자율주행자동차에 대한 제조물책임의 적용에 관한 연구

류창호 아주대학교 법학연구소 2016 아주법학 Vol.10 No.1

자율주행자동차 등의 첨단기술을 기반으로 하는 제조물의 결함에 대해서는 제조상 결함보다는 설계상 결함이 주로 문제가 될 것으로 예상되고, 이에 대해서 제조자가 개발위험의 항변을 주장하는 경우에 제조 당시의 최고 수준의 기술을 기준으로 개발위험의 항변 여부를 판단하여야 한다. 개발위험의 항변이 인정되는 경우에도 표시상의 결함 여부를 추가적으로 판단하는 방법에 의하여 최종적으로 제조물책임 여부를 결정하게 된다. 따라서 첨단과학기술제품에 대한 제조물책임은 주로 설계상 결함에서부터 시작된다는 점에서 설계상 결함의 판단기준이 매우 중요한 의미를 갖는다. 그러나 설계상 결함의 판단기준으로 소비자기대기준이 폐기되고 위험효용기준으로 전환됨으로써 피해자는 합리적 대체설계를 제시하여야만 결함을 주장할 수 있게 되었다. 특히 자율주행자동차와 같은 제품은 각종의 첨단기술이 탑재된 부품과 인공지능의 역할을 수행하는 소프트웨어 등이 결합되어 있다는 점에서 피해자가 합리적 대체설계를 제시할 수 있는 가능성은 매우 낮은 영역이라고 할 수 있다. 제품에 내재하는 위험과 효용을 비교하는 위험효용기준에 의하여 설계상 결함을 판단하는 경우에는 자동차라는 제품분류는 위험보다 효용이 크다는 점에서 결함이 존재하지 않는 것으로 평가될 수 있다. 그러나 실제로 자동차라는 제품군에 있어서 결함의 존재 여부는 자동차를 더 안전하게 제조할 수 있는지의 여부에 달려 있다. 자율주행자동차에 대한 결함판단도 이와 유사할 것이다. 자율주행자동차라고 하는 제품분류가 전체적으로 사회적 효용이 위험을 초과하는 것으로 평가되거나 반대로 위험이 사회적 효용을 초과하는 것으로 평가되는 경우, 제품분류책임에 의하면 자율주행자동차라는 제품군 전체에 대하여 항상 결함의 존재가 부정되거나 또는 항상 결함의 존재가 인정되는 결과가 도출될 수 있다는 문제도 있다. 한편 제품분류책임의 경우에는 그 분류단계에 따라 자율주행자동차군이 하나의 제품분류단계에 해당할 수도 있고, 자율주행자동차에 탑재되는 보편적인 부품군과 소프트웨어군도 세부분류단계에 해당할 수 있을 것이다. 따라서 자율주행자동차군이 제품분류책임에 의하여 결함이 인정되지 않는 경우에도 사고의 원인이 되는 각 부품군에 대한 제품분류책임을 적용하는 방안도 고려될 수 있다. 이러한 점에서 합리적 대체설계에 의한 위험효용기준을 보완할 수 있는 결함판단기준으로 제품분류책임의 적용에 대한 검토가 필요할 것으로 생각된다. 아울러 최근의 가습기살균제 사건의 경우에도 PHMG가 첨가된 살생물제에 대하여 제품분류책임을 적용함으로써 합리적 대체설계 여부와 관계없이 설계상 결함을 판단할 수 있는 기준으로 작용할 수 있을 것으로 생각된다. About the defects of the products that are based on state-of-the-art technologies such as an autonomous car, a design defect is mainly predicted to be an issue. When a manufacturer protests a state-of-the-art defence against a design defect, it must be decided not by the average level of technology but by the highest level of technology. Even after the manufacturer's defence is admitted, he can be immune from products liability without proof of a warning defect. By switching a criterion of a design defect from consumer expectation test to risk-utility-test, a plaintiff must protest products liability with a reasonable alternative design. But it would be very difficult for a plaintiff to suggest a reasonable alternative design in the field of state-of-the-art technologies such as a autonomous car. When we judge a design defect by the risk-utility-test, it can be estimated that cars don't have any defect because the product category as cars have more utility and less risk. Judgement of defects on autonomous cars might be similar to cars. but if the result of defect evaluation about product category as autonomous cars shows that the risk always exceed the social utility or vise versa, the problem that all the product category as autonomous cars are always acknowledged defective products or vise versa can be raised. Meanwhile, in the case of product category liability, autonomous cars can belong to a big category or common auto parts and softwares that are equipped on autonomous cars can belong to sub-category by the product category liability. Therefore, unless autonomous cars don't have any defect according to the product category liability, it can be considered that each sub-category of auto parts that can cause the risk. For this reason, we need to review the applicability of product category liability as the standard of judgment that can supplement the risk-utility-test based on reasonable alternative design. If the product category liability isn't acknowledged to autonomous cars, I think a defect can be acknowledged to hide risks. As the product category liability works as the standard of design defects, the possibility of reasonable alternative design must be existed to a hide risk by the product design. But a warning defect can be acknowledged to a hide risk. In the case of tobacco lawsuit, even though the design defect based on the product category liability may not be acknowledged, a warning defect to hide risks of tobacco can be acknowledged. But I think the warning defect to generally opened risks will not be acknowledged. In the case of latest humidifier germicide cases added polyhexamethylene guanidine(PHMG) manufactured by Oxy Korea and other companies in Korea, products category liability can work as a criterion of design defect in products liability regardless of reasonable alternative design by applying products category liability to biocidal products added PHMG.

