• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제21권1호
• /
• pp.3-31
• /
• 2011

In response to complexity and diversity of a social phenomenon, the dispute also is various, therefore can not be settled efficiently by means of court adjudication to which applies a law strictly. To overcome such problems we are going to seek to make use of arbitration. According to Korean Arbitration Act Art. 3 (1), any dispute in private laws would be the object of arbitral proceedings. It could be the object of arbitral proceedings that disputes which are capable of a settlement by arbitration. It is a matter for debate that disputes containing punitive damages may be resolved by arbitration. This problem is concerning the arbitrability of the subject-matter of a dispute. To offer some solution to these issues, it is necessary to inquire into the nature of punitive damages. the policy and function of alimony, the fair apportionment of a loss. Moreover, international relations formed with international transactions should be considered. Punitive damages would be the object of arbitral proceedings as the dipute in private laws. When punitive damages pursue only punishment in the domestic arbitration that there is not foreign factors, arbitral tribunal could not make arbitral award containing punitive damages. However, if punitive damages are admitted under the rules applicable to substance of dispute, and there is the arbitration agreement in which is implied that the parties agree to submit to an arbitral award, arbitral tribunal could make arbitral award containing punitive damages in international arbitration. When it is questionable whether it is offend against our public policy or not, that we accept the effect of arbitral award containing punitive damages, and we admit the enforcement of it, we have to take the nature of punitive damages, the policy and function of alimony, the fair apportionment of a loss and the stability of international transactions into consideration.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제14권2호
• /
• pp.107-133
• /
• 2004

In these days, arbitration helps alleviate some of the burden of a heavy caseload from the judiciary and is a viable method to resolve disputes in a relatively quick and efficient manner. An award of punitive damages is often the most significant and detrimental part of an award arising from a judicial or arbitral proceeding. In 1995, the United States Supreme Court resolved a circuit split. upholding an arbitral panel's authority to award punitive damages under a securities arbitration agreement. This decision was monumental in establishing arbitral power. However, it left several questions unanswered. For example, which, if any, standards should be applied to such awards？ The decision in Sawtelle, adopting a separate ground for review of punitive damages awards, is one that signals a significant change in the field of arbitration. This article addresses the reviewability of punitive damages awards arising out of a securities arbitration hearing. It would be necessary to introduce securities arbitration system to our disputes resolution system. Compared to American practices, there could be many differences in recognition on arbitration and legal structure in our country. Thus it will be a future assignment to consider seriously and carefully what kind of securities arbitration system will be proper for us. This article analyzed predispute arbitration agreements and agreements to arbitrate after a dispute has already arisen.

• 중소기업연구
• /
• 제42권1호
• /
• pp.19-41
• /
• 2020

우리나라는 불법행위로 인한 손해배상액 산정은 침해로 인한 일실이익에 대한 전보배상이 원칙이다. 그러나 우리나라는 대륙법계 국가로는 드물게 영미법상에 도입된 징벌적 손해배상제도를 도입하고 있다. 기술보호 관련 법률로는 2011년 하도급법에 도입된 이래, 2019년 특허법, 영업비밀보호법, 산업기술보호법, 상생협력법에 도입되었다. 징벌적 손해배상은 '고의'에 대한 판단이 특히 중요한데, 아직까지 판례가 축적되지 못한 관계로 미국의 판례를 참고할 필요가 있다. 대기업은 변호사의 자문 등을 통한 고의의 회피가 가능하나 중소기업은 제도 인식의 미비 등으로 오히려 징벌적 손해배상을 해주어야 하는 경우가 더 많아 질수도 있어 이들에 대한 정책적 배려가 필요하다. 특허법을 제외한 영업비밀보호법, 산업기술보호법, 하도급법, 상생협력법의 경우 징벌적 손해배상 도입에도 불구하고, 손해의 입증과 관련된 규정은 아직 정비가 되지 못한 상태이다. 따라서 입증자료 제출 범위 확대, 손해액 산정을 위한 자료인 경우에는 자료제출 명령의 대상으로 하고, 자료제출 명령을 따르지 않는 경우에는 침해에 대한 상대방의 주장을 진실한 것으로 인정하는 등 개정 특허법의 수준으로 정비될 필요가 있다. 영업비밀보호법의 경우 손해액의 추정에 있어 로열티 상당액의 산정에 있어서는 통상적인 금액이 아닌, 개정 특허법과 같이 '합리적'으로 추산된 금액을 받을 수 있도록 이를 고려하여 향후 개정될 필요가 있다. 한편, 산업기술보호법, 하도급법, 상생협력법은 손해액 추정규정 자체가 없는 상태이므로, 손해액 추정규정 도입에 대한 검토가 필요하다고 할 것이다. 아울러 신기술의 유출이나 탈취의 경우 기술가치 평가가 어렵다. 따라서 피해액 산정을 위한 모델개발과 함께 가치평가가 공신력 있는 기관에서 이루어질 필요가 있다.

