원산지표시법상 원산지의 거짓표시와 혼동유발표시 - 상품명에 포함된 지명을 중심으로 -

박준우 ( Junu Park ) 한국경제법학회 2021 경제법연구 Vol.20 No.2

이 논문은 원산지표시법 제6조의 거짓표시 및 혼동유발표시의 해석에 관한 대법원판결을 검토하였다. 우선 원산지표시에 관한 대법원 사건을 소개하고(II), 원산지표시에 관한 법률들의 관련 규정과 연혁을 살펴보고(III), 원산지표시법과 부정경쟁방지법의 관련 규정을 비교하고(IV), 대법원판결을 검토하였다(V). 원산지표시법의 적용에 관한 대법원판결의 문제는 ① 원산지의 ‘표시의무’를 충족한 것과 ‘거짓표시 또는 혼동유발표시’를 명확히 구별하지 않은 점, ② 원산지표시법 제5조의 ‘표시의무’를 충족하면 제6조의 ‘거짓표시’와 ‘혼동유발표시’가 아니라는 식으로 판결한 점, ③ ‘거짓’과 ‘혼동’의 인식주체인 소비자의 인식을 거의 고려하지 않은 점, 그리고 ④ 원산지의 ‘거짓표시 및 혼동유발표시’의 판단대상을 ‘원산지표시란’의 표시로 제한한 점 등에 있다. 그러나 ‘표시의무’를 이행하였어도 ‘거짓표시’와 ‘혼동유발표시’일 수 있으며, ‘거짓표시’가 아니라도 ‘혼동유발표시’에 해당할 수 있다. 이는 대법원이 아직도 원산지표시법의 의미를 ‘국내산과 외국산의 구별’에 두고 ‘국내 특정지역 사이의 구별’까지 나아가지 못하고 있는 것이 원인이며, 이러한 고려가 ‘죄형법정주의’의 적용에도 영향을 미친 듯하다. 원산지표시제도의 시행 초기에는 국내 생산자와 소비자를 보호하기 위하여 ‘국내산과 외국산의 구별’만으로도 충분하였을 수 있다. 그러나 이제는 소비자를 보호하기 위하여 ‘국내의 특정지역 산을 구별’하는 것까지 필요하며, 이는 원산지표시제도 자체에 대한 소비자의 신뢰를 확보하고, 특정 지역의 생산자가 1차 상품의 품질 유지 및 향상에 투자하도록 하는 지리적표시제도가 실효성 있게 운용될 수 있는 전제가 된다. This article examined Supreme Court decisions, which interpreted the meaning of ‘false indication’ and ‘indication causing confusion’ with regard to origin of agricultural and fishery products of Article 6 of the Act on Origin Labelling of Agricultural and Fishery Products(Indication of Origin Act. IOA). This article first introduced the holdings and rationales of Supreme Court cases(II), explained acts regulating indication of origins and their legislative histories(III), compared the IOA with the Unfair Competition Prevention Act(IV), and finally evaluated the Supreme Court decisions and their rationales(V). This article criticized that Supreme Court ① failed to tell ‘the duty to indicate origin’ from ‘the duty against false indication or indication causing confusion with regard to origin,’ ② held in the way that an indication, which did not violate article 5, was also not the violation of article 6, ③ failed to consider how consumers would recognize the indications, and ④ limited the ‘false indication’ or ‘indication causing confusion’ to the indication in the ‘labelling of origin section of a product,’ excluding indications on the other parts of the product from decision. This suggests that Supreme Court still understood the function of the IOA as protecting domestic products against foreign ones. Supreme Court failed to recognize consumer expectations which distinguished products from different domestic origins, which in turn resulted in the application of the principle of nulla poena sine lege. The distinction between domestic and foreign origin might be enough when the protection of origin had first started. But now the distinction among domestic origins is necessary to meet consumer expectations, which can secure the trust on the IOA, and further can support the protection of the geographical indications.

