독일의 손해전보법 ― 소유권침해에 대한 보상(Entschädigung für Beeinträchtigungen des Eigentums)을 중심으로 ―

유대종 서울시립대학교 서울시립대학교 법학연구소 2009 서울법학 Vol.17 No.1

Die Anspruchsgrundlage der Entschädigung für Beeinträchtigung des Eigentums in Deutschland ist Art. 14 Ⅰ, ⅡGG und auf Grund der Art. Ⅲ erlassene allgemeine Gesetze. Die koreanische Verfassung Art. 23 ist wörtlich gleich. Daher ist ein Überblick die Entwickelung der Entschädigung für Beeinträchtigung des Eigentums in Deutschland, und Vergleich mit koreanische Entschädigungsregel hilfreich für die Entwicklung des koreaniches Staatshaftungsrecht. Das Recht der staatlichen Ersatzleistungen in Deutschland umfaßt die verschiedenenSchadensersatz, Ausgleichs-und Wiederherstellungsansprüche des Bürgers bei Beeinträchtigung ihrer Rechte durch staatliches Verhalten. Aber es stellt in sich kein geschlossenes System dar. Es Unterscheidet sich zwischen drei Leistungsansprüche. Ein Schwerpunkt des Ersatzleistungsrechtes bildet die Amtshaftung für rechtswidriges schuldhaftes Verhalten eines Beamten oder sonstigen öffentlichen Bediensteten im hoheitlichen Bereich. Sie wurde im Anschluß an frühere Rechtsauffassungen zunächst im bürgerlichen Recht geregelt, sodann erweitert und schließlich auch verfassungsrechtlich verankert. Ein zweiter Schwerpunkt bildet die entschädigung für Beeinträchtigung des Eigentums. Die Entschädigung beschränkte sich ursprünglich auf rechtmäßige Eingriffe, wurde aber im laufe der Zeit weiter ausgedehnt, insbesondere auf rechtwidrige Eingriffe in das Eigentum, der Entschädigung für rechtwidrige Beeinträchtigungen des Eigentums und der Entschädigung für enteignend wirkende Nebenfolgen rechtmäßigen Verwaltungshandeln unterscheiden. Daneben besteht als Aufopferungsanspruch i.e.S der Anspruch Entschädigung für Eingriffe in immaterielle Rechte fort. Voraussetzung des Aufopferungsanspruchs ist ein hoheitlicher Eingriffe in nicht vermögenswerte, der für den Betroffenen ein Sonderopfer in Gestalt eines Vermögensschaden darstellt. Deutshe Verfassung garantiert “Eigentum” und koreanische Verfassung garantiert “Vermögen”. Aber man versteht das “Vermögenrecht” als “Eingentum” i.S.d. deutschen Verfassung.

저작권의 내재적 한계에 관한 소고

유대종 한국정보사회진흥원 2006 정보화정책 Vol.13 No.2

저작권법과 저작권 제도는 저작물에 대한 저작자의 독점적 영역 보장과 일반 공중의 자유로운 저작물 이용영역 보장이라는 두개의 상호대립되는 영역을 설정하고 있다. 저작권법은 이러한 두 개의 상호 대립하는 가치의 경계선으로 저작재산권 제한규정, 저작권 보호기간의 한정 및 법정이용허락 등을 두고 사익과 공익을 조정∙조화시켜왔다. 그러나 통신기술과 디지털 기술의 발전은 저작권자가 이러한 경계선을 넘을 수 있는 단초를 제공하였고, 저작권자는 저작물 이용계약을 통하여 이러한 유형화된 경계선을 넘어 권리를 행사함으로써 저작권법이 추구하는 공∙사익간의 균형을 흐트러뜨리고 있다. 인간의 지적∙정신적 활동의 보호∙촉진을 목적으로 하는 저작권이 일반 공중의 지적활동을 저해하는 요인으로 악용되고, 저작권법이 이러한 악용을 통제하지 않는다면 저작권 제도 자체는 형해화(形骸化) 된다. 이러한 저작권 제도의 형해화를 방지하기 위해서는 저작권법의 입법목적과 기본구조를 재해석하고 저작권의 내재적 한계를 재설정하여 이러한 권리행사를 통제하는 것이 필요하다.