• 한국산학기술학회논문지
• /
• 제16권9호
• /
• pp.5865-5874
• /
• 2015

최근들어 세월호 참사등의 대형사고는 인재로 밝혀지고 있고, 사고원인 역시 현장 대응 매뉴얼 부재와 관리사각지대, 안전불감증등으로 집약된다. 사고보다 더 큰 문제가 사업장의 안전불감증이다. 이 대목이 바로 안전사고를 낸 사업장과 사업주에 징벌적 손해배상제를 도입해야 하는 이유이기도 하다. 가해자의 불법행위로 인한 실질적인 손해배상에 추가하여 더 많은 금액을 배상함으로써 불법행위가 반복되는 상황을 막기위한 형벌적 성격을 띠고 있다. 현재는 기본적으로 손해를 끼친 피해에 상응하는 '보상적 손해배상제도'를 법률로 인정하고 있는데, 피해자를 제대로 구제하지 못하고 있다는 비판을 받고 있다. 그러나 안전사고 예방을 위해서는 징벌적 손해배상제도의 도입이 필요하다. 왜냐하면 이 제도는 후진적 안전사고의 재발을 막는 한편, 안전을 위한 투자 및 관리에 힘쓰는 건전한 기업에는 더욱 많은 기회를 주는 방향으로 운용될 수 있고, 국민의 안전을 위협하고 도외시하는 기업은 퇴출시키는 것이 사회정의에도 부합하기 때문이다.

• 제품안전
• /
• 통권100호
• /
• pp.43-45
• /
• 2002

미국은 우리나라의 최대 수출시장으로 국내의 제조업체들이 미국내에서의 PL소송을 통해 막대한 배상송실을 초래하여 값비싼 경험을 한바 있다. 미국의 제조물책임법은 여타국가에서는 찾아볼 수없는 특수한 성격을 지니고 있다. 첫째 예상밖의 소송(Frivolous Suits)을 들 수 있다. 둘째, 연대책임과 이와 관련된 디피포켓이론(Deep Pocket Theory)이다. 셋째 징벌적 배상(Punitive Damages)인데, 앞날을 경계하는 뜻으로 벌을 준다는

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제27권4호
• /
• pp.199-222
• /
• 2017

