지원사업
학술연구/단체지원/교육 등 연구자 활동을 지속하도록 DBpia가 지원하고 있어요.
커뮤니티
연구자들이 자신의 연구와 전문성을 널리 알리고, 새로운 협력의 기회를 만들 수 있는 네트워킹 공간이에요.
초록· 키워드
오류제보하기
Article 124 of the Korean Constitution prescribes that the State should guarantee "consumer protection movements." Article 4 of the Consumer Basic Act provides eight kinds of consumer rights. However, civil or criminal sanction is often imposed on consumer boycotts in Korea.
Frist, this Article briefly reviews why consumer movements are necessary in a contemporary capitalist society. Second, it examines whether "consumer protection movements" are a constitutional right or legal right, and whether "secondary boycotts" are included in "consumer protection movements" or not. Third, it remarks that "secondary boycotts" by consumers are legally guaranteed in the United States,whereas there is misunderstanding in Korea that all "secondary boycotts" are prohibited in the States. Fourth, it analyzes one civil case and two criminal cases with regard to the "secondary boycotts" in Korea. It criticizes the Supreme Court's civil decision concerning the "secondary boycott" against Michael Jackson's concert in 1996, and criticizes two lower courts' criminal decisions regarding the "secondary boycotts" against three major newspapers.
Finally, this Article argues that any legal sanction should not be given to "secondary boycotts" without violence: in particular, the crime of 'interference with business' in the Article 314 of the Korean Penal Code should not be applied to "secondary boycotts" without violence because non-violent "secondary boycotts" per se are supposed to interfere with the business of others.
목차
등록된 정보가 없습니다.
참고문헌 (37)
참고문헌 신청
이 논문의 저자 정보
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0