집단소송제도 설계 시론(試論) – 20대 국회에서 발의된 법안의 유형화 및 타당성 검토 –

최승재 한국상사법학회 2019 商事法硏究 Vol.37 No.4

Class Action is widely discussed in our planet including the jurisdictions where class action is not accepted until the very end of the 2010. European continent is not very friendly with the class action especially the American style(ederal Rules of ivil Procedure 23) opt-out type class action. However Germany and France adopted class action somewhat different from the US Style. French class action was formulated as two step class action that is made up of common declaratory judgement step(step 1) and enforcement judgement step(step 2) in 2014 in the case of consumer litigation. This French class action has been revised thereafter with the interplay with civil procedure. Japanese class action was introduced with the similar form of two type class action contemplating the class action of Brazil. ONLY the qualified plaintiffs are eligible for the class action in Japan. In our country, security related class action and Korean style collective action(verbansklage) in FRAMEWORK ACT ON CONSUMERS. However the consumer group litigation and security related class action is not practical and effective. Since the 17th session of the congress there were number of bills to enact the class action in Korea up until 20th. In this article the bills are classified into 3 types. First one is Japaness style 2 step class action and second one is US style class action with the same origin of the security related class action. But most of the second type is pertaining only to a specific law. For that reason the grounds of the action is to be limited only to the law that they are based upon. Under this problem Korean Bar Association’s research institute proposed a bill which contains a law to cover the comprehensive protection of the collective disputes as another type of action comparing to that of civil procedure act. In this article I analysed three types of bills and argue that the last type of legislation is the way we have to attain in order to enhance the basic human right of our country. 전 세계적으로 집단소송에 대한 논의가 많이 전개되고 있다. 최근 2018년 독일이 집단소송법을 제정하였고, 프랑스도 2014년 집단소송법 제정이후 계속적으로 개정을 하고 있다. 일본도 집단소송법을 제정하였다. 소위 2단계집단소송이라는 제도의 도입에 대하여 우리나라에서도 2018년 이를 방식의 소비자집단소송법안이 발의되었다. 유럽 각국에서도 집단적 구제제도(collective redress)에 대한 논의를 지속적으로 하고 있으며 우리나라에서도 사법정책연구원에서 개최한 2018년 심포지엄에서 보는 것처럼 전 세계적인 논의가 진행되는 가운데 새로운 집단적 분쟁해결제도에 대한 논의가 진행되고 있다. 본 논문에서는 이런 전 세계적인 논의의 가운에 현재 우리나라에도 소비자단체소송과 증권관련 집단소송이 있지만 적용대상이 한정되어 있고 까다로운 소송허가 절차 때문에 이를 이용하는 사례는 매우 제한적이다. 우리 국회가 17대 국회 이후에 제안하고 있는 각종 집단소송법안을 분석하고 3가지로 유형화하였다. 법안들이 지속적으로 발의되고 있으나 국회에서는 제대로 논의되지 못하고 임기만료로 폐기되고 있는 상황이다. 제20대 국회에서도 이미 다수의 법안이 발의되어 있으나 아직 법제사법위원회의 법안심사 소위원회를 넘지 못하고 있다. 그럼에도 가습기 살균제 사건, 연비조작사건 등 사건이 발생하면 이에 대한 대응책으로 법안이 급히 만들어지다보니 이에 대한 분석적 연구가 부족하다고 보여 유형화를 통해서 분석적 접근을 하고자 하였다. 분석을 하기 위한 유형화를 하기 위해서 기존 법안을 크게 나누면 미국식의 집단소송법안으로서 기존의 증권관련집단소송법안을 토대로 한 법안이 하나가 있고, 다른 하나는 대륙식의 2단계집단소송법제를 도입하자는 방안이 있다. 또 다른 분류는 소비자법, 공정거래법, 제조물책임법 등의 분야별 집단소송법제를 도입하자는 주장과 포괄적 집단소송법을 도입하자는 법안이 있다. 본고에서는 유형중에서 포괄적 집단소송법제가 타당하다는 점을 논증하였다. 즉 집단소송법의 입법형식은 개별 법령의 법조를 청구원인으로 하는 방식의 집단소송제도가 아니라 민사소송의 특별법이자 집단소송의 기본법으로서의 단일한 집단소송법이 제정되는 것이 옳다고 본다. 그래야 집단소송법이 의도하는 바가 달성이 되면서 국민의 권리구제를 제대로 할 수 있는 기틀이 만들어질 것이라고 생각한다. 이런 입법을 위한 분석적인 단초로 이 논문이 작동하기를 기대한다.

