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
Hitherto Korean case law has consistently rejected the recognition and execution of foreign country judgments awarding punitive damages under the so-called “public order requirement” of Article 217 (1) 3 of the Civil Procedure Act. Punitive damages, based mainly on the ideology of “punishment”, was unacceptable from the standpoint of Korean civil liability law, which adheres to compensatory damages. However, Korean law has gradually accepted the notion of punitive damages in more than 20 legal areas since 2011, in the form of treble or quintuple damages. This meant that Korean courts can no more hastily jump into the conclusion that if the compensation awarded by the foreign country court is beyond the scope of compesatory damages, it violates the public order of Korea. Supreme Court Decision 2018Da231550 Decided March 11, 2022 (hereinafter referred to as “the Decision”) is the leading case in which Korean Supreme Court officially declared its changed stance on recognition and enforcement of foreign country judgments awarding punitive damages. In the midst of introduction of statutory multiple damages, the change in the Court"s view is not only inevitable, but must. However, it is doubtful whether the Court"s changed view can be applied in the matter of the Decision.
Strictly speaking, what Korean law has adopted is statutory multiple damages, not punitive damages discussed in common law countries. In Korea, the main motives of multiple damages are at promoting compensation and encouraging law enforcement, rather than punishing defendants. Also, each multiple damages law has different functions and the upper limit of compensation. That is to say, Korean civil liability law is still governed by the principle of compensatory damages, and exceptions are only granted in limited areas. Thus, the foreign country judgments awarding compensation beyond the scope of compensatory damages do not violate the Korean public policy, only if multiple damages is recognized in the corresponding "area" in Korea.
Some might say that the “area” means individual “provision”, while others might think of “act” or “legal field”. However, since there is no objective standard on how far can be codified in the same “act” or how far can be categorized as in the same “legal field”, the scope of “area” will gradually expand, ultimately leading to the radical conclusion that every foreign country judgment ordering punitive damages is within the scope of Korean public order. For the clarity of judgment, the predictability of parties, principle of reciprocity, and the continuity with conventional case law, it is necessary to determine the scope of “area” based on “provision”. Nevertheless, the Decision judged the “area” based on “act” or “legal field” using the expression “at least”, suggesting the possibility of expanding the scope of “area” in the future. Considering that the purpose of treble damages under the Hawaii Revised Statutes is at suppressing violation through punishment unlike Korean law, and that legislators deliberately excluded “unfair trade practices” which corresponds to “unfair methods of competition” in Hawaiian law from the subject of treble damages in Korean Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act, the Decision is immoderately “bold”.
Meanwhile, although not an issue in the Decision, it is necessary to think about whether and how to limit the recognition of the so-called “excessive compensatory damages”. In the past, lower courts limited the recognition if the compensatory damages awarded by foreign country court seems excessive, and the Supreme Court implicitly agreed with the view by approving such lower court judgments. Since the establishment of Article 217-2 (1) of the Civil Procedure Act however, recent Supreme Court decisions have been continually ruling that recognition of compensatory damages ordered by foreign country court cannot be restricted based on Article 217-2 (1) and (although not explicitly stated) Article 217 (1) 3. Since it is impossible for the court to provide the mathematical bright line on the amount of compensation that violates Korean public order, it is reasonable not to limit the recognition of the compensatory damages awarded by foreign country court regardless of the amount.
Strictly speaking, what Korean law has adopted is statutory multiple damages, not punitive damages discussed in common law countries. In Korea, the main motives of multiple damages are at promoting compensation and encouraging law enforcement, rather than punishing defendants. Also, each multiple damages law has different functions and the upper limit of compensation. That is to say, Korean civil liability law is still governed by the principle of compensatory damages, and exceptions are only granted in limited areas. Thus, the foreign country judgments awarding compensation beyond the scope of compensatory damages do not violate the Korean public policy, only if multiple damages is recognized in the corresponding "area" in Korea.