중국의 제조물책임 관련법규에서의 제조물결함에 관한 연구

이시환(Lee Shie Hwan) 한국무역상무학회 2007 貿易商務硏究 Vol.34 No.-

Product liability law lies at the center of the modern world. This law concerns liability for damages arising from the commercial sale of a product that causes personal injury or property damage because it was defective or falsely represented. One engaged in the business of selling or otherwise distributing products who sells or distributes a defective product is subject to liability for harm to persons or property caused by the defect. In short, product defectiveness is the heart of products liability law. Regardless of the underlying cause of action, the plaintiff in nearly every products liability case must prove that the defendant"s product contained an unnecessary hazard that caused the harm. The purpose of this paper is to clarify the meaning of the product defectiveness to products liability claims in China. In China, Product to include most movable personal property, but to exclude services. And a product is defective when, at the time of sale or distribution, it contains a manufacturing defect, is defective in design, or is defective because of inadequate instructions or warnings.

임베디드 소프트웨어의 결함과 제조물책임 적용에 관한 고찰

이상수(Lee Sang Soo) 中央大學校 法學硏究所 2015 法學論文集 Vol.39 No.2

Liability about damage due to defect of software is being maintained as legal disputes. Compensation for further damage due to the defects of software is first, under default of obligation of Civil Law, Article 390, assuming contract relation between person directly related. Second, it is under responsibility of illegal Civil Law, Article 750 that should prove negligence/intention of assailant regardless of contract relation between person directly related and defects liability under Civil Law, Article 580. Also, there is Product Liability that applies liability without fault to compensation for damages due to product defect. The problem is that to establish defects of Embedded Software requires high-degree of professional ability. Embedded Software is developed by skilled programmers, and it is hard for normal consumers to know the complexity of Embedded Software combined with elaborate IT devices and electronics. Therefore, by putting liability without fault regardless of contract relation on Product Liability Law, it has a different signification in the point that it can solve the existing limitation of compensation for damage due to the defects of Embedded Software. Because it is not obvious to consider Embedded Software as assets on Civil Law with the current Product Liability Law, Embedded Software that performs independent functions, equipped in part of particular product, has to stipulate on definition of product on Product Liability Law. As similar legislation case, in Product Liability Law and Council Directive(1999/34/EC), as amended in 1999 of Germany, because it determines that it contains electricity, an immaterial being, in products, it is under Product Liability Law. Because it is difficult for consumers to understand the complexity of Embedded Software that is developed by skilled software technicians and which is combined with cars, IT devices, or electronics, it is urgent to relax burden of proof about causal relationship of occurrence of damage and presence of defects on Product Liability Law. It needs legislation estimating that defects of products and further damage due to accident are due to defects of the products, when consumers confirm that 1) the fact that an accident occurs under exclusive control of manufacturer 2) the fact that an accident does not happen without mistake of manufacturers or third-party, although the consumers use the product in normal ways and get further damage from the accident.