미국 연방지방법원의 대표당사자소송운영의 경험을 통해 본 우리 집단소송제의 바람직한 운용 및 입법방안

함영주 한국민사소송법학회 2008 민사소송 Vol.12 No.1

Class action is a very special and exceptional procedure in the U.S.A. also. In addition to it, U.S. legal practice has a great difference from Korean legal practice, which mainly originates from German legal system. Korean legal system has a great difference with U.S system in the role of plaintiff lawyers and discretionary power of judge. Korea has no jury system. In America, some class actions can be consolidated for pre-trial purposes through the device of multidistrict litigation (MDL), whereas Korea extremely restrict basic multiparty litigation itself. Korea has no general class action law at present. Korea has only securities class action law with a more restricted prerequisites than America in certifying the case. For this restriction and private plaintiff lawyer's financial weakness, no case has been filed at now in the field of securities class action in Korea. In America, typically, federal courts are thought to be more favorable for defendants and state courts more favorable for plaintiffs. From this point of view, the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 increases defendants' ability to remove state cases to federal court. Korean pro-defendant lawyers insist on this as an indication of declining of U.S. class action. In contrast with U.S., Korea has not so big law market, not so much strong financial ability of lawyers or law firms to carry out class actions of his own ability. Plaintiff lawyer's financial conditions are too weak and they are too afraid to be branded “hostile lawyer to big company”, which is major source of profit to the lawyers. Nearly no lawyers endure risk to carry out such a risky proceedings like class actions on behalf of a group of individuals or business entities that have suffered a common injury or injuries. They would rather receive traditional service fees, which can be charged regardless of win or lose of his case. In this context, Korean class action dissenter's arguments, U.S. class action system leads to "race to court" in Korea also, is out of the point. In addition to the lawyer's financial weakness, Korean judges, as a will be lawyer in the future, are too much careful to allow multiparty litigation also. They are too afraid to interpret the law text liberally. They think judge themselves have to get the highest level of self-restraints in every case. For this reason, Korean judges are hard to imagine on ‘certifying a lawsuit’(소송허가[So-song heo-ga] in Korean). In the U.S. Federal court, after a class action complaint filed, scheduling and discoveries are followed by judge, magistrate judge or special master. Korea has no system like this. In America, on the motion of certifying the class, defendants objected to whether the issues are appropriately handled, to whether the named plaintiffs are sufficiently representative of the class, and to their relationship with the law firm or firms handling the case. The prominent Judge Weinstein has the ability of the law firm to prosecute the claim for the plaintiffs, and their resources for dealing with class actions. Judge weinstein has been excellent talents in understanding less well situated people and negotiating with interests concerned at the same time. He sought substantial justice instead of superficial justice in the real case. His judicial philosophy was firmly based on the principle of democracy in the judicial process. He put stressed on the 'of, by, and for the people' standard as a fundamental judicial principle. I have totally agree to judge weinstein's democratic judicial philosophy, which is also the most deficient elements in Korean judicial system. I want to study more about his democratic philosophy and find Korean style class action system for the people of Korea as a way of judicial reform in the case of complex and repetitive mass case.

집단소송제도 재검토 - 법이론의 관점에서 -

우세나,양천수 영남대학교 법학연구소 2017 영남법학 Vol.0 No.45

This article aims to review the class action lawsuit system in South Korea. To do this, this article take a legal theoretical perspective. It explores the questions of what is the legal theoretical basis of the class action lawsuit system and what is its legal character. Our legal system has already accepted the class action lawsuit system such as securities related class action. However, This securities related class action is rarely used in legal practice. This is because our civil litigation system is based on liberalism. Therefore, our civil litigation system is based on subjective and individual lawsuits. However, such subjective and individual lawsuits are difficult to respond adequately to collective legal disputes that arise in modern society. For this reason, the class action lawsuit system has been introduced. It has the nature of public interest lawsuits beyond the scope of litigation solving private interests. That is why it is necessary to revitalize the class action lawsuit system today. Currently, our legal system is introducing securities related class action, consumer class action and personal information class action. While securities related class action is based upon the american class action system, consumer and personal information class action are related to the german “Verbandsklage” system. However, all of these class actions are not well utilized in legal practice by taking strict permits. This article argues that the regulations of the class action lawsuit system should be improved so that it can be activated in legal practice. 이 글은 집단소송제도를 재검토하는 것을 목표로 한다. 이를 위해 특히 법이론의 관점을 원용한다. 집단소송제도가 어떤 법이론적 기초 위에서 설계되었는지, 어떤 법적 성격을 지니고 있는지를 탐구한다. 우리 법체계는 이미 증권관련집단소송과 같은 집단소송제도를 수용하고 있다. 그렇지만 실무에서 집단소송은 거의 활용되고 있지 않다. 그 이유는 우리 민사소송제도가 기본적으로 자유주의에 바탕을 두고 있기 때문이다. 그 때문에 우리 민사소송제도는 주관적ㆍ개인적 소송을 원칙으로 한다. 그렇지만 이러한 주관적ㆍ개인적 소송으로는 현대사회에서 발생하는 집단적 법적 분쟁에 적절하게 대응하기 어렵다. 이러한 이유에서 집단소송제도가 도입된 것이다. 이러한 집단소송제도는 사적 이익을 해결하는 소송의 차원을 넘어서 공익소송의 성격도 지닌다. 바로 그 점에서 집단소송제도를 활성화하는 것이 필요하다. 현재 우리 법체계는 증권관련집단소송, 소비자 단체소송, 개인정보 단체소송을 도입하고 있다. 증권관련집단소송이 대표당사자소송을 수용한 것이라면, 소비자 단체소송과 개인정보 단체소송은 단체소송을 수용한 것이다. 그렇지만 이들 집단소송은 모두 엄격한 허가제를 취함으로써 실무에서 잘 활용되지 않고 있다. 이 글은 집단소송이 활성화될 수 있도록 집단소송에 관한 규제를 개선해야 한다고 주장한다.

