Journal of the Korea Academia-Industrial cooperation Society (한국산학기술학회논문지)

The Korea Academia-Industrial cooperation Society (한국산학기술학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

A Study of the Legal Principles of the Obligation to Compensate for Damage by Unfair Labeling and Advertising Focusing on the Qualitative Analyses of Supreme Court Precedents

부당한 표시·광고의 손해 배상 책임의 법리에 관한 연구: 대법원 판례에 대한 질적 내용 분석

  • Cho, Jae-Yung (Department of Advertising and PR, Chungwoon University)
  • 조재영 (청운대학교 광고홍보학과)
  • Received : 2017.12.11
  • Accepted : 2018.03.09
  • Published : 2018.03.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The literature of unfair labeling and advertising(ULA) was reviewed, along with the requirement for establishing an obligation to compensate for damage(OCD) by it based on the Act on Fair Labeling and Advertising(FLAA). ULA covers cases of possible deception or misleading consumers and thereby undermining fair trade order, or making other business entities do so. FLAA regulates OCD by ULA, but the Civil Act should also be considered for its effective results since the Act regards ULA as unlawful and duty bound to make compensation for damages arising therein. In this context, the study analyzed qualitatively 17 supreme court precedents related to OCD by ULA among a total of 119 by advertising to find the characteristics of the judgemental principles. It is found that most principles came from FLAA and the Act focusing on the meaning of false or exaggerated advertising, which is one of the following five ULA types according to its standards of judgment: its requirement for fraudulent acts, the meaning of damage by it, the perspective of calculation of damages, the requirement of OCD, and the characteristics of claim for damages. A more effective policy is suggested based on FLAA and related research should be continually carried on.

본 연구에서는 기존의 연구들을 바탕으로 표시 광고의 공정화에 관한 법률(표시 광고법)에 기반한 부당한 표시 광고의 의미 및 그로 인한 손해배상책임의 성립 요건에 대해 고찰하였다. 부당한 표시 광고란 소비자를 속이거나 소비자로 하여금 잘못 알게 할 우려가 있는 표시 광고를 말하며 또한 공정한 거래 질서를 해칠 우려가 있는 것을 의미한다. 표시 광고법은 부당한 표시 광고에 의한 소비자 피해에 대해서는 손해배상책임을 규정하고 있는데 이것이 실질적으로 실행되려면 민법적인 접근이 요구된다. 민법상 부당한 표시 광고 행위는 위법성을 지니며 불법행위로 간주되어 손해배상책임을 부담하게 된다. 이와 같은 이론을 바탕으로 대법원 판례를 질적 내용 분석하여 부당한 표시 광고에 의한 손해배상책임의 법리적 특성을 살펴보았다. 광고 및 손해배상책임과 관련된 119건의 판례 중에서 부당한 표시 광고로 인한 손해배상책임과 관련된 17건의 판례를 분석하였다. 분석 결과, 대부분이 민법 및 표시 광고법의 시각에서 판시되었으며 그 법리는 허위 과장 광고의 의미, 판단 기준 및 기망행위에 포함될 경우의 요건, 허위 과장 광고 등 부당한 표시 광고에 의한 '손해'의 의미, 손해액의 산정 방법, 손해배상책임 성립의 요건 그리고 손해배상청구권의 특성에 관한 것이었다. 전체적으로 부당한 표시 광고에 기인한 손해배상 책임 관련 판례의 법리는 주로 '손해'의 의미 규정, 손해액의 산정 방법 등에 초점을 두었음을 알 수 있었다. 앞으로는 현행 표시 광고법상의 손해배상책임 규정이 실효성 있도록 제도 개선이 필요하며 관련 연구들도 지속적으로 실행될 필요가 있다.

