미국의 주법상의 건축공사 우선특권(Construction Lien)과 부동산 유치권의 비교법적 연구

이종구(Jong Goo Lee) 한국비교사법학회 2012 비교사법 Vol.19 No.2

Republic of Korea Civil Code § 320 (1) provides that if the possessor of a thing belonging to another person has any claim arising in respect to such property and if payment of the claim is due, he or she may retain possession of the thing until the claim is satisfied. This is called the right of retention which is very similar to concepts found in American possessory liens. Korean court decisions and scholarly opinions show that the property involved can include real property as well as personal property. Also, only possession of the real property is an essential requirement to perfect it. Thus, a possessory lien holder can retain the real property, subjected to his or her lien, until his or her claim is paid. For many years, however, numerous legal scholars have argued that, with respect to real property, a conflict with the Korean real estate recoding act exists; to perfect the acquisition of real rights concerning immovable properties, the acquisitor must register his or her rights. This conflict has compelled those scholars to prepare an Amendment Draft of the Korean possessory lien based on a comparative analysis of European law including German and French law. This paper introduces and comparatively analyzes American construction lien law within this context. Construction liens are created and governed by specific state statutes to provide additional payment protection to builders and suppliers who perform services related to real property improvement. Generally speaking, the majority of the states provide a protective umbrella to every person who takes part in real property construction or improvement. Under most state law the claimant must generally satisfy the three criteria to perfect his or her lien rights. First, he or she must have improved another person’s real property. Second, most states require that the potential lien claimant give a “notice to owner” prior to, or shortly after, the initial provision of goods or services. Third, most states require the claimant to record or file a construction lien claim or notice with a designated public office. Most states also have very strict time limitations. In many states, lien claimants hold a priority not from the time when the lien is recorded, but from the date of (visible) commencement of the improvement. American construction liens therefore greatly differ from Korean possessory liens where the claimant must record and file the lien to perfect his or her lien right. Recently, the Korean Civil Code Amendment Committee announced its Draft Proposal to amend the Korean possessory lien, with respect to real property. With respect to registered real property, the draft abolishes a current possessory lien system; that draft instead gives persons who have spent expenses on another person’s real property a right to demand that the property owner create a mortgage on the property on behalf of the claimant. Also, within 6 months from the date of payment due of the expenses, it requires the claimant to register it or to file suit to claim the registration of his or her mortgage against the property owner. Finally, the mortgage takes effect at the time that the claimant registers it, but where the payment due is from an earlier date, the mortgage takes effect on that earlier date. On the surface, the basic structures of the amendment draft and American construction liens are very similar, even though the draft is based on Article 666 of the Korean Civil Code. This paper is a comparative analysis of the evolution of lien law that offers considerations for, and recommendations to, the Korean Civil Code Amendment Committee regarding its Amendment Draft Proposal.

미국에서의 소비자거래약관의 중재조항과 집단소송(집단중재)금지에 관한 연구

이종구(Jong-Goo Lee) 한국기업법학회 2012 企業法硏究 Vol.26 No.4

Arbitration is a private system of justice that serves as an alternative to litigation. Though arbitration began as a tool for resolving disputes between businesses, recently, arbitration is frequently used in disputes between businesses and consumers in the United States. Often, arbitration agreements are commonly included in a consumer contract of adhesion, and they prohibit consumers and employees filing class actions in courts or arbitration forums. However, since individual consumers cannot carry out their private lawsuits, without class action, because their individual damage awards are too small. Though, The Federal Arbitration Act(FAA) mandates that arbitration agreements “shall be valid, irrevocable, and enforceable,” with some exceptions, such as “grounds as exist at law or in equity for the revocation of any contract.” In the United States, where class action prohibitions have the effect of allowing small but widespread illegality claims to go unheard, federal and state courts were split on whether these provisions are unconscionable. Recently, The United States Federal Supreme Court held that the FAA preempted the California’s Discover Bank rule to hold arbitral class action waivers unconscionable. However, since this decision prohibits courts from applying the unconscionability doctrine to arbitration clauses, it seriously limits the availability of consumer class actions. Therefore, this paper introduced and analyzed the United States Federal Supreme Court’s Concepcion case, regarding the enforceability of a class action waiver in a consumer adhesion of contract.