오픈마켓에서 위조상품 판매에 따른 오픈마켓사업자의 책임

유대종 한국지식재산연구원 2010 지식재산연구 Vol.5 No.4

Open(Internet-based) marketplace that allows those who register with it to purchase goods from and sell goods to one another. It connects buyers and sellers and enables transactions, which are carried out directly between open marketplace members. Thus, open marketplace provider generally does not know whether or when an item is delivered to the buyer. Open marketplace provider does not itself sell the items listed for sale on the site. Open marketplace is sometimes employed by users as a means to perpetrate fraud by selling counterfeit goods. Open marketplace provider obtains direct and indirect financial benefits by creating and managing such business. Thus, since he can cope with such danger effectively, the view that he has the duty of care for proper management of internet-based transactions space to avoid invasion corresponds with the conception of reasonable equity and justice. In light of response of both parties related to transactions material such as counterfeit goods uploadings purpose, upload period, method, degree of damage, relation between seller and trademark holder, objection and deletion request, etc. It is reasonable to limit the open marketplace provider's deletion duty of counterfeit goods, barring special circumstances, to where the open marketplace provider received deletion request for concretely and separately specified counterfeit goods from the trademark holder; furthermore, the existence of counterfeit goods unlawfulness in uploadings is obviously recognized, and such measure of deletion, etc. is possible technologically and economically. Open marketplace provider intentionally induces another to infringe a trademark, or continues to supply its product to one whom it knows or has reason to know is engaging in trademark infringement, is contributorially liable for any injury. 저작물은 온라인상에서 최초판매의 원칙 내지 권리소진의 원칙이 적용되지 않는다. 따라서 미니홈피, 블로그, P2P사이트 또는 웹하드 서비스 등에 업로드되어 있는 저작물은 대부분 불법복제된 저작물일 개연성이 높다고 볼 수 있다. 그러나 오픈마켓에서 유통되고 있은 상품 중 위조상품의 비율은 상표권자 또는 상표실시권자로부터 진정상품을 구매하여 이를 판매하려는 영업자, 병행수입업자, 진정상품의 중고품을 판매하고자 하는 개인도 존재하고 있으므로 불법복제된 저작물보다 낮다고 볼 수 있다. 또한, 오픈마켓사업자가 오픈마켓에 등록된 상품판매정보가 상표권 침해상품정보인지 여부를 인식하는 것은 위조상품이 정교하게 제조되는 경우가 많아 당해 상품정보만으로 이를 구별하기는 어렵다고 볼 수 있다. 따라서 저작권법상 온라인서비스제공자와 유사한 구조와 법적 문제를 가지고 있는 오픈마켓사업자에게 자신의 오픈마켓에서 상표권을 침해하는 상품판매정보에 대한 삭제의무를 부과하기 위해서는 특별한 사정이 없는 한 오픈마켓사업자가 상표권자로부터 당해 상품판매정보를 구체적․개별적으로 특정하여 삭제요청을 받고, 그 상품판매정보의 불법성이 현존하는 것을 명백히 인식하였으며, 그러한 삭제 등의 조치를 하는 것이 기술적․경제적으로 가능한 경우로 제한하는 것이 합리적이라고 보아야 할 것이다. 그러나 오픈마켓사업자가 상표권자로부터 구체적․개별적인 통지를 받지 않은 경우라 하더라도 오픈마켓이 그 비즈니스모델상 위조상품이 유통되기 쉬운 구조이고, 오픈마켓사업자는 위조상품이 판매됨으로 인하여 그에 대한 수수료라는 이익을 얻게 됨으로 오픈마켓에서 위조상품이 판매되고 있다는 것이 당해 상품판매정보의 상품평, 댓글 등을 통해 알 수 있는 경우, 고가의 상품이 아주 낮은 가격으로 판매되는 경우 또는 판매자가 과거 위조상품 판매로 인하여 오픈마켓사업자로부터 일정횟수 이상의 제재를 받은 경우 등의 사정이 존재하는 경우에는 오픈마켓사업자가 오픈마켓에서 위조상품이 판매되지 않도록 조치할 의무가 있다고 보는 것이 타당할 것이다. 만약, 오픈마켓사업자가 이러한 의무를 위반한 경우에는 방조의 의한 공동불법행위 책임을 부담한다고 보아야 할 것이다.