프랑스의 지리적 표시보호제도에 관한 연구

양대승 한국지식재산학회 2008 産業財産權 Vol.- No.25

A geographical indication (GI) is a sign used on goods that have a specific geographical origin and possess qualities, reputation or characteristics that are essentially attributable to that origin. This definition of the GI is extremely wide-ranging, such that the notion can include agricultural, agrifood or industrial products, or indeed goods originating in the handicraft industry, whose association with their geographical origin can at times be extremely tenuous. The scope of the definition also includes the notion of appellation of origin, which is a sub-category of geographical indication with tighter and more carefully defined requirements. An appellation of origin (AO) is a special kind of GI. The GI must not be confused with the indication of source, which provides information solely as to the place of production or production of a product, without indicating or guaranteeing a particular quality associated with the place of origin or the modes of production (example: made in China). Furthermore, the GI is a collectⅣe right if use that is reserved exclusⅣely for those who respect the specifications (book of requirements) they define and that are approved by a competent authority. Geographical indications of production (GI), which associate an agricultural or handicraft product with the territory from which it comes, are a collectⅣe tool for producers to promote the products of their territory. The geographical indication system aims to promote products that are part of a food and cultural heritage that is deemed to be inalienable. The period for the use of the right is the same as that of the existence of the product. This system enables territories to be promoted thanks to the criterion of authentic production techniques, reserved for the market players within the gⅣen area. Geographical indications are a means to create added value locally. When the name of a product receⅣes protection as a geographical indication, the local communities benefit from the positⅣe impact. These systems linked with the origin are also tools in the development and promotion of regions. They are of particular interest for region where agriculture has low levels of productⅣity, thanks to the added value they provide. GI help maintain and develop actⅣities in rural area that may be disadvantaged, by promoting local know-how and production centers. GI protection also provides other benefits for local communities. Geographical indications encourage the dⅣersification of production, and thereby the preservation of biodⅣersity, local know-how and natural resources. GI also have a positⅣe impact on tourism. For example, gastronomy trails are now an integral part of holidays in countries such as France. The system also provides the consumer with certain guarantees. Consumers are becoming ever more attentⅣe to what they buy and what they have in their plates. Their expectations are higher than in the past, in particular with regard to the information provided on the methods by which the product was manufactured, and the degree to which it is typical of its area of origin. If the products meet all these requirements, consumers will be more inclined to pay more for them than for standard products. The sanctions applicable to such infringements in France are of two kinds: administratⅣe and criminal. In order to benefit from a geographical indication, the products must meet production conditions that are set out in each of the specifications documents (book of requirements) that relate to geographical indications. Failure to respect the production conditions that are defined in the specifications (book of requirements) must entail a ban on using the name of the geographical indication. The fraudulent use of a geographical indication can lead to action before the criminal courts. Certain services (for example: the Directorate General for Consumption, Competition and the Repression of Fraud in France, customs) may have the power to take measures against infringements of geographical indications. Offences include deceit or attempt to deceⅣe, of usurpation of geographical indication or use of an incorrect geographical indication. Generally speaking, the regulations prohibit the use of a geographical name that constitutes the name of a GI or any other words that evoke it, for any similar product. Another possibility exists, although it is not recognised by the TRIPs agreements, the fraudulent use of reputation. This sanction prohibits the use of a geographical name that constitutes the name of a GI for any other product or service when this use is likely to dⅣert or weaken the reputation of the GI. Geographical indications, because they represent an agricultural model that brings together quality and harmonious use of rural areas, are a major economic asset that must be protected against infringement.