특집논문 : 제조물책임의 주요 쟁점 -최근의 논의를 중심으로-

윤진수 ( Jin Su Yune ) 연세대학교 법학연구원 2011 法學硏究 Vol.21 No.3

이 글은 제조물책임법이 시행된 2002.7.1. 이후의 상황을 조망하는 것이다. 제조물법은 제조물의 결함을 미국의 불법행위법 제3차 리스테이트먼트(제조물책임)와 같이 제조상의 결함, 설계상의 결함 및 표시상의 결함으로 나누어 규정하고 있고, 제조상의 결함과 표시상의 결함도 위 리스테이트먼트와 같이 위험 - 효용 기준을 채택하고 있다. 위 법 시행 후에 선고된 대법원의 중요한 판례로는 자동차 급발진 사건, 헬리콥터 추락 사건, 콘택 600 사건 등이 있는데, 법원은 특히 설계상의 결함을 쉽게 인정하지 않고 있으나, 과연 위험 - 효용 기준을 제대로 적용한 것인지는 의문이다. 하급심 판례 가운데 담배소송의 제1심 법원은 흡연과 폐암 발병 사이의 인과 관계를 인정하지 않았는데, 항소심은 양자의 인과관계를 인정하면서도 표시상의 결함이 없었다는 등의 이유로 담배 회사의 책임을 부정하였다. 한국의 제조물책임 법리는 아직 발전 중으로서, 계속적인 연구가 요청된다. The Korean Product Liability Act was promulgated on January 1. 2000and enacted on July 1. 2002. Since then, the Korean Supreme Court has delivered some important decisions. This paper overviews the recent debates on the product liability and analyses the relevant decisions. The Draft of the Korean Product Liability Act was designed after the model of the European Directive of the Product Liability. But the enacted Act adopted the risk - utility test of the U.S. third Restatement of the Products Liability in defining the "design defect" and "warning defect" instead of the consumer expectation test adopted by the European Directive. So there is a controversy whether the product liability according to the Act is strict or based on negligence. The most important issue of the product liability law is the proper understanding of the concept of the defect. As mentioned previously, the Korean Product Liability Act adopted the risk - utility test in defining the "design defect" and "warning defect". According to it, a product has a design defect if the foreseeable risks of harm posed by the product could have been reduced or avoided by the adoption of a reasonable alternative design. And a product has a warning defect if the foreseeable risks of harm posed by the product could have been reduced or avoided by the provision of reasonable instructions or warnings. From the economic perspective, this risk - utility test can be a way to enhance efficiency. The Korean courts were reluctant in acknowledging the design defect in the sudden acceleration cases and in the frozen pitot tube helicopter case. But it is doubtful whether the courts have applied the risk - utility test in these cases properly. In the highly publicized tobacco product liability case, the Seoul District Court denied the product liability of the tobacco manufacturing company for causing the lung cancer in 2007. According to the court, the casual relation between smoking and the lung cancer was not proved. In contrast, Seoul High Court, the appellate court, found that the epidemiological causation between smoking and the lung cancer was proved. But the Seoul High Court denied the product liability as well on the reason that there was no warning defect. The law of the product liability in Korea is still evolving. And more research in this field is needed.