이스라엘 대표당사자소송법제의 발전과정 및 시사점

함영주(Ham, Young Joo),이연주(Lee, Yeon Ju) 한국법학원 2012 저스티스 Vol.- No.132

이스라엘은 영국의 팔레스타인 위임통치의 영향으로 1948년 건국 후 영국 민사소송법(English CPR)을 참조하여 이스라엘 민사소송법(IRCP; the Israel Rule of Civil Procedure)제정하였다. 이스라엘 민사소송법(IRCP)은 영국 CPR과 마찬가지로 집단소송에 소극적이어서 1988년 개별법에서 class action제도를 도입하기전까지 이스라엘 민사소송법(IRCP) 제29조가 집단소송의 유일한 법적 근거가 되었다. 그런데 이스라엘 대법원은 Frankisha Merka v. Robinowitz사건(1969)에서 이스라엘 민사소송법(IRCP) 제29조의 모델이 된 영국 민사절차법 명령 제15조 제12항의 규정이 이스라엘 민사소송법(IRCP) 제29조에 비해 더 엄격한 요건을 요구하고 있어 두 법 사이에 상당한 차이가 있음에도 불구하고, 이스라엘 민사소송법(IRCP) 제29조를 영국법원의 영국민사절차법에 대한 해석과 동일한 취지로 판시하여 위 조항의 적용범위를 제한하였다. 이러한 법원의 태도는 1988년 이스라엘 증권법을 필두로 환경위험예방법(1992년), 영업제한에 관한 수정법(1992년), 개정소비자보호법(1994년) 등 개별법에 class action관련 조항이 삽입되도록 하는데 영향을 미쳤다. 개별법에 의한 class ation제도를 도입한 이후에도 이스라엘 법원은 class action의 인증신청을 판단함에 있어 부당한 class action을 인증할 가능성이 존재한다는 점, 피고 기업이 엄청난 경제적 손실을 입을 수 있다는 점 및 소송의 진정한 승자는 원고 변호사가 될 수 있다는 점 등을 우려하여 인증신청의 대부분을 기각하였다. 그리고 인증신청을 받아들인 몇 안 되는 사건에서도 피고 기업이 원하는 내용대로 화해를 이끄는 등 소극적인 태도로 일관하였다. 특히 이스라엘 대법원은 The State of Israel v. E.S.T. Management and Manpower Ltd.사건(2003)에서 별도의 입법이 없는 한 이스라엘 민사소송법(IRCP) 제29조는 현대적 의미의 대표당사자소송(class action)의 근거가 될 수 없다고 명시적으로 판단함으로써 일반대표당사자소송제도의 입법이 시급하다는 인식을 확산시켰다. 이러한 배경 하에 2006년에 제정된 일반대표당사자소송법(Israel general class actions law)은 기본적으로 미국식의 class action을 모델로 하여 개별법에 의해 영역별로 적용되던 대표당사자소송시스템을 하나의 방식으로 통일하였다. 이 법은 대표당사자소송법의 활성화와 공정한 운영을 목적으로 제정되었고, 이러한 목적에 맞추어 개방적인 청구원인, 인증, 대표, 사건관리, 화해, 기금, 소송비용 등에 대한 자세한 규정을 두고 있다. 이스라엘에서 일반대표당사자소송법이 제정되고 시행된 과정은 앞으로 우리나라의 집단소송제의 입법에 있어서 상당한 시사점을 제공한다. 향후 우리법의 제?개정 과정에서 이스라엘 집단소송법에서 보여준 보통법과 시민법을 조화롭게 구성한 방식, 화해검증인제도, 공익의 대표자(public agency) 제도 등의 방식은 적극적으로 참조할 필요가 있다. After the establishment of the state, Israel enacted the Israel Rule of Civil Procedure(IRCP) based on the English Civil Procedure Rules and influenced by British mandate in Palestine. Because IRCP was very passive about group litigation, rule 29 of RCP provide the only formal rule on which litigants could rely on an attempt to pursue representative group litigation until 1988. And in Frankisha Merka v. Robinowitz(1969) case, Israeli Supreme Court adopted a restrictive view in interpreting the rule 29 of IRCP. This passive and restrictive attitude of the Court caused major revision on sector-specified group litigation mechanisms of the Securities law(1988). Court dismissed most of the application for certification of an action as a class action even after those changes. Judges were afraid of certifying class actions that may cause enormous damages to the defendant and end in when lawers are the only winners. In the State of Israel v. E.E.T Management and Manpower Ltd(2003), the Israeli Supreme Court held that Rule of 29 is not a legal basis for representative group actions. This opinion of the supreme court also made in clear that legislating general class action law is urgent and indispensable. The 2006 General Class Actions Law in Israel replaced the entire system of sector-specific provisions. The 2006 Israel law adopted an American style class actions system that caters to interests of defendants in class actions and tries to balance interests between parties to class actions and the public. The law aimed to create a drastic change to the preexisting caselaw. What we learn from the experience of Isral class action law is that Korean class action system needs such a revision. The idea of mixing common law and civil law and adopting the systems of settlement examiner and of public agency could be a useful guide for such revision.