대학명칭을 영업표지로 사용한 경우의 영업주체혼동행위 여부에 대한 고찰 ― 대법원 2014. 5. 16. 선고 2011다77269 판결 ―

정태호 전남대학교 법학연구소 2014 법학논총 Vol.34 No.2

The issue in this case is whether what the defendant used ‘Ewha media’ as abusiness indication an act of causing confusion as an indication of anotherperson’s business in Unfair Competition Prevention Law is or not. UnfairCompetition Prevention Law Article 2, (1) (Na) provide the basic context for anAct of Causing Confusion as an Indication of Another Person’s Business. According to Unfair Competition Prevention Law Article 2, (1) (Na), this Actmeans an act of causing confusion with another person’s commercial facilities oractivities by using signs identical or similar to another person’s name, trade name,emblem or any other sign widely known in the Republic of Korea as anindication of another person’s business(well-knownness, similarity, confusion). ‘Ewha’, the plaintiff’s business indication obtained well-knownness by beingwell-known widely as indication of business act regarding education of ‘Ewhauniversity’ to be managed by the plaintiff among general traders and consumers. ‘Ewha’, the plaintiff’s business indication is similar to ‘Ewha media’, thedefendant’s business indication. The plaintiff’s business indication is well-knownand the defendant have managed business closely related to the plaintiff’sbusiness by using a business indication similar to ‘Ewha’, the plaintiff’s businessindication. The plaintiff’s business scale is huge and the defendant’s use andregistration of domain name will be also unfair competition act. Based on thisconditions, Supreme Court decided that the defendant’s use of businessindication, ‘Ewha media’ had caused confusion with The plaintiff’s commercialfacilities or activities among general traders and consumers. Therefore, I thinkthat the defendant’s use of business indication, ‘Ewha media’ was an act ofcausing confusion as an indication of another person’s business in UnfairCompetition Prevention Law and the above Supreme Court’s decision was proper. I think it is significant that the decision of this case suggests concrete guidelinesof determination on preventing the use of university name from being unfair competition act. 이 사건의 쟁점은 피고가 영업표지로 ‘이화미디어’를 사용하는 행위가 부정경쟁방지법상 영업주체혼동행위에 해당하는지 여부이다. 부정경쟁방지법 제2조 제1호 나목의‘영업주체 혼동행위’에 해당하기 위해서는, 국내에서 널리 인식된 타인의 상호 기타 영업표지(표지의 주지성)와, 동일 또는 유사한 것을 사용하여(표지의 유사성), 타인의 영업상의 시설 또는 활동과 혼동을 일으킬 것(혼동성)을 요한다. 원고의 영업표지인 ‘이화’ 등은 일반 거래자나 수요자에게 원고가 운영하는 이화여자대학교의 교육 관련 영업 활동을 표시하는 것으로 현저하게 인식되어 주지성을 취득하였다. 원고의 영업표지인 ‘이화’와 피고의 영업표지인 ‘이화미디어’는 유사하다. 원고의 영업표지가 주지성이있고, 피고가 위 영업표지와 유사한 영업표지를 사용하여 원고의 영업과 중복되거나밀접한 관련을 갖는 사업을 영위하고 있을 뿐만 아니라, 원고의 영업규모가 상당한 정도에 이르고, 도메인이름 등록・사용행위도 부정경쟁행위에 해당할 여지가 큰 점 등에비추어 볼 때에, 피고의 영업표지 사용으로 인하여 일반 거래자 또는 수요자로서는 피고의 사업체가 원고와 자본, 조직 등에 밀접한 관계가 있다고 오인・혼동할 우려가 충분히 있을 것으로 판단되었다. 따라서 피고가 자신의 영업표지로 ‘이화미디어’를 사용하는 행위는 영업주체 혼동행위에 해당하며, 이와 같은 대법원의 판단은 타당하다고할 수 있다. 이 사건 판결은 대학명칭에 대한 부정경쟁행위를 근절하기 위한 구체적인판단기준을 제시하여 주고 있다는데 그 의의가 있다고 하겠다.

