상법 보험편 개정안 '통칙'에 관한 검토

정호열(Ho Yul Chung) 한국보험법학회 2007 보험법연구 Vol.1 No.2

이 글은 2007년 8월 31일자로 입법의 주무관청인 법무부가 법제처에 송부한 상법 제4편 개정초안 중 통칙 개정조항 부분을 비판적으로 살펴 보는 것을 목적으로 한다. 이번의 개정작업은 1991년의 보험법 개정 이후 최초의 것이어서, 그 동안 전개된 법리와 동적으로 변모하는 보험시장의 현실을 합리적으로 반영할 수 있는 소중한 계기가 되기를 기대한다. 이 개정작업에서 특히 유의하여야 할 대목은 다음의 두가지다. 첫째 우리나라는 통합보험법전 체제를 취하는 것이 아니라 보험계약법과 보험사업법을 병존시키고 있으므로, 계약법의 개정이 보험사업법과 조화를 이루어야 한다. 두 번째는 계약법의 사명은 보다 확실하고 효과적으로 거래를 체결하고 처리할 수 있도록 하는 것, 다시 말하여 사적자치의 원칙에 충실하면서 거래비용을 최소화하는 것이어야 한다는 점이다. 이러한 관점에서 개정안이 담고 있는 내용 중 보험설계사의 개념규정, 보험대리점의 권한과 관련하여 우리나라 보험시장의 관행과 다르게 법률이 구체적으로 개입하는 것, 보험약관의 교부설명의무와 관련된 조항 등에 대하여 비판적 의견을 개진하고 또 이에 상응하는 대안을 제시하였다. Focussed on the general provisons, this paper is designed to represent a critical review over revisionary draft of Insurance Contract Law, the Book IV of Korean Commercial Code that was released on 31st August, 2007. It is expected that this revisionary work would update the developments of rules and judicial decisions since 1991 and also cope with demands from the market and industry. As is well known, Korea does not possess a unified insurance code in which contractual provisions and regulatory provisions are concurrently adopted. Herein revisionary works on insurance contract law should be in harmony with insurance business law or regulatory environments. Another focuss is concerned with the basic function of a contract law. That is to say contractual norms should be based on the principle of private autonomy, and possibly abstain itself from the intervention into the relation between contractual parties, and should promote minimizing transaction cost around insurance contracts and agency contracts etc. In thess perspective, this paper reviews revisionary opinions on general provisions of Book IV of Commercial Code. To be more specific, the definition of insurance solicitor, newly adopted clause on insurance agent, and revision of insurance policy over its identification and explanation are critically discussed, and then other choices are also presented.

공정거래법의 최근 변화와 법집행의 실제

정호열(Chung Ho-Yul) 한국법학원 2005 저스티스 Vol.- No.88

지난 30년간 한국사회는 민주화, 즉 분권화와 자율화의 도정을 달려 왔다. 경제적 측면에서는 시장과 기업에 대한 각종 규제를 철폐하고 시장경제를 창달하기 위한 노력이 이루어져 왔다. 1980년의 공정거래법 제정은 이와 같은 흐름을 상징하는 사건이라고 할 수 있다. 이제 4반세기에 걸친 반독점정책의 시행에서 법의 체계와 내용이 지속적으로 정비되었고, 전문성을 쌓은 집행인력이 확보되었다. 많은 수의 공정위 심결례와 상당수의 판결례를 통해 공정거래법은 구체적 법현실을 정하는 실정법으로서 생생하게 작용하고 있으며, 특히 대기업들에게 매우 부담스러운 법이 되고 있다. 한국의 반독점정책의 주요 특징으로는, 강력한 일반집중억제 제도를 시행하는 점, 공정 거래법 위반행위는 일률적으로 형사범을 구성하면서 행정적 구제대상이 되는 점(criminal & illegal), 공정거래위원회가 경쟁정책의 집행을 사실상 독점하며 법원과 검찰은 피동적 혹은 종된 지위에 머무는 점 등을 들 수 있다. 새로운 4반세기를 내다보는 이 시점에서 한국의 경쟁법은 경제적 효율성의 이념과 법집행의 규범논리성을 성찰해 보아야 하며, 이러한 차원에서 한국의 경쟁정책은 중대한 갈림길에 서 있다고 할 수 있다. 첫째, 공정위가 각종 소비자보호법의 집행를 떠맡아 구체적 소비자보호가 그 본연의 사명인 것처럼 인식되는 상황을 재고해야 한다. 또한 신문고시에서 보듯이 첨예하게 대립된 정파적 이슈에 개입하는 것 역시 경쟁정책의 순수성과 일관성과 관련된다. 두번째, 경제력집중억제, 즉 재벌규제를 재정비하는 문제다. 국제적 예가 없고 내국기업에 대해 역차별적이며 효율성을 억압하는 규제라는 비판이 제기된다. 그러나 순수 경쟁정책의 문제가 아니라 정치사회적 함의가 오히려 더 큰 규제라는 점에서, 이에 대한 합리적 접근과 대안의 모색이 어렵다. 셋째는 본격적인 사법구제주의로 이행할 필요가 있다. 즉 사소의 활성화는 물론 검찰에게 민형사상의 원고적격을 부여하는 것을 검토할 가치가 있다. 사법구제주의는 공정위의 정치적 위험성을 경감시키며, 지역적 혹은 정파적 이해로부터 독립한 경쟁정책의 확보에 장기적으로 기여할 것이다.

