製造物責任 및 製造物責任保險에 관한 硏究 : 活性化方案을 中心으로 = (A)study on product liability and product liability insurance : focus on activating its liability and insurance

국문 초록 (Abstract)

우리나라에서도 美國 등 선진국처럼 製造物責任法理가 判例에 의하여 발전하다가 시대적 요청에 따라 2002. 7. 1.부터 製造物責任法이 시행되었다. 그런데 당초 예상과 달리 다른 保險의 시장규모가 세계에서 7위일 정도로 성장하고 있음에도 製造物責任이 活性化되고 있지 아니하다. 이렇게 製造物責任이 活性化되지 아니하고 침체된 까닭은 여러 가지가 있겠지만 그중 주된 원인으로는 製造者의 責任인 賠償額이 크지 않다는 것과 製造者의 賠償能力을 확보해 주는 製造物責任保險의 미성숙을 들 수 있다.
그래서 우리나라에서도 반사회적인 直接責任을 지는 製造者를 제외하고 제한된 範圍내에서 美國처럼 懲罰的 損害賠償을 도입하여 製造物의 缺陷으로 인한 消費者들의 피해를 충분히 賠償하는 것이 필요하다. 그리고 製造者의 직접적인 故意․重過失이 아닌 被傭者나 代理人의 歸責事由로 懲罰的 損害賠償을 질 경우에는 製造物責任保險의 付保를 허용하는 것도 社會秩序에 반하지 않는다고 생각한다. 또한 製造物責任을 活性化하기 위해서는 製造者의 賠償資力을 확보하는 것이 필수적이고 그 대표적인 方法이 製造物責任保險을 이용하는 것이다. 美國 등 선진국의 경우 製造物責任이 등장하게 된 역사적 배경하에 消費者와 製造者 모두 製造物責任保險의 중요성을 인식하고 製造物責任保險이 活性化되고 있는데 우리나라는 그렇지 못하다. 결국 우리나라에서는 국민소비생활에 직결되고 損害發生可能性이 큰 일부 분야에서 特別法의 제정을 통하여 責任保險의 强制化를 규정하고 있는데 製造物責任도 같은 취지에서 損害發生可能性이 크고 국민소비생활에 중대하고 심각한 영향을 주는 製造物에 대하여서는 製造物責任保險을 義務化하는 것도 타당하다고 할 것이다. 다만 美國에서는 製造物責任의 근거를 過失責任, 擔保責任, 嚴格責任 등 다양한 형태로 규정되어 있고 이를 責任保險의 約款에 수용하여 다양한 製造物責任을 활용하고 있는데 반하여 우리나라의 製造物責任保險의 約款은 保險의 대상이 되는 製造物責任의 範圍가 분명하지 않다. 그러므로 製造物責任保險約款의 내용을 대폭 강화하여 消費者保護에 충실을 기하는 것이 타당할 것이다. 이와 아울러 효율적인 料率體系를 축적하여 적절한 保險料를 산정하고 충분한 準備金의 積立과 언더라이팅의 專門化를 통하여 製造物責任保險의 活性化를 기대할 수 있을 것이다. 그러나 製造物責任 및 製造物責任保險의 活性化에 가장 근본적인 해결책은 실제 當事者인 消費者와 製造者의 意識의 轉換이라 할 것이다.

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

While the development of the modern technology provided human beings with useful facilities for better lives, many other side effects also appeared. We tried to cope with these side effect.
Before the industrial revolution area, legal disputes resulted from the defective goods had been satisfactorily solved based on the contract of law theory. However, according to the development and complication of the modern economy such as mass-production, mass-sale, the consumers came to face unexpected loss of damages and they could no longer be protected from the traditional contract of law theory, as a result of which they were left without legal remedies.
Under these circumstances, we tried to find out new legal solution that the legal remedy could be obtained, regardless the presence of the privity of the contract, from the manufacturers or the suppliers of the goods. At the initial stage, we tried to solve the problem with the negligence theory. However, the negligence theory required that the consumer as the plaintiff prove the presence of the intent or the negligence of the manufacturer, which is not favorable for the consumer. For the purpose of alleviating this burden on the consumer under the negligence theory, the warranty theory was introduced. However, under the warranty theory the consumer also had difficulty in that it could not find out the cause of action against the manufacturer who does not have the warranty relation with the consumer. These limitations of the previous several theories paved the way for the strict tort liability in which the consumers are entitled to obtain damages from the manufacturer without proving the presence of the manufacturer's negligence in the defective goods provided by it. Product liability facilitated the growth of the product liability insurance for the purpose of securing the manufacturer's capability to indemnify the consumer's damages. The product liability insurance policy includes the scope of the insured interest, the exoneration catalogue and etc to indemnify the liability of the manufacturer based on the product liability.
The product liability theory is a judge-made law in the Republic of Korea like many other countries including the U.S. The Republic of Korea enacted a statutory law named “Product Liability Act” on July 1, 2002. Against the initial expectation to the community, the product liability has not been activated, considering the Korean insurance market ranks in No. 7 in its terms of the size. Both the small amount of the damages imposed on the manufacturer and the immaturity of the product liability insurance can be enumerated as two main reasons for the inactive insurance market in the product liability.
The writer is of the opinion that the adoption of imposing punitive damages upon the manufacturer is required in the limited fashion in order to function the product liability system actively. The damages which the manufacturer should pay for the consumer is better to be insured as one of compulsory liability insurance scheme for the purpose of securing the payment for the consumer and protecting the manufacturer. It is general tendency in Korea that the liability insurance becomes compulsory for some businesses which affect the public's life deeply and is likely to inflict the enormous large damages, by special enactment. The writer, with the same spirit as the above, opine that the compulsory liability insurance should be imposed upon the manufacture which is likely to bring about large damages, affect the public's life deeply and enormously.
The writer came to the conclusion that the scope of the insured subject in the product liability insurance in Korea is not the same as that in the U.S. because the definition of the product liability in the U.S. is broader than that in Korea, taking into consideration that the cause of action based on the negligence, warranty and strict tort liability are within the definition of the product liability in the U.S. while only the strict tort liability is included in the definition of the product liability in Korea. Accordingly, the scope of the insured subject should be expanded according to that of the U.S, considering many manufactures are sold in the U.S.