[Introduction to the Korean Legal System] Korean Electronic Transaction Laws as a Legal Basis of E-Commerce Promotion

Kyoungjin Choi 법무부 국제법무정책과 2013 Recent trends of law & regulation in Korea : focus Vol.14 No.-

인공지능과 불법행위책임

최경진(Kyoungjin Choi) 한국정보법학회 2021 정보법학 Vol.25 No.2

기술이 발전함에 따라 과거에는 상상에 그쳤던 인공지능이 점차 일상생활 속으로들어오고 있다. 인공지능이 사회·경제 각 분야에 접목됨으로써 인공지능에 대한 법적 규율에 대하여도 관심이 높아지고 있다. 또한 인공지능의 수준이 점점 더 고도화됨에 따라 법적 규율에 있어서도 변화가 발생할 것으로 예상된다. 인공지능의 활용에따른 민사법상의 책임문제도 그 중의 하나이다. 인공지능과 관련한 불법행위책임의 문제는 민법상 일반 불법행위책임으로부터 제조물책임, 공작물책임, 자동차손해배상보장법 상의 자동차사고 책임에 이르기까지 다양하게 나타난다. 인공지능은 불법행위책임에 새로운 도전으로 다가왔지만, 어떻게 불법행위책임을 인정할 것인가와 관련해서는 일반 불법행위책임의 성립요건인고의·과실, 위법성, 인과관계, 손해, 책임의 주체 등에 대하여 근본적인 검토를 한 후에 종래의 법해석에 의하여 해결하기 어려운 문제가 확인된 경우에 인공지능의 특성을 고려한 해석론 혹은 입법론적 접근을 하는 것이 바람직하다. 이 글에서는 일반 불법행위책임 측면에서 인공지능을 둘러싼 고의·과실이나 위법성 등의 의미를 살펴보고, 특수 불법행위책임 측면에서의 인공지능의 규율 가능성과 한계 등을 살펴보았다. 일반 불법행위책임이나 민법 및 특별법 상의 특수 불법행위책임에 의한 해결을 최대한 먼저 시도해보아야 한다. 그럼에도 기술적 특성이 강해서 일반적인 증명이 쉽지않거나 실제 생명·신체·재산에 대한 인공지능의 위험성이 높은 경우에는 제한적범위 내에서 강화된 책임을 단계별로 인정하는 것은 향후 깊이 검토할 필요가 있다. 또한 앞서 살펴본 바와 같이 인공지능을 포함한 디지털제품에 대하여 종래의 제조물책임법을 개정해서 포섭할 것인지 그렇지 않으면 별도의 ‘디지털제조물책임법’을 제정할 것인지에 대하여도 깊이 있는 논의가 필요하다. 이러한 논의들은 서로 긴밀히 관련되어 있기 때문에 인공지능과 관련한 과도한 책임법의 범람을 지양하기 위해서라도 일반 불법행위책임으로 다룰 수 있는 영역과 구체적인 요건·효과, 종래 특수 불법행위책임의 적용을 위한 요건 및 효과, 제조물책임법 등 특별법 상의 인공지능에 대한 규율 등을 종합적이고도 정밀하게 검토하면서 상호간에 보충적인 작용을 하면서 적절히 인공지능으로 인한 불법행위책임을 규율할수 있는 연구와 입법적 논의가 진행되어야 할 것이다. 향후 다각적이고 깊이 있는 연구를 통하여 인공지능의 변화 속도에 발맞춰서 적절한 규율체계를 정립해나는데 이글이 논의의 기초가 되길 기대한다. As technology advances, artificial intelligence, which was only imaginary in the past, is gradually entering our daily life. As artificial intelligence is applied to various fields of society and economy, interest in legal regulations on artificial intelligence is also increasing. In addition, as the level of artificial intelligence becomes more and more advanced, it is expected that changes will also occur in legal regulations. One of them is the issue of liability under the civil law for the use of artificial intelligence. The problem of tort liability related to artificial intelligence is diverse, ranging from general tort liability under the Civil Act to product liability, work piece liability, and automobile accident liability under the Automobile Damage Compensation Act. Artificial intelligence has come as a new challenge to tort liability, but in relation to how to recognize tort liability, it is first reviewed from the point of view of general tort liability. It is desirable to adopt a new interpretation or legislative approach considering the characteristics of artificial intelligence. This article examines the meaning of intention, negligence, and illegality surrounding artificial intelligence in terms of general tort liability, and examines the possibility and limitations of civil regulation on artificial intelligence in terms of special tort liability. The resolution of general tort liability or special tort liability under civil and special laws should be attempted first. Nevertheless, in cases where general proof is not easy due to strong technical characteristics, or when the risk of artificial intelligence to real life, body, or property is high, it is necessary to consider in depth the acknowledgment of reinforced responsibility step by step within a limited scope. In addition, it is necessary to discuss in depth whether or not to revise and include the existing Product Liability Act for digital products including artificial intelligence or to enact a separate ‘Digital Product Liability Act’. Since these discussions are closely related, various types of tort liability should be comprehensively and precisely reviewed in order to avoid the overflow of excessive liability laws related to artificial intelligence. In addition, research and legislative discussions should be conducted to properly regulate liability for torts caused by artificial intelligence while complementing each other. It is hoped that this article will serve as a basis for future in-depth research and establishing an appropriate discipline system for the pace of change in artificial intelligence.