Some might say that the “area” means individual “provision”, while others might think of “act” or “legal field”. However, since there is no objective standard on how far can be codified in the same “act” or how far can be categorized as in the same “legal field”, the scope of “area” will gradually expand, ultimately leading to the radical conclusion that every foreign country judgment ordering punitive damages is within the scope of Korean public order. For the clarity of judgment, the predictability of parties, principle of reciprocity, and the continuity with conventional case law, it is necessary to determine the scope of “area” based on “provision”. Nevertheless, the Decision judged the “area” based on “act” or “legal field” using the expression “at least”, suggesting the possibility of expanding the scope of “area” in the future. Considering that the purpose of treble damages under the Hawaii Revised Statutes is at suppressing violation through punishment unlike Korean law, and that legislators deliberately excluded “unfair trade practices” which corresponds to “unfair methods of competition” in Hawaiian law from the subject of treble damages in Korean Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act, the Decision is immoderately “bold”.
Meanwhile, although not an issue in the Decision, it is necessary to think about whether and how to limit the recognition of the so-called “excessive compensatory damages”. In the past, lower courts limited the recognition if the compensatory damages awarded by foreign country court seems excessive, and the Supreme Court implicitly agreed with the view by approving such lower court judgments. Since the establishment of Article 217-2 (1) of the Civil Procedure Act however, recent Supreme Court decisions have been continually ruling that recognition of compensatory damages ordered by foreign country court cannot be restricted based on Article 217-2 (1) and (although not explicitly stated) Article 217 (1) 3. Since it is impossible for the court to provide the mathematical bright line on the amount of compensation that violates Korean public order, it is reasonable not to limit the recognition of the compensatory damages awarded by foreign country court regardless of the amount.
목차
Ⅰ. 사실관계
Ⅱ. 법원의 판단
Ⅲ. 평석
Ⅳ. 결론 및 보론
참고문헌
국문초록
Abstract
참고문헌 (0)
참고문헌 신청함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문
논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!
-
손해전보의 범위를 초과하는 손해배상을 명하는 외국재판의 승인 및 집행* －공서 요건을 중심으로－
국제거래법연구
2022 .12
-
징벌배상이나 과도한 손해배상에 관한 국제사법적 쟁점
국제사법연구
2020 .06
-
징벌적 손해배상 개념의 수용가능성
法學論文集
2015 .01
-
차량 화재 사건으로 재조명해 본 징벌적 손해배상 제도: 예방적 배상제도로의 전환가능성에 대한 소고
법학연구
2018 .01
-
독점규제법상 징벌적 손해배상제도 도입에 관한 입법방안 검토
경희법학
2017 .01
-
징벌적 손해배상제도 수용론에 대한 소고
가천법학
2018 .01
-
징벌적 손해배상과 법정손해배상 : 우리나라 민법과 양립가능성
경희법학
2016 .01
-
징벌적 손해배상제도의 도입방식에 관한 연구
법학논총
2017 .01
-
징벌적 손해배상보다 배심제가 먼저다
민주법학
2018 .01
-
공정거래법상 징벌적 손해배상 제도 도입에 대한 비판적 검토
법과기업연구
2015 .08
-
징벌적 손해배상의 핵심 기능과 관련 법률안의 문제점
비교사법
2021 .05
-
전보배상과 징벌적 손해배상 및 3배 배상제도에 관한 연구－ 개인정보보호법상의 3배 배상제도의 도입에 즈음하여 －
경영법률
2015 .01
-
징벌적 손해배상제도에 관한 국내 입법의 현황과 문제점
홍익법학
2018 .01
-
공정거래법상 징벌적 손해배상제도 도입의 쟁점과 전망
저스티스
2017 .12
-
중국 민법전 상의 계약위반에 기한 손해배상책임에 관한 연구
한중사회과학연구
2021 .01
-
징벌적 손해배상을 명한 외국판결의 승인·집행에 관한 논의 - 대법원 2022. 3. 11. 선고 2018다231550 판결을 계기로 -
국제사법연구
2023 .06
-
현행 징벌적 손해배상제도 개선에 관한 고찰
재산법연구
2020 .01
-
담합·불공정거래 손해배상 소송 현황 및 개선방안 - 왜 국내에는 징벌적 손해배상 사례가 없는가
경쟁법연구
2020 .01
-
현행 징벌적 손해배상 제도에 대한 비판적 고찰
동아법학
2017 .02
이 논문의 저자 정보
이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0
UCI(KEPA) : I410-151-24-02-089280824