계열 기업들의 상호사용에 따른 영업주체 혼동행위의 문제 : 서울고등법원 2014. 2. 20. 선고 2013나44845 판결을 중심으로

정태호 법무부 2015 선진상사법률연구 Vol.- No.70

대상판결에서의 이 사건의 쟁점은 기업 그룹의 계열 기업들 중의 하나였던 피고가 기업 그룹의 분리후에도 영업표지로 ‘대성’이라는 상호를 계속적으로 사용하는 행위가 원고들의 상호사용과 혼동을 일으키게 되어서 부정경쟁방지법상 영업주체혼동행위에 해당하는지의 여부이다. 부정경쟁방지법 제2조 제1호 나목의 ‘영업주체 혼동행위’에 해당하기 위해서는, 국내에서 널리 인식된 타인의 상호 기타 영업표지(주지된 타인의 영업표지)와, 동일 또는 유사한 것을 사용하여(유사성), 타인의 영업상의 시설 또는 활동과 혼동을 일으킬 것(혼동성)을 요한다. 대상판결에서의 이 사건에서 ‘대성’이라는 영업표지에 화체된 신용은 현재 대성그룹에 속해 있었던 복수의 계열 기업들에게 공동으로 귀속하고 있는 것에 해당하므로, 피고가 원고들로부터 사용허락을 받지 않고 ‘대성’이라는 영업표지를 사용하더라도, 해당 영업표지에 대한 원고들의 신용에 편승하는 것으로는 되지 않는 것이다. 따라서 대성그룹의 계열 기업이었고 ‘대성’이라는 영업표지에 관한 신용을 그대로 승계한 피고도 해당 영업표지의 영업주체로서 계속적인 영업활동이 가능한 것이라고 해석되어야 할 것이다. 결국 피고가 자신의 영업표지로 ‘대성홀딩스’를 사용하는 행위는 영업주체 혼동행위에 해당하지 않는다고 판단한 대상판결의 결론은 타당하다고 할 수 있다. 그러나 대상판결은 기업 분리후에 계열 기업들의 상호사용에 따른 영업주체 혼동행위에 관한 구체적인 판단기준을 제시하여 주고 있지 못하므로, 향후 대법원에서 이에 관한 구체적인 판단기준을 판시하여야 한다고 생각한다. The issue in this case of the subject decision is whether what the defendant, one of the affiliates in business group continuously used a trade name, “DAESUNG” as a business indication after the deconglomeratation of the business group an act of causing confusion as an indication of another person(the plaintiff)’s business in Unfair Competition Prevention Law is or not. Unfair Competition Prevention Law Article 2, (1) (Na) provide the basic context for an Act of Causing Confusion as an Indication of Another Person’'s Business. According to Unfair Competition Prevention Law Article 2, (1) (Na), this Act means an act of causing confusion with another person's commercial facilities or activities by using signs identical or similar to another person's name, trade name, emblem or any other sign widely known in the Republic of Korea as an indication of another person’ business(well-knownness of another person's business indication, similarity, confusion). The act of the defendant shall not be an act of causing confusion as an indication of the plaintiff’s business notwithstanding that the defendant use “DAESUNG” as a business indication without permission for use of the trade name from the plaintiff, since the numerous affiliates have still the goodwill of “DAESUNG” as a business indication jointly now after the deconglomeratation of the business group in this case of the subject decision. Therefore, I think it is reasonable that the defendant also can do business by using his business indication continuously, since he was a affiliate of DAESUNG group and succeeded to the goodwill of “DAESUNG” as a business indication. In conclusion, I think it is reasonable that the subject decision determined the defendant’s act of using “DAESUNG HOLDINGS” as his business indication is not an act of causing confusion as an indication of the plaintiff’s business. But I think the Supreme Court should show concrete determination guidelines for this case later, since the subject decision didn’t show concrete determination guidelines on an act of causing confusion as an indication of another person’'s business in the use of trade names by the affiliates after the deconglomeratation of the business group.

음반 등의 유통 활성화를 위한 디지털식별자의 표시방법에 관한 고찰

조용순(Cho, Yong-Soon) 조선대학교 법학연구원 2008 法學論叢 Vol.15 No.1

The unified environment between Broadcasting-communication has come due to development of digital technology. Such environment is now affecting the music industry. The music business is currently in downhill due to the increase of illegal downloading from P2P, Web-Hard services. And the old type of music media is being rapidly replaced to providing service through internet and mobile environment. To confront this trend, Music Industry Promotion Act has been published in 2006. This Act issued the policy of "Identifier Indication" for the digital environment. Identifier Indication is: the meta-data which provides the unique serial number for the contents which are distributed on & off line to be managed permanently. If media such as disc and record are managed by this method, it enables the copy right protection, tracking down the distribution route, and also easy purchase and free-usage of the media for the internet users. Currently, only "trade name" and "rate classification" are being standardized for indication requirements at the current regulations for music industry promotion. But "identifier Indication" must be imported as a standard indication requirement, and also a digital indication method should be standardized to identify the digital music or video medias. In the article 11 of the current Enforcement Decree, it is required to put "Online Digital Contents Industry Promotion" indication mark partially on music and video contents, however, this is not for the obligation, but for the protection. However, the policy of Music Industry Promotion Act is empowered to charge fine for negligence when the required indication identifier is not properly attached on the media. Therefore, there should be an amendment on the current article 11 at Music Industry Promotion Act, that the optional identification on media must be changed to as an obligation.