집단소송제도 도입에 관하여: 식·의약 분야의 소비자 피해구제 방안을 중심으로

한효린(Han, Hyo-Rin) 경희대학교 경희법학연구소 2019 KHU 글로벌 기업법무 리뷰 Vol.12 No.1

유럽 등에서 문제가 된 살충제 계란문제가 국내로까지 이어진 그 당시, 어떻게 대응하였는가. 그 책임의 소재를 서로 회피하기 바빴고, 정부 각 부처마다 협의되지 않은 말들을 표명함에 따라 소비자의 심리적 불안은 더욱 가중되었다. 그런데도 실제 피해를 받은 소비자를 구제하는 제도들도 미비한 것이 현실이다. 특히 현재 시행 중에 있는 소비자단체소송의 경우 소송의 자격을 갖춘 주체의 범위가 지나치게 좁은 점, 공익성을 요하는 점 및 손해배상이 아닌 권익침해를 중지하거나 금지하는데 그친다는 점에서 궁극적으로 소비자에게 실효성 있는 구제책이라 보기 어렵다. 특히 식품사고가 있는 경우 소비자단체소송으로 분쟁을 해결할 수 있는 기회는 더욱 줄어든다. 또한 우리나라에서 존재하는 집단소송법은 증권분야에 한정된 형태라는 점에서 식의약 분야에는 적용될 여지가 없고, 비록 민법과 제조물책임법 상 식품소비자 피해에 대한 구제수단이 존재하나 식품 안정성으로 인한 대부분의 피해는 소액이나 다수의 피해라는 점, 식품에 대한 안전성 등의 결여로 인해 실질적인 손해가 발생하였다는 점을 소비자가 직접 증명하기 곤란한 점에서 실질적인 손해배상을 받기 어렵다. 이러한 점에서 식품사고가 발생한 경우 피해를 구제할 수 있는 집단소송제도의 도입이 필요하다고 할 것이다. 20대 국회에서 계류 중에 있는 집단소송 관련 법안은 총 6개이다. 그 중 대표적인 법안으로 박영선의원안 및 서용교의원안을 꼽을 수 있는데, 박영선의원안(집단소송법안), 서영교의원안(소비자집단소송법안)은 집단소송이 적용될 수 있는 구체적 범위에 대해 차이가 있으나 미국식의 집단소송 형태를 띠고 있다는 점에서 유사한 측면이 있다. 즉, 양 법안 모두 원고적격에 있어서 대표당사자형 모델이며, 피해자의 소송참여방법은 재외신고(opt-out)형 모델을 채택한 것으로 보인다. 생각건대 궁극적으로 소비자의 이익보호를 보다 강화한다는 취지에서 미국식의 집단소송을 도입하는 것이 바람직해 보인다. 즉, 피해자가 누구라도 전체 피해자 집단의 이익을 보호하기 위한 집단소송을 제기할 수 있도록 하고, 특별히 이 집단소송에서 제외를 신청하지 않는 한 집단소송의 결과에 구속되며, 피해구제를 받을 수 있도록 하는 것이 타당할 것이다. 이런 관점에서 집단소송제도가 하루 빨리 도입되고, 이후 예측가능하고 통일된 기준을 바탕으로 원활히 잘 운영된다면 국내의 소비자 영역은 한 층 더 높은 발전을 이룩할 것이다. How did you respond to the problem of insecticide egg problems in Europe and other countries? The psychological uneasiness of the consumers became more and more intense as the government tried to avoid the responsibility of each other and expressed the uncommon words of each ministry. Nevertheless, it is a reality that there are not enough systems to relieve consumers who have actually suffered damage. In particular, in the case of a consumer group litigation that is currently being implemented, the range of subjects eligible for litigation is too narrow, the public interest is required, and only the suspension or prohibition of infringement of rights, It is hard to see it as a remedy. Particularly in the case of food accidents, opportunities for solving disputes through consumer group litigation are further reduced In addition, since the Class Action Law existing in Korea is limited to the securities sector, there is no scope for the food and drug field. Even though the Civil Law and the Product liability Act provide remedies for damage to food consumers, It is difficult to obtain actual damages in the point that it is difficult for the consumer to directly prove that the actual damage is caused by the lack of safety of the food, etc. (causality). In this respect, it is necessary to introduce a class action system that can relieve damage in the event of a food accident. There are a total of six class action laws pending in the 20th National Assembly. As a representative measure, Park Young-sun s original bill and Seo Yong-kyo s original bill are the original bill. Park Young-sun s original bill (class action bill) and Seo Young-kyo s original bill (consumer class action bill) There is a similar aspect in that it has a form of class action. In other words, both of these laws are the representative party type models in the plaintiffs right, and the victim s method of participating in litigation seems to adopt the opt-out model. I think it would be desirable to introduce a US class action lawsuit to ultimately enhance the protection of consumers interests. That is, the victim should be able to file a class action to protect the interests of the entire victim group, and be bound by the outcome of the class action unless specifically requested for exclusion from the class action, It would be reasonable. From this point of view, if the class action system is introduced sooner and then operates smoothly on the basis of predictable and unified standards, the domestic consumer sector will achieve further development.