Currently, many punitive damages (or statutory damages) and class action laws are discussed in relation to the consumer damage relief system. It is in the background of the argument that the introduction of such a victim relief system will solve many small and large consumer damages. There are many cases in which the punitive damages compensation or the class action system are introduced in relation to the food safety damage naturally. Although the introduction of such a system can clearly help the consumer to relieve large-scale damage, it can not solve all the problems at once because the company can reject the system despite the introduction of such a system. In particular, class action lawsuits should have the same type of damage, but most of the damage caused by food safety is accompanied by physical harm, resulting in various complications such as the physical characteristics of the victim, the health environment. The class action system may not provide a solution in that the content and type of the damage may be different. In this regard, this study aims to investigate the introduction of the food safety damage relief system through the introduction of an administrative dispute settlement system by an administrative agency that occupies an absolute position in the existing consumer protection from this point of view. In reality, the Food and Drug Administration, which is the largest among government agencies related to food, operates a passive attitude consumer protection system such as function like guidance, supervision and surveillance. And it is necessary to make a complementary proposal. In the current law, there is only a small part of the consumer protection work that is positively legal, and even after the damage is scientifically identified, it is not possible to present the solution to the damage suffered by the consumer through legislation. This is a fact that has been raised. In this paper, we propose a reasonable and rapid disaster relief procedure through a separate mechanism within the administrative agency, which is the administration agency, that the dispute settlement procedure due to food safety damage is insufficient by solving the case through the court through counseling, dispute adjustment and civil proceedings. In order to solve the problem of food insecurity and the food industry, various ways of rational solution of the problem were considered. The possibility of (1) Establishment of a food safety dispute resolution committee; (2) Establishment of a food safety disaster relief committee; and (3) Establishment of a food safety disaster relief committee was discussed. In addition, a plan for the creation of a food damage compensation fund was also proposed.

• 한국컴퓨터정보학회논문지
• /
• 제23권3호
• /
• pp.93-100
• /
• 2018

Cyber defamation is the act of damaging the reputation of the other person on the Internet, and the act of attacking by the commenting the article through a word or blog. The reason why punishment is stronger than general contempt is that the nature of crime about defamation is worse than contempt. Also, punishment intensity is higher than defamation because the nature of cyber information spreads widely. Honor is not only a question of self-esteem or identity, but also a function that economically reduces the cost of seeking information or socially trustworthy. Through these two functions, it has been developed as a legal system to protect the honor as well as asking the legal sanction for defamation. However, although honor is used in various meanings in everyday life, the honor of legal level is understood in a more limited sense. It is because the law cannot actively lead and protect all honor feelings for one's feelings or mood occurred by hurt. However, if the social evaluation of a group or individual is undermined through a certain distortion of the truth, the law will actively intervene. However, due to the ambiguity of the legal sanctions standards and the identification of the parties involved in the defamation of cyberspace, it was difficult to solve the problems related to defamation in fact. Therefore, this paper will try to find out the problems of civil legal remedy due to the cyber defamation, and seek a solution for civil legal remedy.

• 한국산학기술학회논문지
• /
• 제18권6호
• /
• pp.596-608
• /
• 2017

2002년 제조물책임법(PL)을 시행하여 소비자가 제조물을 생산하고 판매하는 기업에 대하여 제품의 결함에 따른 손해배상을 청구할 수 있도록 하는 제도적 장치를 마련하였다. 그러나 최근 가습기 살균제 사건 등으로 인해 기업의 제조물책임 강화와 소비자 피해구제를 위한 집단소송제도, 징벌적배상제 도입을 위하여 제조물책임법 개정안 등 현재, 12여건의 관련 법안이 국회에 발의되어 있으나 정작 법안의 이해 당사자인 중소기업의 62.6%는 이에 대해 잘 알고 있지 못한 것으로 나타났다고 하고 있다. 많은 기업들이 PL 방어대책(Product Liability Defense : PLD)으로 문서작성 보관의 적정화, 관련업자와의 책임관계의 명확화, PL 보험의 가입 또는 배상자금의 확보 등으로 대비하고 있으나 이와 같은 대비책은 제품의 설계와 제품의 안전성을 고려한 부분에 대하여 한계점을 느끼게 한다. 이에 본 연구는 먼저 PL의 명확한 개념과 대응방안에 대해 살펴보고 PL 시스템과 개별 경영시스템 간의 관련성을 파악하고 제조물책임법에 대비한 PL 대응시스템을 기업의 개별경영시스템에 통합하고 보다 제품의 안전에 중점을 둔 개별경영시스템 모델을 제시하고자한다. 이 같은 연구목적에 따른 결과는 중소기업의 PL법 대응을 위한 합리적 대응방안으로 평가 받을 것으로 기대된다.