문화콘텐츠의 유통과 표시에 대한 소고

조용순(Cho, Yong-Soon) 세창출판사 2007 창작과 권리 Vol.- No.49

Music Industry Promotion Act and Movie and Video Promotion Act have been published in 2006. These Act issued the policy of "Identifier Indication" for the digital environment. Identifier Indication is the meta-data which provides the unique serial number for the contents which are distributed on & off line to be managed permanently. If media such as disc and record are managed by this method, it enables the copy right protection, tracking down the distribution route, and also easy purchase and free-usage of the media for the internet users. Currently, only "trade name" and "rate classification" are being standardized for indication requirements at the current regulations for music industry promotion. But "identifier Indication" must be imported as a standard indication requirement, and also a digital indication method should be standardized to identify the digital music or video medias. In the current Enforcement Decree, it is required to put "Online Digital Contents Industry Promotion" indication mark partially on music and video contents, however, this is not for the obligation, but for the protection. However, the policy of Music Industry Promotion Act and Movie and Video Promotion Act are empowered to charge fine for negligence when the required indication identifier is not properly attached on the media. Therefore, there should be an amendment on the Music Industry Promotion Act and Movie and Video Promotion Act, that the optional identification on media must be changed to as an obligation.

지리적 표시 단체표장제도의 문제점과 해결방안에 관한 고찰

정태호 원광대학교 법학연구소 2011 圓光法學 Vol.27 No.4

In Trademark Act, there is a system of collective mark for a geographical indication as a protection system of geographical indication. This system admits a registration of a geographical indication by means of collective mark systems, if a non-distinctive geographical indication has earned a reputation related to a quality of a specific goods. This system looks like being organized well by means of Trademark Act, but several problems in managing this system practically have appeared. Mentioning about the problems precisely, we can raise issues, which Korean Intellectual Property Office(KIPO)’s supports have only too much focused on making collective mark rights for a geographical indication like application supports and awareness of cunsumers for collective mark for a geographical indication is not high particularly and application process is very complicated. Examining about this problems more concretely, we can raise issues like difficulty in fulfilling requirements of applicants, an internal struggle of producer group, neglect of follow-up management, and lack of understanding, promotions and supports on making economical profits in a system of collective mark for a geographical indication. For solving this problems, we will need education and supports of follow-up management, supports for solving an internal struggle of producer group, KIPO’s supports on education of application process and legal modification on simplification of application process, education and supports of commercialization after registrations and supports on promotions for raising consumers’ awareness. In conclusion, if we make solutions of problems in managing collective mark for a geographical indication, legal status of this system will be maintained continuously and this system will develop. And this solutions will distinguish this system from protected geographical indication system in the Agricultural Products Quality Management Act and will be able to make a contribution to a practical protection of a geographical indication.