우리나라 특유의 집단분쟁에 대한 ADR방식의 대안모색- 식품, 집단시위 집단소송법 제정논의와 관련하여 -

함영주 한국민사소송법학회 2008 민사소송 Vol.12 No.2

The debate about class action, which is related to environment, food, and illegal strikes, is now being reignited in Korea’s National Assembly. The new ruling Grand National Party, which traditionally antagonistic to class action, now want to introduce class action suits as a way to compensate victims of illegal collective actions such as illegal rallies and strikes. The opposition party oppose this act as a weapon to stifle the right of rally and strikes. They think that this act is trying to suppress common sense as well as the freedom of the media, publication and expression as guaranteed by the Korean Constitution. The ruling party says that the rule of law has collapsed and the fundamental principles of the government have been destroyed because of chaotic illegal rallies and strikes. Therefore, the new class action bill plans to recover store owners who suffered from a fall in revenues due to illegal rallies, to file class-action lawsuits against rally organizers. Under the current korean law, victims can file only representative group litigation (Seon-jeong-dang-sa-ja Sosong [선정당사자소송] in Korean law) to recover their compensation. But, on the contrary, this present system caused a massive retaliation from protesters who got their private records in their written complaints. The protesters menaced with a phone call, picketed in front of complaint’s shops and posted complaint’s record on the internet. Superficially the two parties reversed their political views about class action after the change of regime, they actually had and have been choosing the field advantaged to them. They all struggle against general class action bill which can cause burden to their party’s supporters. In spite of those party’s policy decision by their own self interest, solving mass litigation has become present national problem awaiting solution. Upgrading the index of Korean National competitiveness can be gained only after solving mass disputes which is spread to all over the country for a long time. Under these Korean social and cultural backgrounds, I propose to establish Korean National Dispute Management System. I proposed a buleprint of Korean style mass disputes solving system, which is hybrid-, private sector participated- and ADR-oriented system based on Korean tradition in this paper. This is a sort of down-top and lower people friendly system. At this system, judge or lawyer have to exert himself or herself to hearing the voice of inflicted mass victims on-the-spot. The debate about class action, which is related to environment, food, and illegal strikes, is now being reignited in Korea’s National Assembly. The new ruling Grand National Party, which traditionally antagonistic to class action, now want to introduce class action suits as a way to compensate victims of illegal collective actions such as illegal rallies and strikes. The opposition party oppose this act as a weapon to stifle the right of rally and strikes. They think that this act is trying to suppress common sense as well as the freedom of the media, publication and expression as guaranteed by the Korean Constitution. The ruling party says that the rule of law has collapsed and the fundamental principles of the government have been destroyed because of chaotic illegal rallies and strikes. Therefore, the new class action bill plans to recover store owners who suffered from a fall in revenues due to illegal rallies, to file class-action lawsuits against rally organizers. Under the current korean law, victims can file only representative group litigation (Seon-jeong-dang-sa-ja Sosong [선정당사자소송] in Korean law) to recover their compensation. But, on the contrary, this present system caused a massive retaliation from protesters who got their private records in their written complaints. The protesters menaced with a phone call, picketed in front of complaint’s shops and posted complaint’s record on the internet. Superficially the two parties reversed their political views about class action after the change of regime, they actually had and have been choosing the field advantaged to them. They all struggle against general class action bill which can cause burden to their party’s supporters. In spite of those party’s policy decision by their own self interest, solving mass litigation has become present national problem awaiting solution. Upgrading the index of Korean National competitiveness can be gained only after solving mass disputes which is spread to all over the country for a long time. Under these Korean social and cultural backgrounds, I propose to establish Korean National Dispute Management System. I proposed a buleprint of Korean style mass disputes solving system, which is hybrid-, private sector participated- and ADR-oriented system based on Korean tradition in this paper. This is a sort of down-top and lower people friendly system. At this system, judge or lawyer have to exert himself or herself to hearing the voice of inflicted mass victims on-the-spot.

