서 이행을 위한 입법 방안이세정과학기술법연구원 · 과학기술법연구2011 · 제17권 제2호나고야-쿠알라룸푸르 추가의정서에 대응한 독일의 책임법리 - 유전자공학법상 위험책임을 중심으로 -이경희과학기술법연구원 · 과학기술법연구2011 · 제17권 제2호바이오안전성에 관한 카르타헤나 의정서의 책임 및 구제에 관한 나고야-쿠알라룸푸르 추가의정서상의 손해와 그 유형신동현과학기술법연구원 · 과학기술법연구2011 · 제17권 제2호나고야-쿠알라룸푸르 책임구제 추가의정서의 최근 동향과 국내 손해배상 입법 대응조인성법과정책연구원 · 법과정책2014 · 제20권 제2호나고야-쿠알라룸푸르 추가의정서의 성립과정과 향후과제 -유전자변형생물체(LMO)의 환경방출사례를 중심으로-박기주과학기술법연구원 · 과학기술법연구2011 · 제17권 제2호유전자변형생물체(LMO) 책임복구 추가의정서의 법적 쟁점과 법적ㆍ제도적 대응방향최승환법무부 · 국제법무연구2010 · 제96호

이 간행물의 다른 논문 (4건)

인간대상연구에 있어서 기관생명윤리위원회의 역할에 관한 한국과 미국의 규제법 비교박수헌pp. 1-30부분-인간화 동물(Part-Human Animals)에 관한 시민 인식 및 규제 현황모효정pp. 59-82자해할 권리의 성립 가능성과 후견주의적 제한의 정당성 검토이유경pp. 83-106허위입원을 통한 보험사기유정은pp. 107-124
원문 보기