지리적 표시 단체표장제도의 문제점과 해결방안에 관한 고찰

정태호 원광대학교 법학연구소 2011 法學硏究 Vol.27 No.4

In Trademark Act, there is a system of collective mark for a geographical indication as a protection system of geographical indication. This system admits a registration of a geographical indication by means of collective mark systems, if a non-distinctive geographical indication has earned a reputation related to a quality of a specific goods. This system looks like being organized well by means of Trademark Act, but several problems in managing this system practically have appeared. Mentioning about the problems precisely, we can raise issues, which Korean Intellectual Property Office(KIPO)’s supports have only too much focused on making collective mark rights for a geographical indication like application supports and awareness of cunsumers for collective mark for a geographical indication is not high particularly and application process is very complicated. Examining about this problems more concretely, we can raise issues like difficulty in fulfilling requirements of applicants, an internal struggle of producer group, neglect of follow-up management, and lack of understanding, promotions and supports on making economical profits in a system of collective mark for a geographical indication. For solving this problems, we will need education and supports of follow-up management, supports for solving an internal struggle of producer group, KIPO’s supports on education of application process and legal modification on simplification of application process, education and supports of commercialization after registrations and supports on promotions for raising consumers’ awareness. In conclusion, if we make solutions of problems in managing collective mark for a geographical indication, legal status of this system will be maintained continuously and this system will develop. And this solutions will distinguish this system from protected geographical indication system in the Agricultural Products Quality Management Act and will be able to make a contribution to a practical protection of a geographical indication.

공업 분야 중등 교사자격증 ‘통합표시과목’에 대한 교사와 교수의 인식

최준섭,김익수,이성주,김광호,김경아 한국직업교육학회 2008 職業 敎育 硏究 Vol.27 No.3

이 연구는 공업 분야 중등 교사자격증 통합표시과목에 대한 교사와 교수의 인식을 조사하고 분석하여 전문성 있는 교원 양성 방안 및 통합표시과목 개선방안을 제시하는 데 목적이 있다. 공업 분야 중등 교사자격증 통합표시과목에 대한 교사와 교수의 인식 조사의 결과는 다음과 같다. 첫째, 통합표시를 통한 통합 배치에 대한 설문에 대하여 개선해야 한다는 응답이 교사는 82.9%, 교수는 83.3%로 나왔다. 이는 통합표시에 대하여 현장 교사와 교수들이 많은 문제를 느끼고 있다는 것을 의미한다. 둘째, 공업계 표시과목의 통합에 대하여 찬성하는 교원에 대하여 교원 양성단계에서 통합표시과목 교원의 전문성 제고 방안을 설문한 결과 교사의 경우 각 전공(통합 이전 과목) 분야의 필수 이수학점 각각 32학점 이상 이수에 50.5% 응답한 반면 교수의 경우 각 전공 분야의 필수 이수학점 각각 14학점 이상 이수에 61.5% 응답하였다. 교수에 비해서 교사가 각 전공 분야(통합 이전 과목)의 필수 이수학점을 높이는 것에 찬성하는 비율이 높은 이유는 학교 현장에서 교과 지도를 하면서 지도상 문제점을 몸소 느끼고 있기 때문으로 생각된다. 셋째, 공업계 표시과목의 통합에 대하여 반대하는 교원에 대하여 본인 전공 영역 통합표시과목의 합리적인 분리 방안을 설문한 결과 2개 과목을 통합한 분야는 종전처럼 2분류로 분리하는 것을 절대 다수가 원하였다. 그러나 3개 과목을 통합한 기계ㆍ금속ㆍ자동차분야, 전기ㆍ전자ㆍ통신 분야는 교사의 경우 종전처럼 3분류로 분리하는 방안에 대한 찬성이 많았던 반면 교수의 경우는 2분류로 분리하는 방안을 선호하였다. 이는 교사들이 교원배치의 유연성 보다 교과전문성에 좀 더 비중을 두는 반면 교수들은 교원배치의 유연성에 좀 더 비중을 두기 때문으로 생각된다. The purpose of this study was to survey and analyze the recognition of teachers and professors about 'integrated indication subject' of secondary school teacher's certificate in field of industry, and also to present training plan of the making the professional teachers and improvement plan of integrated indication subject. The result of the questionnaire on recognition of teachers and professors about 'integrated indication subject' of secondary school teacher's certificate in field of industry were as follows: First, 82.9% of teachers and 83.3% of professors responded that integration placement through integrated indication was needed to improve. This means that teachers and professors felt many problems in the system of integrated indication. Second, 51.9% of teachers regarded as problems, that is, integrated indication subject in training courses for teachers, that integrated indication subject was approved as a similar major, but 61.1% of professors thought that the system on integration of teacher's certificate had problems. Third, 18.4% of teachers agreed with integration, 81.6 % of teachers responded that integration was required to improve about integration of indication subject in field of industry, and 24.1% of professors agreed with integration, 75.9% of professors responded that integration was required to improve.