소비자피해구제의 실효성 보장을 위한 법정손해배상제도의 도입에 관한 연구

이종구(Lee, Jong-Goo) 한국소비자원 2013 消費者問題硏究 Vol.44 No.2

스마트 온실의 현장조사 분석

이종구(Jong Goo Lee),정영균(Young Kyun Jeong),윤성욱(Sung Wook Yun),최만권(Man Kwon Choi),김현태(Hyeon Tae Kim),윤용철(Yong Cheol Yoon) (사)한국생물환경조절학회 2018 생물환경조절학회지 Vol.27 No.2

본 연구에서는 우선, 농작물의 생육 및 환경관련 데이터를 활용하여 온실의 최적 환경 구현을 위한 시스템을 선정하고 생산성 향상에 대한 연구에 앞서 현재 국내에 보급되어 있는 스마트 온실의 실태를 파악하기 위하여 7가지의 유형별 스마트 온실 농가를 대상으로 현장조사를 실시하였다. 그 결과 현장에서 전하는 유형별 스마트 팜 선도 사례의 주목적을 보면, 지능형이나 첨단형 정도가 스마트 팜에 가까운 것으로 판단되었다. 연령대를 보면, 상대적으로 40대 및 60대가 가장 많았지만, 50대 이하가 21개 농가로서 전체의 약 70.0%정도를 차지하였고, 재배경력은 10년 이하가 가장 많았다. 온실의 형태로는 1-2W형이 전체의 50.0%정도이고, 연동형이 전체의 80.0%정도로서 24개 농가였다. 재배작물의 경우, 화훼류는 3개 농가뿐이고, 나머지 농가는 채소류 중에서도 과채류만 재배하는 것으로 나타났다. 과채류 중에서도 상대적으로 토마토와 파프리카가 전체 중에 약 63.6%를 차지하였다. 제어시스템은 약 77.4%정도인 24개 농가가 국산제품을 사용하고 있었다. 제어시스템의 제어방식의 경우, 3개 농가는 제어패널만을 사용하여 온습도 등을 조절하였고 나머지 농가는 패널과 컴퓨터에 의한 디지털 제어방식이었다. 디지털 제어의 경우, 휴대폰을 통한 애플리케이션으로 원격조절도 가능하게 설계되어 있고, 대부분 농가에 CCTV도 설치되어 있었다. 계측 및 조절 대상 환경인자는 온도를 포함하여 9개 정도이며, 온도는 전체 조사대상 농가가 계측하고 있었지만, 환기 및 공기유동 팬이나 탄산가스 농도 등의 경우는 다른 인자에 비해 상대적으로 낮았다. 난방시스템의 경우, 대상 농가 중에 46.7%가 전기보일러를 사용하는 것으로 조사되었다. 이 외에도 온수보일러, 히트펌프 및 등유보일러 등으로 나타났다. 제어시스템에 투자한 규모의 경우, 1,000만 원에서 1억원까지로 투자규모가 농가마다 다르게 나타났다. This study set out to conduct a field survey with smart greenhouse-based farms in seven types to figure out the actual state of smart greenhouses distributed across the nation before selecting a system to implement an optimal greenhouse environment and doing a research on higher productivity based on data related to crop growth, development, and environment. The findings show that the farms were close to an intelligent or advanced smart farm, given the main purposes of leading cases across the smart farm types found in the field. As for the age of farmers, those who were in their forties and sixties accounted for the biggest percentage, but those who were in their fifties or younger ran 21 farms that accounted for approximately 70.0%. The biggest number of farmers had a cultivation career of ten years or less. As for the greenhouse type, the 1-2W type accounted for 50.0%, and the multispan type accounted for 80.0% at 24 farms. As for crops they cultivated, only three farms cultivated flowers with the remaining farms growing only fruit vegetables, of which the tomato and paprika accounted for approximately 63.6%. As for control systems, approximately 77.4% (24 farms) used a domestic control system. As for the control method of a control system, three farms regulated temperature and humidity only with a control panel with the remaining farms adopting a digital control method to combine a panel with a computer. There were total nine environmental factors to measure and control including temperature. While all the surveyed farms measured temperature, the number of farms installing a ventilation or air flow fan or measuring the concentration of carbon dioxide was relatively small. As for a heating system, 46.7% of the farms used an electric boiler. In addition, hot water boilers, heat pumps, and lamp oil boilers were used. As for investment into a control system, there was a difference in the investment scale among the farms from 10 million won to 100 million won. As for difficulties with greenhouse management, the farmers complained about difficulties with using a smart phone and digital control system due to their old age and the utter absence of education and materials about smart greenhouse management. Those difficulties were followed by high fees paid to a consultant and system malfunction in the order.