미국 연방 대표당사자소송과 주 대표당사자소송의 비교 연구 - 미주리주와 미시시피주를 중심으로 -

최광선 조선대학교 법학연구원 2023 法學論叢 Vol.30 No.3

In this article, a class action under the federal rules of civil procedure and a class action under the state rules of civil procedure were compared. It is not virtually easy to compare all states, and I focused on the state of Missouri that adopted the federal rule on average, and the state of Mississippi that did not adopt a class action. Most states in the United States used the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, with minor modifications, without major changes. In the case of Missouri, it was found that the federal rules were in fact used as they were and some of the requirements of the representative party were interpreted with some flexibility. On the other hand, Mississippi, when it enacted the state civil procedure rules in 1982, refused to accept class action system and operated its case law and statutory laws independently. As a result, many precedents regarding class action in Mississippi have been upheld : a class action without explicit statutes and provisions is impossible, a class action that existed before the 1980s in lower courts is not possible, and unlimited permissive joinder and consolidation that were substitutes for class action are rejected. Still, there were lessons to be learned from the case of Mississippi. First, in spite of no class action in Mississippi, most relief can be obtained through federal procedure. However, in the case of Mississippi's own human rights violations or small businesses in Mississippi, it is necessary to introduce a class action in the state. Second, the class action in Mississippi is very closely related to tort law reform. In particular, it is worth noting that proportional liability and limitation of liability introduced in the state of Mississippi should be considered as an alternative in order to expand the class action system in Korea. This means that it is necessary to balance what kind of discussions were made for the defense of the defendant while discussing class action and punitive damages for the relief of the plaintiff. At least in the case of companies with minor negligence, as a feasible method, it seems that the defendant should be sufficiently defended by assuming the case of faithfully fulfilling the duty of care. Third, the attempt to operate Rule 20(permissive joinder of parties) and Rule 42 (consolidation) of the Mississippi State Rules as a substitute of class action can be highly evaluated. This is because the attempt to quickly relieve small damages of large number of people in one procedure can be evaluated as an attempt to guarantee the citizens' right to access justice. However, this has fundamental limitations in relation to class action. In Rule 20 of the State Rule, it seems that it is difficult to define a class action only by the commonality of factual issues or legal issues, and the problem of conflict of interest is also difficult to resolve. In Korea, there is also a discussion on the addition of an ordinary co-litigation, but this is a problem that should be applied to an ordinary co-litigation, and it is not intended to be converted into a class action. However, although permissive joinder as the addition of an ordinary co-litigation is a legal doctrine that has been abandoned by the Mississippi state precedent, I think that the attempt to resolve collective disputes through permissive joinder is positive enough.

