DCFR상 소비자⋅사업자의 정의 -우리 법과의 비교 검토-
The Definition of Consumer⋅Business in DCFR: A Comparative Study with Korean Consumer Law
0
조회
0
다운로드
24
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
DCFR is an important fruit for the harmonization or unification of European private law. In terms of consumer law, it is also very important as it includes broad consumer contract law in it. The aim of this article is to find out the characteristics of definition of consumer and business in DCFR and to comparatively analyze them with Korean consumer law. Through this research, I will point out some problems in Korean consumer law and suggest the direction of improvement. The result of this study is like this: there are three differences in the definition of consumer and business between DCFR and Korean consumer law. First, in Korean law, consumer can be legal person while in DCFR consumer is only natural person. Second, the definition of business in Korean law is very broad and equivocal while in DCFR it is clearly limited to some category. Third, in Korean law, when a natural person is also a business, there is no specific criteria for distinction while DCFR has it, which is “primary purpose”. In conclusion, I suggest that the definition of consumer and business in Korean consumer law is needed to be revised for better improvement. Most of all, in Korean law, consumer should be limited to natural person.
Abstract
DCFR is an important fruit for the harmonization or unification of European private law. In terms of consumer law, it is also very important as it includes broad consumer contract law in it. The aim of this article is to find out the characteristics of definition of consumer and business in DCFR and to comparatively analyze them with Korean consumer law. Through this research, I will point out some problems in Korean consumer law and suggest the direction of improvement. The result of this study is like this: there are three differences in the definition of consumer and business between DCFR and Korean consumer law. First, in Korean law, consumer can be legal person while in DCFR consumer is only natural person. Second, the definition of business in Korean law is very broad and equivocal while in DCFR it is clearly limited to some category. Third, in Korean law, when a natural person is also a business, there is no specific criteria for distinction while DCFR has it, which is “primary purpose”. In conclusion, I suggest that the definition of consumer and business in Korean consumer law is needed to be revised for better improvement. Most of all, in Korean law, consumer should be limited to natural person.
참고문헌 (15)
- 박희주, "개정 소비자기본법 해설", 한국소비자원, ~ (2007)
- 김성천, "소비자법상 소비자개념에 관한 연구", 경제법연구, 4(1) (2005)
- 김진우, "공통참조기준초안(DCFR)에 따른 계약의 내용통제", 한국소비자법학회 제8회 학술대회 자료집 (2012)
- 김진우, "DCFR과 유럽소비자계약법 - 우리 민법학에의 시사점을 덧붙여 -", 외법논집, 33(4), pp.35~73 (2009), 법학연구소
- 서희석, "소비자법의 민법전편입 방안 －한국소비자법의 특징과 이론적 정합성의 관점에서－", 법학논총, 31(1), pp.249~280 (2011), 법학연구소
- 서희석, "소비자법 민법전편입의 이론적 근거와 방향성 - 실질적 사적자치론 · 소비자계약론의 관점에서 -", 재산법연구, 27(2), pp.259~294 (2010), 한국재산법학회
- 서희석, "소비자기본법 30년과 소비자법의 구조전환 - 소비자법의 제3의 물결을 위하여 -", 법조, 60(3), pp.84~147 (2011), 법조협회
- 석광현, "개정 國際私法의 소개 : 國際去來에 미치는영향을 중심으로", 무역상무연구, 20, pp.2~62 (2003), 한국무역상무학회
- 이병준, "독일 민법상의 소비자개념", 민사법학, (26), pp.171~203 (2004), 한국민사법학회
- 이병준, "유럽계약법에서의 소비자와 사업자", 외법논집, (23), pp.1~30 (2006), 법학연구소
- Christian von Bar, "Principles, Definitions and Model Rules of European Private Law, Draft Common Frame of Reference(DCFR), Full Edition, BookⅠ" (2009)
- Research Group on the Existing EC Private Law(Acquis Group), "Principle of Existing EC Contract Law(Acquis Principles) ContractⅠ : Pre-contractual Obligations, Conclusion of Contract, Unfair Terms" (2007), Sellier European Law Publishers
- 野澤正充, "民法学と消費者法学の軌跡" (2009), 信山社
- 民法(債権法)改正検討委員会, "債権法改正の基本方針" (2009), 商事法務
- 谷本圭子, "民法上の人と消費者, In 民法学の課題と展望(石田喜久夫先生古希記念)" (2000), 成文堂