Keywords

References

  1. Act on Fair Labeling and Advertising. National Law Information Center. Available From: http://www.law.go.kr.
  2. Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act. National Law Information Center. Available From: http://www.law.go.kr.
  3. S. K. Du, "A Review of the Judgemental Principles and Formation Conditions of Unfair Advertising", Advertising Studies, 24, pp. 143-173, 1994.
  4. S. Y. Park, S. K. Du, "A Study of the Principles of Unfair Advertising Regulation", A Report for Policy Studies, Korean Consumer Agency, 1994.
  5. J. W. Jung, "A Review of Rational Management of the Regulation of Unfair Labeling and Advertising in the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act", Han Yang Law Review, 9, pp. 107-144, 998.
  6. K. S. Choi, "Part 3. Consumer Safety and Unfair Advertising: the Activities for the Relief of Damages to Consumers by Unfair Advertising, False Advertising and Exaggerated Advertising", Korean-German Law Studies, 12, pp. 178-202, 1996.
  7. S. J. Sohn, "The Possibility of Causing Misconception of Unfair Advertising", Commercial Cases Review, 10, pp. 255-271, 1999.
  8. S. Y. Park, "The Formation and Types of Unfair Labelling and Advertising Activities", BUSINESS LAW REVIEW, 13, pp. 271-307, 2003.
  9. Y. S. Won, "An Explanatory Study of Theories on Law of Manifestation and Advertisement", Journal of Business Administration & Law, vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 353-387, 2003.
  10. S. A. Choi, J. S. Yeo, "Policy Evaluation on Consumer Information Disclosure Regulation -Designation system of Critical Information to be Included in Labeling and Advertising", Journal of Consumer Studies, vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 119-150, 2005.
  11. S. J. Sohn, "A Study on the Advertising Substantiation in Representation and Advertising Fairness Law", Han Yang Law Review, 10, pp. 287-306, 1999.
  12. Y. S. Won, "An Explanatory Study of Theories on Law of Manifestation and Advertisement", Journal of Business Administration & Law, 13(2), pp. 353-387, 2003.
  13. H. S. Ko, "Consumer's Damages by a Power Blogger and Redress", The Justice, 126, pp. 93-127, 2011.
  14. S. Y. Park, "A Study on Improvements of the Labeling and Advertising Substantiation - Based on the Labeling and Advertising Act", Journal of Consumer Policy Studies, vol. 44, no. 3, pp. 45-64, 2013. DOI: https://doi.org/10.15723/jcps.44.3.201312.45
  15. S. Y. Park, "A Study on the Consent Order System in the Labeling and Advertising Act", Journal of Consumer Policy Studies, vol. 45, no. 2, pp. 117-135, 2014. DOI: https://doi.org/10.15723/jcps.45.2.201408.117
  16. H. L. Park, "The Study on the Legal Character of Consent Order", Seoul Law Review, vol. 22, no. 3, pp. 365-404, 2015. DOI: https://doi.org/10.15821/slr.2015.22.3.009
  17. H. J. Park, "A Study on Introduction of Consent Order System", Journal of Consumer Policy Studies, 39, pp. 23-40, 2011.
  18. S. J. Kim, "Der Konsumerschutz gegen die unrichtige Warenkennzeichnung bzw. -werbung durch die zivilrechtlichen Regelungen", Journal of Business Administration & Law, vol. 21, no. 3, pp. 197-239, 2011.
  19. S. H. Jeong, "A Study on "illegality" as a Requirement of Regulating Wrong Labelling and Advertisement" Anam Law Review, 45, pp. 349-387, 2014.
  20. S. C. Min, "A Comparative Study on the Requirement of Competitor Lawsuit about the False or Misleading Comparative Advertising in Korean and U.S. Law", The Justice, 123, pp. 50-97, 2011.
  21. Supreme Court Judgment of 2009Da1313 sentenced on Apr. 23, 2009, Supreme Court Judgment of 2008Da1842 sentenced on Mar. 16, 2009, Supreme Court Judgment of 99Da55601 and 55618 sentenced on May 29, 2001 etc.