집단소송의 소송허가요건 및 금전배상에 관한 연구

전원열 한국법학원 2021 저스티스 Vol.- No.184

After running ‘Securities-related Class Action Act’(“SCAA”) since 2005, Korea is now under discussion of general-purpose class action, which is featured with monetary damage and opt-out system. Each of the parliament bills for the general-purpose class action, however, does not seem to have deliberated on the difference between SCAA and general-purpose class action. Under the present securities-related class action in Korea, representative plaintiff (and the attorney) can already obtain the identities of every member of the class through electric data. That means there does not remain any issue with ascertainability in SCAA cases. In contrast, there is no way to obtain the identities of every member of class in most of general-purpose class action cases. This difference gives difficulties to the courts of general-purpose class action in deciding commonality, typicality, adequacy, predominance, etc. This difficulty in general-purpose class action aggravates in the remedial phase. Korean judiciary has never encountered such cases that lack exact damages, and it always has thought that each plaintiffs should have damages calculated with individual factors. However, U.S. class action does not consider accurate individual damage to be important, and often treats the remedial phase with such tools as “cy pres”. In essence, what is taken from the defendant is much more important than what is given to the plaintiffs in U.S. class action, because this system is for the purpose of efficient allocation of social resources by internalizing external costs. Therefore, such general-purpose class action requires much larger discretion of individual judges in judgments over requirements of certification and over remedial phase. Conclusionally, Korea should have more discussions over the difference between securities-related class action and general-purpose class action before its enactment, and should reach a consensus over the extent of discretion given to judges in general-purpose class action system. 제소대상 위법행위의 영역을 한정하지 않은 일반 집단소송법의 제정논의가 활발하다. 대량의 소액 피해가 종종 발생하는 현대 사회에서 집단적 권리구제절차를 마련할 필요성은 크다. 그런데 현재 발의된 법안들이 제소대상을 한정하지 않는 ‘일반 집단소송’의 의미를 정확히 인식하고 있는지는 의문이다. 대표적 법안인 법무부안은, 증권관련집단소송법의 소송허가절차‧분배절차를 거의 똑같이 가져오고 있다. 그러나 이러한 입법제안은, 증권관련집단소송과 일반 집단소송 사이의 차이를 인식하지 못한 데에서 비롯한 것이다. 원래 집단소송절차에서는, 당해 피해자 집단(클래스)의 성격을 어떻게 정의하고 파악하는가가 핵심사항이다. 그 성격규정 작업 즉 미국의 클래스 인증과 한국의 소송허가 결정 작업 중에서, 기존의 증권관련집단소송은 가장 쉬운 영역만을 다루는 것이다. 대상영역이 확대되어 일반 집단소송이 되면, 도대체 총원이 누구누구인지를 정확히 알 수 없다는 확인가능성의 문제가 발생하고, 공통성‧적합성‧효율성의 요건 판단도 한층 어려워진다. 지배성 등 다른 요건도 문제된다. 많은 일반 집단소송 사건에서는 개별 구성원 숫자도 모른 채로 소를 제기하고 배상판결을 선고해야 하므로, 권리신고 등 분배절차에서도 많은 비용과 혼란이 초래될 수밖에 없다. 따라서 금전 분배단계에서 증권관련집단소송과 일반 집단소송 간의 차이는 더욱 두드러지며, 이 단계에서 비로소 구성원 해당 여부를 증거로써 심리‧판단하는 작업을 하게 된다. 때로는 금전을 원고에게는 전혀 지급할 수 없는 경우도 발생한다. 이런 지급불가의 경우에 법무부안은 피고에게 돌려주라고 간단히 정하고 있으나, 집단소송법의 목적과 기능을 충분히 고민한 후에 정해진 것인지 의문이다. 집단소송은 불법행위법의 기능 중 방지기능에 초점을 맞춘 제도이며, 따라서 “원고에게 주는 것”이 중요한 것이 아니라 “피고로부터 받아내는 것”이 중요한 제도이다. 이로써 부정적 외부효과를 내부화하여 사회 전체적으로 자원의 효율적 배분을 달성하려는 제도가 집단소송이다. 따라서 단순히 피고에게 돌려준다고만 정할 것이 아니라, 사이프레스 원칙의 도입 등을 검토해야 한다. 미국의 집단소송절차는 연혁적으로 법원의 큰 재량에 터잡아 판례법으로 출발했고, 제정법으로 만들어진 후에도 법원의 큰 재량 하에서 작동하고 있는 제도이다. 요컨대 집단소송제도의 필요성은 절실하지만, 그 도입을 위해서는 현재의 논의수준을 넘어서는 더 깊은 토론이 있어야 한다.