대회 총평 : 로스쿨 교육방법의 담론과 그 의미

정호열(Ho-Yul Chung) 성균관대학교 비교법연구소 2006 성균관법학 Vol.18 No.2

도서정가제에 대한 법적 연구

정호열(Ho-Yul Chung),홍탁균(Tak-Kyun Hong) 한국비교사법학회 2016 비교사법 Vol.23 No.2

우리나라는 출판물에 대하여는 예외적으로 재판매가격유지행위를 허용하고 있고, 최근 출판문화산업진흥법 개정을 통해 출판물에 대해 도서정가제를 도입하여 유통과정상의 가격할얀을 강력하게 제한하고 있다. 이 도서정개1 시행과 관련하여 출판관련 단체들은 ‘자율협약’ 형식의 협정을 체결하여 운용하고 있다. 도서정가제의 채택여부는 국7봐다 다르다.OECD 소속 국가 중 주로 비영어권 국가들이 출판물의 문화상품 및 공공재로서의 성격을 감안하여 도서정가제를 채택하는데, 이를 법제화하는 방식과 사업자간의 협약에 맡기는 경우로 크게 나뉘어진다 우리나라는 2002년도에 처음으로 도서정가제를 법제화하였고 찬반론이 대립하는 가운데 2014년에 출판문화산업진흥법 개정을 통해 도서정가제가 대폭 강화되었다 도서정가제 준수의무를 부담하는 ‘간행물의 판매하는 자’의 범위, 도서정가제에 따라 소비자에 대한 제공이 제한되는 ‘경제적 이익’의 범위, 출판관련 단체들이 제정한 ‘자율협약’의 성격이나 운영주체, 자율협약에서 규정하는 차별적 거래에 대한 제재의 유효성 등이 실무상 문제되고 있다. 이에 대하여는 문화상품의 특성을 존중하려는 출판문화산업진흥법, 경쟁촉진을 목적으로 하는 공정거래법, 경제적 활동의 자유를 규정하는 헌법규뱀을 조화롭게 해석하여 결론을도출해야할 것이다 While Korean Antitrust law, Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act prohibits resale price maintenance, it allows resale price maintenance for books, Publishing Industry Promotion Act (“PIPA") imposes mandatory fixed-book-price system with little exception, Recently, there were amendments in PIP A. and fixed-book-price system became stronger. Participants in book publishing and distribution industry such as publishers, book stores, and an NGOs reached a ‘voluntary agreement’ as a working guideline for the newly emended PIP A. The rationale behind fixed-book-price system is that books are cultural products which need diversity, and that books, as a public g∞d, should not be exposed to uncontrolled price competition. Among OECD countries, roughly a half, mostly non -English -speaking countries, accept fixed -book-price system. Some countries take optional fixed-book-price system, while others take mandatory one. Korea adopted fixed-book-price system in 2002. After long and hot debate, the new amendment of PIP A strengthened the fixed -b∞k-price system. In practice, several issues are arising following the amendment. The scope of ‘any person who sells a publication’ in article 22 ( 4) of PIP A. is an issue to be clarified The scope of ‘economic profit’, which a seller of a book can provide to its customers, and the amount of which is regulated by PIP A. is another unclear issue. The nature and the identity of the enforcer of ‘voluntary agreement' is also debated. The validity of the sanctions for discriminatory practices under the voluntary agreement rnay also be questioned. To resolve these issues, we should take into consideration the characteristic of a book as a cultural product, the general promotion of fair competition, and the economic liberty clause in Korean Ccnstitution.

경제법의 최근 쟁점과 동향; 은행업 분야의 전문규제와 경쟁법집행의 조화

정호열 ( Ho Yul Chung ),송석은 ( Seok Eun Song ) 고려대학교 법학연구원 2013 고려법학 Vol.0 No.70

As one of the key industry of public regulation, banking sector have traditionally enjoyed gracious antitrust exemptions. However, amongst global phenomenon of deregulation since 1980s, banking industry has also been subjected to the general enforcement of competition policy. Introduction of greater competition in banking sector aroused jurisdictional conflicts between sector-specific regulator and economy-wide competition agency. This report aims to find a proper way to coordinate jurisdictional disputes between them. For this purpose, it analyzed the Korean norms in the banking sector. While cross-examining the legislative and policy trends in the major countries such as the United States, the European Union, Australia and Japan, it investigates ways of banking market tailored coordination of jurisdictional conflicts. Given the intrinsic specialty of the banking industry, it is recommended to form a more rational complementary relationship between sector regulator and competition authority in the perspective of specific legislation and memorandum between authorities.