모자보건법 제14조에 대한 헌법적 검토

박승호(Park, Seung-Ho) 숭실대학교 법학연구소 2014 法學論叢 Vol.31 No.-

1) 형법은 낙태를 원칙적으로 금지하고, 모자보건법 제14조는 낙태를 예외적으로 허용하고 있다. 모자보건법 제14조가 규정하는 낙태의 정당화사유들에 대해 헌법적으로 검토한다. 그리고 사회 · 경제적 정당화사유를 도입하는 것이 필요한지 여부를 살펴본다. 2) 모자보건법 제14조에 대해 헌법적 검토를 함에 있어서, 관련되는 기본권은 태아의 생명권과 임부의 자기결정권을 중심으로 한다. 검토기준으로는 과소보호금지원칙, 비례의 원칙, 평등의 원칙, 명확성의 원칙, 기대불가능성 등이다. 3) 생명권도 헌법 제37조 제2항에 따라 법률로써 제한될 수 있다. 따라서 태아의 생명권도 절대적인 권리가 아니다. 태아의 생명권과 임부의 자기결정권이 충돌할 경우 실제적 조화의 원리에 따라 해결할 수 없고, 형량에 의할 수밖에 없다. 형량은 나라마다 다르다. 태아의 생명보호정도는 입법자에게 맡겨져 있다. 4) 임부의 낙태를 위해 배우자동의를 요건으로 하는 것은, 남성의 의사가 여성을 지배하기 때문에 평등원칙에 반하고 또 중립적인 의사의 정당화사유확인을 통해 낙태를 허용할 수 있으므로 비례원칙에 반한다. 5) 우생학적 정당화사유는 차별적 표현이므로 태아와 관련한 의학적 정당화사유로 표현하는 것이 적절하고 태아의 심각한 기형 등의 경우에 낙태를 허용해야 한다. 6) 강간임신의 경우에 낙태하지 않을 것을 기대할 수 없으므로 윤리적 정당화사유는 헌법적으로 정당하다. 강간임신에 상응하는 성범죄로 인한 낙태가 포함되지 않은 것은 평등원칙에 반한다. 근친상간으로 인한 임신의 경우 근친의 범위를 4촌 이내로 좁히는 것이 필요하다. 7) 의학적 정당화사유는 ‘해칠 우려가 있는 경우’에 관하여 더 명확하게 규정될 필요가 있다. 사회 · 경제적 정당화사유는 임신초기에 여성이 겪는 어려움을 고려하여 엄격한 요건을 갖추어 도입하는 것이 필요하다. 1) This article constitutionally reviews the indications of Article 14 of Mother and Child Health Act. Besides it is checked if we need the introduction of social ? economic indication to justify abortion.<br/> 2) In constitutionally reviewing the Article 14 of Mother and Child Health Act, this article focuses on fetus’ right to life and pregnant woman’s right of self-determination as constitutional rights. The standards of review are the principle of prohibiting too little protection, proportionality principle, equality principle, void for vagueness test, and expectability.<br/> 3) The right to life can be restricted by law based on the Article 37 Clause 2 of Constitution. When the fetus’ right to life and pregnant woman’s right of self-determination collides, the solution must be attained by interest balancing.<br/> 4) The requirement of husband consent violates the equality principle and proportionality principle because man's will rules woman and neutral doctor can check if there is indication for abortion.<br/> 5) Eugenic Indication is discriminatory language. It is appropriate to use medical indication related to fetus instead of eugenic indication. In case of serious fetal malformation etc. abortion should be permitted.<br/> 6) In case of pregnancy because of rape we can’t expect the pregnant woman not to abort. In case of pregnancy due to incest it is necessary to reduce the scope of close relative<br/> 7) The provision of medical indication should be clearer. It is necessary to introduce the social ? economic indication with strict requirement because pregnant women go through lots of difficulties in the early stages of pregnancy.