• 항공우주정책ㆍ법학회지
• /
• 제5권
• /
• pp.119-169
• /
• 1993

In this article the present writers have surveyed recent cases on Warsaw Convention especially on the cases emerged in the years between 1986 to 1993. The cases before 1986 were discussed already in the book titled "Liability of International Air Carrier," written by Professor Choi, published in Seoul 1986. In this article the writers have reviewed most of the American cases and some cases from the courts of Germany, France and England. Main subjects which were discussed herein were as follows: Liability of air carriers in Warsaw Convention carriage 1. Exclusivity of the Warsaw Convention as a remedy 2. Warsaw Jurisdiction 3. The scope of the Warsaw Convention's definition of "Accident" under Article 17 of the Warsaw Convention (1) Mental anguish (2) Unusual or unexpected events 4. Adequacy of notice of the limitation of liability to passengers for injuries and death 5. Damages recoverable, punitive damages and burden of proof 6. The wilful misconduct exception; definition of wilful misconduct 7. Cargo and passenger baggage 8. Time limitation of actions After examining articles published world-wide, this article compiles and analyses recent cases involving the Warsaw Convention system. As Warsaw System is based on international convention, maintaining uniformity in interpretation is of utmost importance. Therefore, this type of study is essential for resolving air-transportation disputes in Korea. This article examines the current state and recommends the desired course for the Warsaw Convention. The writers hope that this article is helpful to the Korean courts and those in the air-transportation industry in interpreting the Warsaw Convention.

• 의료법학
• /
• 제10권2호
• /
• pp.455-492
• /
• 2009

(Background) Recent biotechnological breakthroughs are shedding new lights on various ethical and legal issues about human biological material. Since Rudolph Virchow, a German pathologist, had founded the medical discipline of cellular pathology, issues centering around human biological materials began to draw attention. The issues involving human biological materials were revisited with more attention along with series concerns when the human genome map was finally completed. Recently, with researches on human genes and bioengineering reaping enormous commercial values in the form of material patent, such changes require a society to reassess the present and future status of human tissue within the legal system. This in turn gave rise to a heated debate over how to protect the rights of material donors: property rule vs. no property rule. (Debate and Cases) Property rule recognizes the donors' property rights on human biological materials. Thus, donors can claim real action if there were any bleach of informed consent or a donation contract. Donors can also claim damages to the responsible party when there is an infringement of property rights. Some even uphold the concept of material patents overtaking. From the viewpoint of no property rule, human biological materials are objects separated from donors. Thus, a recipient or a third party will be held liable if there were any infringement of donor's human rights. Human biological materials should not be commercially traded and a patent based on a human biological materials research does not belong to the donor of the tissues used during the course of research. In the US, two courts, Moore v. Regents of the University of California, and Greenberg v. Miami Children's Hospital Research Institute, Inc., have already decided that research participants retain no ownership of the biological specimens they contribute to medical research. Significantly, both Moore and Greenberg cases found that the researcher had parted with all ownership rights in the tissue samples when they donated them to the institutions, even though there was no provision in the informed consent forms stating either that the participants donated their tissue or waived their rights to ownership of the tissue. These rulings were led to huge controversy over property rights on human tissues. This research supports no property rule on the ground that it can protect the human dignity and prevent humans from objectification and commercialization. Human biological materials are already parted from human bodies and should be treated differently from the engineering and researches of those materials. Donors do not retain any ownership. (Suggestions) No property rule requires a legal breakthrough in the US in terms of donors' rights protection due to the absence of punitive damages provisions. The Donor rights issue on human biological material can be addressed through prospective legislation or tax policies, price control over patent products, and wider coverage of medical insurance. (Conclusions) Amid growing awareness over commercial values of human biological materials, no property rule should be adopted in order to protect human dignity but not without revamping legal provisions. The donors' rights issue in material patents requires prospective legislation based on current uncertainties. Also should be sought are solutions in the social context and all these discussions should be based on sound medical ethics of both medical staffs and researchers.