방카슈랑스 시행의 법적 환경 - 일본과 한국의 경우

정호열(Chung Ho Yul) 성균관대학교 법학연구소 2007 성균관법학 Vol.19 No.1

  In the wake of 1997 economic crisis. Korea has undergone serious restructuring in the financial sector. And Japanese economy, during the so-called lost ten years. have suffered from the burst of the bubble economy and following deteriorations in the financial sector. Through the years two countries have been envisaging to initiate financial reforms, and representative of these reforms may be symbolized by the legislative efforts for the way to universal banking. Intra-sectoral competition. competition between life and non-life insurers, and competition of insurers and other financial companies are increasing amid deregulation in the market. Life insurers and non-life insurers have started to enter each other"s market through subsidiaries, and insurers and other financial institutions are forming big business alliances under holding company system.<BR>  In these context, this paper compares the legal aspects of bankassrance in Japan and in Korea, focussed on the analyses into concerning provisions of Insurance Business Acts, related Regulations and Guidelines in both countries. Introduction of bancassurance in Japan was made in April, 2001, and its enforcement are scheduled in four stages. It is expected that insurance sales at bank counters would be in full operation by the end of 2007. Impacts of bancassuance have been huge, and are viewed quite differently by various interest groups. However, Japanese Financial Services Agency(FSA) are carefully moderating conflicting interests through the years, and it has been successful so far.<BR>  Meanwhile Korean experience are not so successful as in Japan. Korean banks began to sell insurance from September, 2003, and its enforcements are expected in full operation by the end of 2007. The result of 1 st stage had been a huge success in terms of banking industry, meanwhile giving a critical blow to traditional insurance solicitors and agents who had lost lots of their customers in the wake. Insurance industry and traditional selling machines argued strongly against expansion of bancassurance coverage, and Government made a revision of the time table to allow insurance companies and solicitors some adjusting period for overall enforcements. More than 200 thousand people are still engaged in insurance solicitation and brokerage and more and more consumers are in favor of direct marketing and bankassurance. Herein the revised schedule seems to arouse another strong oppositions from various interest groups, and supervising authority(FSS) is asked to be more competent in moderating conflicting interests.

보험회사간 상호협정에 관한 법적 규제와 그 문제점

정호열(Chung, Ho-Yul) 성균관대학교 법학연구소 2011 성균관법학 Vol.23 No.3

Section 125 of Insurance Business Act(IBA) provides that mutual agreements among Insurers are subject to the approval of national financial authority(Financial Services Commission) with a prior consultation of Fair Trade Commission. Section 58 of Antimonopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act(AMA) also provides that business acts based upon statutory basis are immune from any kind of Antitrust enforcement, and it is understood that this policy is similar to the state action doctrine of United States. Herein Korean literature and courts construe that concerted acts of insurers based upon such mutual agreements as provided by §125 of IBA enjoy broad immunity from antitrust enforcement, especially form the collusion prohibition. Due to repeated revison of AMA, every market and every business activities in Korea are subject to the general enforcement of competition law and policy, and insurance industry is no exception. In these context, both provisions of IBA and AMA aforesaid are criticized that they are allowing too much freedom and are not providing any substantial limitations for the proposed immunity. When we consider the relevant developments in major jurisdictions of the world, especially those of US, Germany and Japan, provisions aforenamed are outdated and are in need of general overhaul both in legislation and enforcement. Concerning Section 125 of IBA, the author proposes a limited form of immunity, for example limiting the types of insurance to which concerted acts are indispensable, and requiring more rigid qualifications for the approval of Financial Services Commission. The author also recommends abolishment of Par. Ⅱ, Section 125 which mandate FNS to order insurers to conclude a new agreement and also to coerce an outsider to enter into the mutual agreement. Meanwhile the wording of ‘business of inurers’ in §125 of IBA should be construed that it is in line with essential aspect of insurance, the pooling and transfer of risks.