공정거래법상 집단소송제도의 도입을 위한 비교법적 연구

김광록 한국경영법률학회 2013 經營法律 Vol.24 No.1

Recently needs of class action system in the antitrust and fair trade market are becoming hot issues in Korea. A class action, originated in the United States, is a form of lawsuit in which a large group of people collectively bring a claim to court and the US allows ant type of class actions. Actually, in 1990, the Korean government tried to introduce the US type of class action system with an enactment of, so called, the "Class Dispute Settlement Procedure Act."However this trial had been ceased for many operational reasons in 1996. But, the needs of class action system has been occurred and the Korean government decided to introduced only the securities related class action in Korean financial market and the Securities Related Class Action Act has been effective since 2005. In that, only securities related class action is allowed in Korea at this moment. In the meanwhile, the New Administration and some National Assemblymen announced that our society needs a new class acton system in the he antitrust and fair trade market in Korea and there are some submitted bills that are amending the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act. All these bills introduce the US type of class action and borrow the provisions of the Securities Related Class Action Act for amending the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act. Therefore this Article comparatively examines the bills in details first and analyses the class action system in the United States, the United Kingdom, the EU, Germany, France, and some other countries on order to suggest some betterment of Korean Class Action under the Korean fair trade act.

韓國에서의 集團訴訟制度의 도입과정 및 運營現況

권혁재 경북대학교 법학연구소 2008 법학논고 Vol.0 No.28

집단소송은 현대사회에서 자주 일어나는 집단분쟁에 있어서 소송절차를 통한 합리적·효율적 해결을 위한 것이다. 그 대표적 형태로서 미국의 대표 당사자 소송(Class Action)과 독일의 단체소송(Verbandsklage)방식이 있다. 한국에서는 최근에 증권관련 집단소송법을 통하여 미국식 Class Action 시스템을, 소비자보호법상의 단체소송을 통하여 독일식 Verbandsklage 시스템을 도입하였다. 위 각제도의 도입과정에서는 주로 경제단체를 중심으로 한 이익단체측으로부터 집요하고도 강력한 반대의견이 제기되었다. 그들이 내세운 대표적 논거들을 보면 주로 집단소송의 남용에 의하여 건전한 기업 활동을 저해하게 된다는 것이었다. 그러나 위와 같은 문제제기와는 달리 동제도 시행 후 3년여가 지난 현재까지 단 1건의 집단소송도 제기되지 않고 있다. 그 원인은 여러 가지로 분석될 수 있을 것이나, 법원의 종래 판례가 동법상 청구권발생요건에 관하여 엄격한 기준을 제시하고 있어서 승소가능성이 다소 희박하다는 점을 우선적으로 들 수 있다. 그리고 집단소송절차의 복잡성, 고비용, 소송지연의 우려, 원고인 대표당사자에 대한 인센티브(유인책)의 결여 등을 들 수 있다. 한국에서는 현재 도입되고 있는 집단소송외에 식품·환경관련 집단소송제도를 비롯하여 다양한 분야에서 제도도입을 위한 논의가 진행되고 있다. 이러한 법제도 도입에서는 우선적으로 다음과 같은 사항을 고려할 필요가 있다. ①집단소송 전반에 관한 통일적 법전제정, ②한국의 전통적 법제도와 법의식을 충분히 반영하면서 소송법적 일반원리를 집단소송의 특성에 맞추어 변형시킨 제도도입을 통한 효율성 확보, ③당사자의 절차권의 실질적 보장, ④ 사법서비스에의 실효성 있는 접근방안 모색,⑤집단소송제도의 남용과 폐해에 대한 대책마련 등이다. In modern times, securities, and environmental cases of civil actions are frequent occurrence. Those lawsuits include large numbers of individuals or organizations whose interests are sufficiently related, so that it is more efficient to adjudicate their rights or liabilities in a single action than in a series of individual proceedings. In USA the class action has become an extremely popular procedure. In Germany group litigation(Verbandsklage) isn't so popular as the class action in USA. In Korea, Securities related Class Action Law(2004. 1. 20. law no.7074) came into force 1 January 2005. Only two months later, the law was revised(2005. 3. 2) to grant companies a two-year grace period to correct accounting irregularities by the strong requests of businesses group. The Securities related Class Action Law was the first example of class action law in Asia area, but there are any case of class action in Korea from the time of enforcement. Another type of group litigation for consumer came into force 1 March 2008. At the same time, more and more types of class action(environrnental, food-related class action etc.) laws are being drafted by the government of Korea. For promoting the efficiency of legal application, we must establish unified class action law code. At the time of establishing unified code, the legislator (law maker) shall give consideration to efficiency (matching with the Korean legal consciousness), due process, constraint to the abuse of class action.