지시, 경고(표시)상의 결함과 제조물책임

이종구(Jong Goo Lee) 한국법학원 2007 저스티스 Vol.- No.97

제조물책임법상 ‘제조상의 결함’은 제조물이 설계대로 만들어지지 않음으로 인해 특정 제조물에 관하여 생긴 결함이고, ‘설계상의 결함’은 설계 자체의 결함 때문에 제조물이 안전하게 제조되지 않은 것을 말하고, 이에 반하여 ‘표시상의 결함’은 제조물 자체의 결함과 함께 또는 제조물 자체의 결함과 상관없이 제조물의 이용과 관련하여 생길 수 있는 위험을 제대로 지시, 경고하지 않은 것에 대하여 제조자에게 불법행위책임을 묻는다는 점에서 그 특색이 있다. 제조물책임법은 “표시상의 결함이라 함은 제조업자가 합리적인 설명ㆍ지시ㆍ경고 기타의 표시를 하였더라면 당해 제조물에 의하여 발생될 수 있는 피해나 위험을 줄이거나 피할 수 있었음에도 이를 하지 아니한 경우를 말한다”고 규정하고 있다(제조물책임법 제2조 제2호 다목). 제조상의 결함과는 달리 지시 경고상의 결함에 관해서는 ‘합리적인 지시, 경고를 할 수 있었음에도 이를 하지 않은 행위(부작위)’에 대하여 책임을 묻고 있기 때문에 설계상의 결함(합리적 대체설계)과 함께 불법행위법상의 과실책임주의에 기초를 두고 있는 것으로 보인다. 지시, 경고상의 결함에 있어서는 무엇보다도 제조업자가 ‘합리적인 지시, 경고’를 하였는지가 쟁점이다. 대법원은 합리적인 지시, 경고인지에 대한 판단기준으로 제조물책임법의 시행 전부터 “제조물의 특성, 통상 사용되는 사용형태, 제조물에 대한 사용자의 기대의 내용, 예상되는 위험의 내용, 위험에 대한 사용자의 인식 및 사용자에 의한 위험회피의 가능성 등의 여러 사정을 종합적으로 고려하여 사회통념에 비추어 판단하여야 한다(2002다17333)”고 하였다. 구체적으로는 지시, 경고가 명백한지, 제조물과 관련된 위험을 이용자들에게 충분하게 전달하고 같은 다양한 요소들을 비교 형량하여 결정할 수밖에 없을 것이지만, 경우에 따라서는 위에서 든 요소들중 어느 한 요소가 다른 요소에 비하여 중요한 판단기준으로 작용하여야 한다는 것을 잊어서는 안 된다는 점이다. 즉 인명의 손상과 같은 위험의 대소, 당해 제조물을 사용하는 계층(어린이, 노약자) 등은 특히 중요하게 고려되어야 할 요소이다. 한편 제조물의 이용에 의한 사고는 많은 경우에 제조물에 내재하는 위험을 상당부분 알고 있는 이용자의 단순한 부주의 또는 순간적 판단 착오에 기하여 야기된다는 점에서 제조업자의 예견 불가능한 오사용이거나 이용자에게 명백한 위험이라는 이유로 제조업자의 책임을 면책함에는 신중을 기하여야 한다. 마지막으로 제조업자에게 경제적 부담이 없는 단순한 지시, 경고 문구의 추가만으로도 중대한 사고를 예방할 수 있는 장점이 있다는 점을 고려하여 위험에 대한 지시, 경고의 중요성을 각인시킬 수 있는 방향으로 운용되어야 할 것이다. 또한 이것이 제조물책임법의 입법취지일 것이다. The Korean Product Liability Act was enacted on January 12, 2000 with the dispute of the long period and took effect on July 1, 2002. The main purpose of this Act is to protect consumers against damage caused by defective products, and contribute to the safety of the citizen's life. The Act has a comprehensive definition of the term "defect, which means the lack of safety that the product ordinarily should provide. It also includes three basic types of defects which may call for different treatment: manufacturing defects, design defects, and instruction and warning defects(expression defects). Under the Act, damages to the defective product itself are not recoverable. Generally speaking, the liability of the manufacturing defects is based on strict liability, but the liability of design defects, or instruction and warning defects has a strong affinity with ordinary negligence claim like the U.S. Third Restatement. Namely, the Act adopts a reasonableness test as the standard for judging design defects and warning defects. Therefore, under the Act, to establish a cause of action for failure to warn, the plaintiff must prove that the manufacturer owed a duty to warn of some danger related to forseeable use of the product; the manufacturer breached that duty; and there was a causation between the breach and the plaintiff's injuries. With respect to the breach of duty to warn, the key issue is whether a given instruction and warning is reasonable. In Sudden or Unexpected Acceleration of Motor Vehicle case (2003Da16771), the Korean Supreme Court stated that in evaluating the reasonableness of the product instructions and warnings, it must consider various factors as followed; the characteristics of the product, the manner that is ordinarily used, the user's expectation of the product, the user's awareness of the anticipated danger, and the user's likelihood of avoidance of the danger, etc. Also, the Korean courts have recognized that the warning may not be required if the risks are generally known and obvious to users or the use involved is unforeseeable uses. In other words, such factors can play a critical role in judging the reasonableness test of the given warnings with respect to the other factors. It is expected that the Korean courts provide more obvious standards of the adequacy of warning through the interpretation of product liability cases in the future.