보증보험시장의 공정경쟁 촉진에 대한 연구

정호열(Chung, Ho-Yul),안병한(Ahn, Byoung-Han) 성균관대학교 법학연구소 2012 성균관법학 Vol.24 No.2

The purpose of this study is to develop policy alternatives replacing current regulatory statutes over various surety insurance markets in the perspective of free and fair competition among different entities performing surety insurance business. With investigation on the nature of various mutual aid organizations, which are increasing under little or no regulation in Korea, and critical review on the existing legal system, which allows them to establish and operate under completely different licensing structure from surety insurance companies, this study proves that application of different regulation and monitoring system to such organizations is the main reason to cause customer protection issues including restriction of customer welfare. Futhermore, there are unfair competition issues, which may not be amended except for systematical improvement of the institution. For example, general mutual aid organizations, which run business for the general publics as well as their members, can enjoy benefits from unfair regulations, which place little or no restriction and supervision on them, which are applicable to private surety insurance companies. In other words, the current legal system plays a role as the base to produce difference in regulation among competitors that perform the same functions in the same market. In addition, diversified statutes prevents competitors in the surety insurance market from competing each other on the equal footing as it is serving as a entrance barrier for each area and makes unreasonable division of the market permanent. According to the findings, it is revealed that legislation is the only option to integrate the market. Abolishment of all related existing statutes and addition of related clauses to the insurance law or enactment of new alternative laws can be a feasible option. Although jurisdiction based on the sectionalism is the very sensitive issue, it should be noted that the principle of universal regulation by integrated special regulation authority is the fundamental alternative for soundness of the market and welfare of customers, with full consideration of financial characteristics of the surety insurance market.

망중립성(Net Neutrality) 논쟁과 관련 규제 소고

정호열(Chung, Ho Yul),이상민(Yi, Sang Min) 성균관대학교 법학연구소 2012 성균관법학 Vol.24 No.3

In Korea, the net neutrality debate has been ignited by the issue of fair competition between ISPs and CPs. However, as the net neutrality expanded to the matter of protecting internet user rights, politicians and NGOs are taking parts in the debates and now the issue is viewed in the social and cultural contexts. Therefore, the concept of net neutrality is not just limited to the fair competition perspective, but also includes the concept of the ‘internet user rights protection’. This concept is generallyaccepted in USA and Europe as well as in Korea, but the stance of each government seems to differ on whether to regulate such concept. USA is showing more aggressive stance on the net neutrality regulations since it lacks regulatory measures for crucial issues of “assuring universal telecommunication service” and “fair competition between ISPs and CPs” compared to other countries. On the other hand, EU has already established the means to control the internet service market mostly through proactive regulations on the incumbent operators with “EU Regulation Framework (2003)”. EU is trying to take the holistic approach rather than individual one in terms of net neutrality regulations. However, as the net neutrality disputes increase and the needs for active protection of internet user rights, the possibility of individual regulation on net neutrality is growing in EU. Realization of such indication requires more cautious observation but it is safe to say that the regulation on net neutrality is at the center of hot debates. Even in USA, where the government is regulating net neutrality, arguments among the government, the legislature and the judiciary are taking place as well as conflicts between ISPs and CPs. Such severe conflicts are obscuring the future of the current USA’s net neutrality regulations. Therefore, we could say that the net neutrality regulation has not been settled reasonably in any countries globally. In this perspective, the dichotomous view some media, NGOs and experts are claiming that “some countries are regulating the net neutrality and some are not”, is inappropriate. It would be more proper to say that the net neutrality regulation has not been established in any countries and is still a controversial issue. The circumstance in Korea clearly differs from USA and is similar to one in EU. In Korea, the conflicts between ISPs and CPs and the violation of user rights can be settled through the existing regulations at least mostly if not fundamentally. Therefore, early-stage regulations could only cause more controversy without tangible outcome as in USA. Since it is still controversial and does not require immediate legislation for market to function, the net neutrality regulation could be premature intervention for the government. It would becrucial for the government to minimize market failure via existing regulations and to contemplate the necessity of new regulation through continuously monitoring the market. In addition, preventing further exhaustive disputes seems to be optimal solution as of now.

미국 독점금지법상의 가격차별의 법리-‘Automatic Canteen 사 대 FTC 사건’을 중심으로¹)-

정호열(Chung Ho Yul) 성균관대학교 법학연구소 2003 성균관법학 Vol.15 No.1

This paper tries a brief review of a milestone case in US antitrust law concerning price differentiation. The case is on a petition by buyer of confectionary products for resale through automatic vending machines, against Federal Trade Commission for review of a cease and desist order. The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals, 194. F.2d 433, which affirmed the order and granted certiorari. The Supreme Court held that in a proceeding under Robinson-Patman Act the burden of coming forward with evidence as to costs or other data, by which the differential might or might not be juslifled, does not shift to the buyer, once the Federal Trade Commission has established buyer's knowledge of a price differential. The Court also held that with its broad power of investigation and subpoena FTC is on better position to obtain such information than the buyer, therefore remains the burden of proof still on the part of FTC. Along with the review of the case, this paper introduces the structure of the concernig provisions of Robinson-Patman Act, various defenses such as cost justification and meeting competition, and then finally expores Its implications on the Korean competition policy concerning price differentiation.