이미지 검색과 인터넷 포털의 책임범위

유대종 한국지식재산학회 2010 産業財産權 Vol.- No.31

Search engines that display third party material or images through framing or inline linking may be directly liable for violating that copyright holder exclusive right to publicly display or copied their work. Notwithstanding, Search engines use of images in thumbnails does not harm the market for holder's images or the value of his images. By showing the thumbnails on its results page when users entered terms related to holder's images, the search engine would guide users to his web site rather than away from it. The copyright holder retain control over where and how to display his work on the Internet. However, search engine is a fair use under the Copyright Act.

특허무효와 특허실시료 반환과의 관계

유대종,김윤명 한국지식재산학회 2008 産業財産權 Vol.- No.27

Usually, a property or good is transferred based on a valid legal relationship. In such case, the law of unjust enrichment does not work. In a case when a legal relation is invalid or inexistent, the law of unjust enrichment works. A patentee may grant an exclusive license or non-exclusive license of the patent right to others. A exclusive or nonexclusive licensee is entitled to work the patented invention commercially or industrially to the extent prescribed in Patent Act or allowed by the license contract. This study is dealing with invalid of patent and repayment of royalty. Where a trial decision invalidating a patent has become final, the patent right is deemed never to have existed. In accordance with, the patentee is no longer capable of enjoying the patent right. Royalty that have been paid may be repaid if licensee requested.

웹검색 서비스와 ISP책임에 관한 소고

유대종 세창출판사 2007 창작과 권리 Vol.- No.46

Search Engines such as Empas, Naver, Google and many others, operate essentially by sending out web crawlers or spiders which search the internet, gain access to publicly accessible websites, and then copy large portions of the World Wide Web into the search engines database on a regular basis, thereby creating an up-to-date index of other peoples works. This index created by the search engine has been described as a giant book containing a copy of every web page that the spider finds. Website owners who do not want their websites crawled can add a robot exclusion protocol otherwise know as a machine readable exclusion clause(exclusion clause) at the beginning of the webpage which will indicate to crawlers that the page may not be suitable for crawling, or the owner does not want the site accessed. Search engines based in Korea risk being technically in breach of copyright because copyright laws simply do not cover their ordinary activities. The copying of websites by search engines may be lawful as a result of an implied license provided by the website creator to the search engine operator. However, the strength of the implied license argument is unclear as it has not been tested at law, and will depend upon the particular circumstances of the case. The Court found that although the copying of images undertaken by search engine was a breach of copyright in the images, in light of search engine's use of the images, the reproduction and display of the images constituted a 'quotations from works made public'. Search engine's crawling allows new and transformative uses to be introduced as exceptions to copyright infringement in circumstances where they provide clear benefits to the public and do not interfere with creators' markets.

저작권의 부당한 행사에 대한 제한과 그 한계 : 저작물 이용허락계약을 중심으로

유대종 한국지식재산학회 2006 産業財産權 Vol.- No.19

The exercise of subjective rights contributes to the goals of the community in the sense that society makes each individual an advocate of the general interest. Hence, every subjective right must tend towards the goal for which it has been granted. Any exercise of a right that is incompatible with purpose for which it was conferred would amount, under this conception, to a misuse of rights. The immediate effect on copyright law is to secure a fair return for an author's creative labor. But the ultimate aim is, by this incentive, to stimulate artistic creativity for the general public good. The limited scope of the copyright holder's statutory monopoly, like copyright limitation, the limited copyright duration, and compulsory licences required by the copyright law, reflects the balance of competing claims upon the public interest. Copyright licensing agreement or exercise of copyright amounted to misuse of its copyrights, if copyright licensing agreement goes essentially attempts to suppress any attempt by the licensee to independently implement the idea, copyright limitation, and the limited copyright duration which copyright subject matter, and if the copyright was used as leverage to gain competitive advantages over licensees in areas beyond the scope of the limited privileges conferred by the copyright.

상표무효사유와 상표권 남용에 관한 소고

유대종 한국지식재산학회 2009 産業財産權 Vol.- No.30

A trademark is a word, name, symbol or device that is used in trade with goods to indicate the source of the goods and to distinguish them from the goods of others. Regulating such marks protects against consumer confusion about the source, sponsorship, or approval of goods or services or commercial activities of another. To do so, it makes actionable the use of another's trademark in ways that lead to a "likelihood of confusion". According to the purpose and background of the trademark holder to apply to register trademark, and the specific and individual situations where the trademark right was exercised, if such exercise of the trademark right against the other party goes beyond the purpose or the function of the trademark system, which is to maintain the credit of the trademark user and to protect the benefits of the users, disrupts the fair competition order and the commercial transaction order, causes confusion among users and violates the principle of good faith, such exercise of trademark right, even if it is done in the form of a right exercise, amounts to an abuse of the right to trademark, which shall not be permitted, and according to the above ground to limit the exercise of trademark right, the purpose of the exercise of trademark right, does not necessarily need the subjective condition that the exerciser shall not gain any benefits.