제조물책임과 사후구제조치 증거

오일석 ( Il Seok Oh ) 안암법학회 2010 안암 법학 Vol.0 No.33

The manufacturers who make products by the negligence or who make the products on the chain of sale with defects would have product liability to the injuries of plaintiff. The manufacturers would take a subsequent remedial measures in order to make the products safe and to improve the performance of the products. However, there has been legal issues that the evidence of the subsequent remedial measures would be admissible as the evidence to prove the negligence of manufacturers or the product`s defects. Almost all Canadian courts have reached the decision that the subsequent remedial measures would be admissible in the discovery based on the notion that these have relevance with the issued matter. However the Canadian courts have had different decisions state by state on the admissibility of the subsequent remedial measures which introduced in the trial. In the United States, on the early stage of the product liability the courts had different decisions on this matter. However this issue was resolved by the enactment of the Federal Rule of Evidence § 407 which clearly describes that the evidence of subsequent remedial measures is not admissible to prove negligence, culpable conduct, a defect in a product, a defect in a product`s design, or a need for warning or instruction. But the Rule also describes that the subsequent remedial measures shall be admissible to prove ownership, control, or feasibility of precautionary measure, if controverted, or impeachment. Although the Rule was introduced, there have been so many cases, court decisions and academic articles related to the issue. After severe controversies and discussions, the Product Liability Act of Korea was enacted at 2002. In Korea the legal issues on product liability have usually focused on the requirements of the product liability, manufacturing defects, design defects and causation. There have been no court decisions and academic articles related to the product liability and subsequent remedial measures as evidence. Under the Korean legal system, there is no jury to decide the relevance of evidence. However, with the Principle of Free Evaluation of Evidence, the probative value of the evidence shall be left to the discretion of the judge. Therefore the subsequent remedial measures would be admissible to prove negligence, culpable conduct, a defect in a product, a defect in a product`s design, or a need for warning or instruction. Now it is the high time to review on the issues related to subsequent remedial measures under the Korean legal system. In addition, the cases, court decisions and academic articles related to the subsequent remedial measures in Canada and United States would be great helpful to review the legal issues on Product Liability Act in Korea.