미국에서의 폴크스바겐의 자동차 배기가스 사기소송과 시사점

이종구(Jong-Goo Lee) 한국기업법학회 2016 企業法硏究 Vol.30 No.3

폴크스바겐은 2015년 9월 3일 골프, 제타, 파사트, 아우디 등 2.0리터 디젤 차량에 배출가스를 조작하는 프로그램(배기가스 임의설정장치, defeat device)을 설치하여 판매한 사실을 시인함으로써 동사의 배기가스 사기사건은 전 세계적인 스캔들로 비화되었고, 미국을 비롯한 각국의 정부차원에서의 조사와 리콜 등의 행정처분뿐만 아니라 민·형사상의 조치가 취해지고 있고, 문제된 차량을 구매한 소비자들의 소송이 속출하고 있다. 그런데 2016. 6. 28. 폴크스바겐은 미국연방과 주정부, 연방거래위원회(the Federal Trade Commission) 및 소비자 집단소송 등을 병합하여 심리하고 있는 캘리포니아 샌프란시스코 북부 연방지방지법원(the United States District Court for the Northern District of California)에서 배기가스 조작으로 인하여 생긴 환경침해 및 소비자 피해 등에 대하여 손해배상과 공익기금 등으로 17조 원가량을 출연하기로 하는 내용의 집단화해(class settlement)를 함으로써 전 세계를 다시 한 번 더 놀라게 하였다. 그러나 동사는 미국 이외에 다른 나라에서는 이와 같은 손해배상 계획을 가지고 있지 않다고 발표하여 각국의 소비자들을 분노를 사고 있다. 유럽과 한국은 미국에 비하여 매우 관대한 자동차 배기가스 환경기준을 가지고 있고, 미국과는 달리 집단소송과 징벌적 손해배상제도가 인정되지 않으므로 폴크스바겐이 이와 같은 이중적 태도를 보이고 있는 것으로 풀이된다. 폴크스바겐 소송은 미국연방과 주정부 및 소비자들이 기업범죄에 대하여 얼마나 신속하게, 유기적으로 대처하는지를 보여줄 뿐만 아니라 집단소송과 징벌적 손해배상제도의 위력을 보여주는 좋은 사례라고 생각된다. 따라서 본고에서는 폴크스바겐의 배출가스 사기사건에 대하여 미국연방정부, 주정부, 연방거래위원회 및 소비자집단소송의 실제 소장의 내용을 바탕으로 미국의 자동차 배기가스 기준과 처벌규정 및 연방과 주정부 차원에서의 소비자보호제도와 정부기관의 역할의 중요성 등을 살펴보았다. 마지막으로 본고에서는 다수의 소비자들의 피해를 구제하고, 기업의 악의적 범죄를 억제하기 위하여 집단소송과 징벌적 손해배상제도의 도입의 필요성을 검토하였다. This paper analyzed Volkswagen’s emission cheating litigations filed by the US federal and state governments and consumers. On September, 3, 2015, Volkswagens Group, one of the largest auto makers, admitted to the US EPA and CARB staff that hundreds of its diesel vehicles were equipped with software being used to cheat on emissions. The software is a kind of defeat device to bypass or defeat elements of vehicles’ emission control system. The manufacture and installation of defeat device is rigidly prohibited in most countries. Immediately, Volkswagen became the target of regulatory and criminal investigations in the US and multiple countries. The US DOJ, the FTC and many states, led by California, filed lawsuits against Volkswagen for violating their environmental laws or consumer protection laws. In addition, approximately 500 consumer class actions were filed against Volkswagen in the US. Nine months after the Volkswagen emission scandal was uncovered, Volkswagen announced that it has reached a partial settlement agreement with them. In the settlement, Volkswagen promised to spend up to $14.7 Billion to compensate consumers and reduce NOx. However, Volkswagen announced that it had no plan to pay consumers compensation in Europe and Korea. Treating consumers in Korea differently than US consumers is very unfair. The twofold attitude of Volkswagen resulted from the different legal system between the US and Korea. The United States’ emission standard is much more rigid than that of Korea. In addition, korea do not have the US-style class action and punitive damages. This paper proposed that Korea need to strengthen the emission standard and its test procedure, and introduce the US-style class action and punitive damages to deter businesses’ intentional crimes and fully compensate consumers.