특허무효사유와 특허권 남용

유대종 한국지식재산학회 2006 産業財産權 Vol.- No.21

All subjective rights fulfill a social function and these rights should therefore be exercised in compliance with their function. A social finality is attached to all rights, including the most selfish rights of all. Such rights are granted to individuals not merely for benefit of their own self-interest, but even more so for that of the community as whole. Patent right granted to inventions having intellectual applicability, novelty and nonobviousness. If Patent right has been granted contrary to requirements for patent, this right must null a trial to invalidate a patent. Patent Act adopts to authority distribution in invalidarion of patent and construction of patent. Hence, the court make not judge that patent has been granted contrary to novelty and nonobviousness. But, Court has been judged patent with not novelty and has not been judged patent with obviousness. Patent Act aims to encourage, protect and utilize inventions, thereby improving and developing technology, and to contribute to the development of industry. In accordance with, the court with an action relating to the infringement of a patent right, if unquestioned a patent invalidation, puts limitation on exercise patentee rights prior to the decision on a patent opposition relevant to the trial or the trial decision.

불공정경쟁행위와 디지털정보의 보호

유대종 法務部 商事法務課 2008 선진상사법률연구 Vol.- No.42

There are an increasing number of lawsuits relating to new technologies where the plaintiffs or complainants attempt in vain to claim damages for digital-information(non-works) infringements and the courts sometimes award damages for torts instead. New technologies in the field of telecommunications have created totally new markets, which give rise to a variety of disputes relating to misappropriation of digitalinformation(non-works) or unfair competition. Nowadays Courts encounter cases where the alleged misappropriation of digital-information(non-works) do not amount to copyright infringement but to a tort. There have been raised various questions as to the requirements of tort especially the standards of wrongfulness and the feasibility of granting injunctions preventing the alleged tort under the Civil Code which have traditionally allowed for injunctions only in cases of infringement upon real property rights. The digital-information(non-works) must protected the alleged tort under the Civil Code. However, a close attention should be made to making a good balance between conflicting interests of consumers, digital-information(non-works) owners, and other competitors. 인터넷이 디지털정보의 주요한 유통경로로 활용되면서 저작권법상 보호를 받을 수 없는 디지털정보의 경제적 가치가 높아지고 이를 보호하기 위한 일련의 노력들 즉, 저작권법 이외의 법리에 의한 보호 또는 입법을 통한 해결이 모색되어져 왔다. 저작권법상 보호를 받을 수 없는 디지털정보를 보호함에 있어 민법상 불법행위법리는 기술의 발전과 디지털정보시장의 변화에 따른 디지털정보 이용의 불공정성을 둘러싼 분쟁해결방안이 될 수 있을 것이다. 디지털정보 생산자는 디지털정보를 생산하기 위해 많은 인적·물적 자본을 투자하고 이를 이용하여 경제적 이익을 얻게 된다. 이러한 디지털정보를 경쟁사업자가 무단으로 복제하여 이용하는 것은 디지털정보 생산자의 영업상의 이익을 침해하는 것이고, 영업이익도 불법행위법에서 보호되어야 할 법익에 해당됨으로 불법행위법리를 통해 이를 구제하는 것은 당연하다고 할 수 있다. 다만, 저작권법 등에 의하여 보호되지 않는 디지털정보를 영리목적으로 제공하여 사실상의 이익을 얻고 있다고 하더라도 그러한 행위가 법적으로 보호할 가치가 있는 이익으로 되기 위해서는 사회통념상 독자적인 이익으로 인정되어야 하며, 구체적으로는 디지털정보의 종류와 내용, 작성목적, 이용현황 및 그 경제적 가치 등의 제반사정을 종합하여 결정하여야 한다. 특히, 디지털정보가 법적으로 보호할 가치가 있는 이익인지 여부는 사회적 평가에 의해 영향을 받게 됨으로 이를 무단으로 이용하는 자의 이용목적 및 현황 등이 고려되어져야 할 것이다.