제조물책임에서의 결함판단기준으로서의 제품분류책임

류창호 한국소비자법학회 2017 소비자법연구 Vol.3 No.2

In the product liability, it is significant that the strict liability has been adopted as an exception of the negligence liability for easy compensation of consumers’damage. However, consumers have to prove the existence of defect in order to get compensation even under the strict liability system. To prove the design defect, consumers must satisfy with the criteria of defects. According to the consumer expectation test, the defect can be judged whether there is a risk that a reasonable consumer can not expect or not. However, there would be no defect if the risk of the product would be clear and consumers could recognize in advance. Therefore, the risk-utility test has become the main criterion for defect. Even though under the risk-utility test, in order to prove the defect under the risk-utility test, consumers must prove that there is a risk that exceeds the social utilities of the products and that a reasonable alternative design exists additionally. Proving defects in proportion to technological advancement is becoming increasingly difficult. It has also been criticized that the revision from the consumer expectation test to the risk-utility test in the Restatement (third) of Tort is a regression to the principle of negligence liability. In particular, in the case of inherently dangerous products or products with advanced technology, it has been increasingly difficult for consumers to get compensation by suggesting the reasonable alternative design. As the result, the product category liability theory has emerged as an alternative for the criterion for defect in the United States. In this paper, I researched the contents and the problems of product category liability through the theories and precedents in the United States, and examined the possibility of introducing it in Korea. 국내에서 제조물책임법의 입법논의가 본격적으로 진행되던 시기에는 학자들의 활발한 입법논의만큼이나 기업들의 반대의견의 제시도 만만치 않았다. 그 당시 기업들은 제조물책임법이 제정되면 대부분의 제조업체들이 파산할 것이라는 우려를 표출하였다. 법 시행 후 약 15년이 지난 지금에는 기업들의 파산이 문제로 되는 것이 아니라, 까다로운 입증책임으로 인하여 피해 소비자들이 제조물책임법에 의한 구제를 충분히 받지 못하는 것이 우려가 되고 있는 상황이라고 할 수 있다. 특히 현대에 있어서 입증책임이 문제가 되는 결함의 유형은 설계상 결함에 집중되고 있다. 소비자가 설계상 결함을 입증하기 위해서는 결함판단기준을 충족하여야 하는데, 현재에는 위험효용기준이 주된 결함판단기준으로 자리 잡고 있다. 그러나, 위험효용기준에 의하여 결함을 입증하기 위해서는 제조물의 위험과 사회적 효용성을 비교하여 위험성이 효용성을 초과한다는 점 및 합리적 대체설계의 가능성이 존재한다는 점을 소비자가 제시하여야 하므로 제조물에 적용되는 기술의 고도화와 비례하여 결함의 입증은 점점 더 어려워지고 있다. 이를 두고 미국에서는 무과실책임에 가까운 소비자기대기준에서 위험효용기준으로의 수정은 과실책임주의로의 회귀라는 비판도 제기되고 있다. 특히, 일반적으로 널리 사용되는 제품 중에서도 그 특성상 본질적으로 위험한 경우나 첨단 과학기술이 내재된 제조물의 경우에는 일반인인 소비자가 위험성이 있는 제조물의 위험과 효용을 분석하고 효용성이 위험성을 초과할 수 있는 합리적 대체설계를 제시하여 손해배상을 받은 것은 거의 불가능에 가까워지고 있다. 이처럼 현실적인 결합입증의 한계에 대한 반동으로 미국에서는 설계상 결함판단기준으로서의 새로운 이론으로 제품분류책임(products category liability)이 제기되고 있다. 이 논문에서는 주로 미국의 이론과 판례를 통하여 제품분류책임의 내용과 적용상의 문제점을 검토하고, 최근 제조물책임법의 개정을 통하여 결함의 추정에 관한 조문을 신설한 이후에도 설계상 결함의 요건으로 인정되고 있는 피해자에 의한 합리적 대체설계의 제시 가능성을 여전히 요구할 것인가와 관련한 입법적 논의도 필요할 것으로 생각된다.