민법 제365조의 일괄경매의 요건에 관한 해석과 입법론에 관한 연구

이종구 ( Jong Goo Lee ) 단국대학교 법학연구소 2012 법학논총 Vol.36 No.1

The Korean Civil Code Art, 365 provides that where a mortgagor constructs on mortgaged land after the creation of a mortgage, the mortgagee may auction the building together with the land. According to Korean Supreme Court precedent, Art, 365 protects the building while giving the mortgagee a remedy from the difficulty of auction of land caused by the existence of a building; for the mortgagee to auction the building, (1) the building should be constructed after the mortgage was attached to the land and (2) a mortgagor should own the building. A mortgagee cannot auction a building which others own. Scholars and practitioners criticize the precedent as too rigid. The main issues raised focus on the relationship between statutory superficies, Art. 366, and auction of buildings on mortgaged lands, Art, 365, a building owner`s auction rights, and the requirement that the mortgagor and the building owner be the same person, This paper reviews and analyzes the scholarly and practitioner`s debates, concluding that we should interpret that the mortgagee cannot auction buildings where the building owner has statutory superficies on the land, and that building owners do not need the right to auction a building together with the land in the foreclosure process of the land. In addition, a broader court interpretation is needed so that land mortgagees can auction a building owned by others, not the mortgagor, to adjust the interest of all parties.

『사성통해(四聲通解)』의 중국음정음(中國音正音) 표기음(音)의 재구

이종구 ( Jong Goo Lee ) 한국중국언어학회 2008 중국언어연구 Vol.0 No.26

부동산매매계약의 자동해제약정과 매도인의 이행제공의 정도에 관한 연구 -대법원 2012. 11. 29. 선고 2012다65867 판결-

이종구 ( Jong Goo Lee ) 단국대학교 법학연구소 2013 법학논총 Vol.37 No.1

The sale contract of unmovables such as lands or building is a bilateral contract in Korea. The seller must transfer the title of the movables to the buyer at the same time as the buyer pays the purchase price. In cases where the seller and the buyer`s obligation should be simultaneously performed, in order for the seller to cancel the contract, the seller has to give a notice of the acceptance of the tender to the buyer, tendering his or her own performance, or preparing for the tender of performance of his or her obligation. However, contracting parties often promise that the contract will be automatically cancelled, without the notice or the manifestation of intention of the cancellation, once the buyer does not pay the purchase price at the due date of payment. In this case, though, according to Korean Supreme Court`s decisions, in order for the sale contract to be canceled, the seller should tender his or her performance as long as the seller and buyer`s obligation should be simultaneously performed. However, if there are special circumstances on the part of the buyer to give up the right, the seller does not have to tender his or her performance. In addition, after tendering the performance of his or her obligation, the seller can give the buyer the notice that ther will be automatically cancelled if the buyer do not pay the price within the specified period of time. Accordingly, without the special circumstances aforementioned, in order for the buyer to allege the cancellation of the contract, the seller`s full performance is required. In a land sale contract, the seller should tender all documents that are essential for transferring the title of the land such as title certificate, certification of official registration of a seal, and officially registered seal, etc. Recently, however, the Supreme Court held that the seller did not have to tender all documents that need for the buyer to transfer the title, where the buyer delayed his or her obligation. With the Korean Supreme Court` 2012Da65867 Decision, this article analyses the effect of automatic rescission made by the seller and the buyer, and futhermore exercises what kinds of documents the seller has to tender where the buyer delay his or her performance.

원명음(元明音)을 통해 본 현대 북경음(北京音) 문백이독(文白異讀)의 래원(來源)

이종구 ( Jong Goo Lee ) 한국중국언어학회 2007 중국언어연구 Vol.0 No.24

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.