제조물책임에서의 설계상 결함판단기준으로서의 제품분류책임

류창호 아주대학교 법학연구소 2017 아주법학 Vol.11 No.3

In the product liability, it is significant that the strict liability has been adopted as an exception of the negligence liability for easy compensation of consumers’damage. However, consumers have to prove the existence of defect in order to get compensation even under the strict liability system. To prove the design defect, consumers must satisfy with the criteria of defects. According to the consumer expectation test, the defect can be judged whether there is a risk that a reasonable consumer can not expect or not. However, there would be no defect if the risk of the product would be clear and consumers could recognize in advance. Therefore, the risk-utility test has become the main criterion for defect. Even though under the risk-utility test, in order to prove the defect under the risk-utility test, consumers must prove that there is a risk that exceeds the social utilities of the products and that a reasonable alternative design exists additionally. Proving defects in proportion to technological advancement is becoming increasingly difficult. It has also been criticized that the revision from the consumer expectation test to the risk-utility test in the Restatement (third) of Tort is a regression to the principle of negligence liability. In particular, in the case of inherently dangerous products or products with advanced technology, it has been increasingly difficult for consumers to get compensation by suggesting the reasonable alternative design. As the result, the product category liability theory has emerged as an alternative for the criterion for defect in the United States. In this paper, I researched the contents and the problems of product category liability through the theories and precedents in the United States, and examined the possibility of introducing it in Korea. 국내에서 제조물책임법의 입법논의가 본격적으로 진행되던 시기에는 학자들의 활발한 입법논의만큼이나 기업들의 반대의견의 제시도 만만치 않았다. 그 당시 기업들은 제조물책임법이 제정되면 대부분의 제조업체들이 파산할 것이라는 우려를 표출하였다. 법 시행 후 약 15년이 지난 지금에는 기업들의 파산이 문제로 되는 것이 아니라, 까다로운 입증책임으로 인하여 피해 소비자들이 제조물책임법에 의한 구제를 충분히 받지 못하는 것이 우려가 되고 있는 상황이라고 할 수 있다. 특히 현대에 있어서 입증책임이 문제가 되는 결함의 유형은 설계상 결함에 집중되고 있다. 소비자가 설계상 결함을 입증하기 위해서는 결함판단기준을 충족하여야 하는데, 현재에는 위험효용기준이 주된 결함판단기준으로 자리 잡고 있다. 그러나, 위험효용기준에 의하여 결함을 입증하기 위해서는 제조물의 위험과 사회적 효용성을 비교하여 위험성이 효용성을 초과한다는 점 및 합리적 대체설계의 가능성이 존재한다는 점을 소비자가 제시하여야 하므로 제조물에 적용되는 기술의 고도화와 비례하여 결함의 입증은 점점 더 어려워지고 있다. 이를 두고 미국에서는 무과실책임에 가까운 소비자기대기준에서 위험효용기준으로의 수정은 과실책임주의로의 회귀라는 비판도 제기되고 있다. 특히, 일반적으로 널리 사용되는 제품 중에서도 그 특성상 본질적으로 위험한 경우나 첨단 과학기술이 내재된 제조물의 경우에는 일반인인 소비자가 위험성이 있는 제조물의 위험과 효용을 분석하고 효용성이 위험성을 초과할 수 있는 합리적 대체설계를 제시하여 손해배상을 받은 것은 거의 불가능에 가까워지고 있다. 이처럼 현실적인 결합입증의 한계에 대한 반동으로 미국에서는 설계상 결함판단기준으로서의 새로운 이론으로 제품분류책임(products category liability)이 제기되고 있다. 이 논문에서는 주로 미국의 이론과 판례를 통하여 제품분류책임의 내용과 적용상의 문제점을 검토하고, 최근 제조물책임법의 개정을 통하여 결함의 추정에 관한 조문을 신설한 이후에도 설계상 결함의 요건으로 인정되고 있는 피해자에 의한 합리적 대체설계의 제시 가능성을 여전히 요구할 것인가와 관련한 입법적 논의도 필요할 것으로 생각된다.

製造物責任紛爭을 위한 ADR(재판외 분쟁처리)제도의 활성화 방안

延基榮(Yeun, Kee-Young) 중앙대학교 법학연구원 2008 法學論文集 Vol.32 No.2

Strict products liability is liability in tort for harm caused by defective products without any necessity for the plaintff to show fault on the part of the defendant. The American Greenmann v. Yuba Power case is of major importance in the development of Srict Liability doctrine for the defective product. After this case, most American jurisdictions have adopted the verson of strict tort liability contained in section 402A of the Restatement (Second) of Torts which was first drawn up by the American Law Institute in 1965. Propsals for a European Community Diretive on Products liability were first considered in the 1970s and after slow progress, finally led to the adoption by the Member States of the present Directive in 1985. The Directive provides in its first article that 'producer shall be liable for damage caused by a defect in his product'. This Directive was the first significant attempt to achieve the harmonisation of an area of private law at Community level. Now, All Member States of EU have adopted legislation incorporating the Directive into their national legal systems. Jananese Product Liability Act 1994 and Korean Product Liability Act 1999 have adoped the strict liability doctrine as well as EC Directive 85/374 and the American Restatement of Tort 1965. For the resolution of products liability cases, many countries use ADR system. Especially with the introduction of strict liability, many dispute resolution centers in the field of product liability have been set up and begun opertions in Japan. ADR has the potential of being guick and less expensive in the procedural phase. ADR is easily accessible to the parties and removes various impediments in access to legal remidies. In Japan, there are two types of ADR organizations for Products Liability. One is that of the national Consumer Center and local Consumer Centers, which deal with product complaints, the other is that of the Product Liability Centers that take care of extended damages and harm caused by defective products. Many Producers tend to think that such compromise is not un reasonable for maintaining their reputation and goodwill, partly because the monetary amount in dispute with consumers is often very small. PL centers can be appreciated as an attempt to build a structure that enables the fair resolution of disputes, based on law and facts, by providing a new and scientifically natural service for investigating the cause. Finally, in this paper I would like to introduce a new ADR system focusing on the Japanese organizations for the products liability disputes(PL centers and Cause Investigating Organizations).

3D 프린팅에 대한 제조물책임의 적용 연구

李相水(Lee, Sang-Soo) 중앙법학회 2016 中央法學 Vol.18 No.2

「Three Dimensional Printing Industry Promotion Act」 legislated in December 2015 has significance as the first law that introduced Product Liability to the individual law related to ICT. It means that the Act arranged legal solution plan in case of the damage on one’s life, body, or property due to faulty product made with 3D Printing, which is advanced ICT technology. Compensation for further damage due to the defects of 3D Printing product is first, under default of obligation of 「Civil Law」 Article 390, assuming contract relation between person directly related. Second, it is under responsibility of tort 「Civil Law」 Article 750 that should prove negligence/intention of assailant regardless of contract relation between person directly related and defects liability under 「Civil Law」 Article 580. Also, there is Product Liability that applies liability without fault to compensation for damages due to product defect. The problem is that to establish defects of 3D Printing Product requires high-degree of professional ability. 3D Printing Product is developed by skilled programmers or technicians, and it is hard for normal consumers to know the complexity of 3D Printing Product combined with elaborate IT devices and electronics. Therefore, by putting liability without fault regardless of contract relation on 「Product Liability Law」, it has a different signification in the point that it can solve the existing limitation of compensation for damage due to the defects of 3D Printing Product. Especially, 3D Plan and 3D Printing software developed by software technicians run 3D Printer, and produce 3D Printing products. Because it is difficult for consumers to understand the complexity of 3D Plan, 3D Printing Software, or 3D Printer that is developed by skilled software technicians, it is urgent to relax burden of proof about causal relationship of occurrence of damage and presence of defects on 「Product Liability Law」. Therefore, when the fact confirms that the accident occurs under the exclusive control of manufacturer and the accident does not normally occur without mistake of manufacturer or third party although the product is used in normal way and the consumer receives further damage, regulation should be created that estimates further damage due to defect and accident of products occurring by the fault of the product. And it must be coincided with legislative purpose of 「Product Liability Law」. Meanwhile, as we examined before, Product Liability exemption should be made toward manufacturers of 3D printing software in the point that it enables users to judge the availability in printing software that provides source code. Also, in the case of the products that accompany high-degree of technical skills like 3D Printing and in case of conflict that occurs due to Product Liability, consumers actually have burden of raising original suit on the basis of Product Liability on 「Product Liability Law」 or 「Three Dimensional Printing Industry Promotion Act」, and due to the difficulty of defect proof unlike general products. Therefore, dispute conciliation function of 3D Printing Product Liability to 「Three Dimensional Printing Industry Promotion Act」 should be established and suspension effect of statute of limitations need to be required in order that prompt and effective solution can be made from conflict consequential to Product Liability of 3D Printing.