뉴스(News)와 著作權

최경진(Choi, Kyoungjin) 성균관대학교 비교법연구소 2008 성균관법학 Vol.20 No.3S

News means information about recent events, now especially as reported in newspapers, on radio or TV, or via the Internet by dictionary. News plays very important role in the real society and economy. Nevertheless, there has not been so much discussion in the area of intellectual property related laws including copyright law. This paper focuses especially on how news is treated under such laws. News is basically in a form of literary work so that it can be protected as copyrighted work or neighboring right like broadcasting. Furthermore, it could be protected as database or online digital contents under IP-related laws. More specific topics to be considered are how the bright line between copyrighted work and uncopyrighted facts could be drawn, who the copyright owner is, whether even facts itself could be protected by laws other than copyright-related laws such as American Hot-News Doctrine, etc. But more concrete discussion about extent of copyright protection under newly-enacted provision on fair use is still question. This question must be considered in a balance with freedom of expression and free use of facts.

인공지능의 사법적 쟁점

최경진(Kyoungjin Choi) 한국법학원 2021 저스티스 Vol.- No.182-2

인공지능은 발전과정에 있는 개념이고 규범적인 판단을 하기에는 불명확한 점이 많다. 인공지능과 관련된 기술의 발전으로 인공지능이 접목된 현재의 상품 · 서비스와 가까운 미래, 그리고 조금 더 먼 미래의 인공지능 상품 · 서비스는 질적으로 크게 차이가 날 것으로 예상한다. 이러한 빠른 발전속도 때문에 법이 미처 따라잡지 못하는 현상이 발생할 수밖에 없다. 그럼에도 다른 법분야와 다르게 인공지능과 관련한 법분야에서는 지속적으로 현상을 추적하면서 가까운 미래의 법현상을 예측하고 그에 맞게 법 해석과 입법적 노력을 계속 해나가야 하는 것이 법률가의 숙명이다. 이 글은 발전과정에 있는 인공지능과 관련한 사법적 쟁점을 발굴하고 앞으로의 논의의 단초로 삼으려는 의도를 가진다. 가장 현실적으로 나타날 수 있는 인공지능의 사법적 측면에 관한 쟁점인 인공지능에 의한 의사표시나 계약의 문제로부터 시작하여, 조금 더 먼 미래에 현실화될 것으로 예상되는 인공지능 후견이나 인공지능 권리주체의 문제에 이르기까지 당장 해답을 제시하기 보다는 우리가 고민해야 할 법적 쟁점을 제시함으로써 계속 적절한 대응을 하기 위한 노력의 법적 기초를 제공한다는데 의의를 가졌다. 이 글에서 제시한 쟁점을 포함하여 인공지능과 관련한 다양한 사법적 쟁점에 대하여 보다 깊이 있는 연구가 계속되어, 인공지능의 발전으로부터 사람이 혜택을 받고 평화롭게 공존할 수 있는 법적 환경이 마련되길 기대한다. Artificial intelligence is a concept in the process of development, and there are many ambiguities to make normative judgments. Due to the advancement of artificial intelligence-related technologies, artificial intelligence products and services are expected to differ significantly in quality from the current products and services in the near future and a little further. Due to such a rapid pace of development, a phenomenon in which the law cannot catch up is bound to occur. Nevertheless, unlike other legal fields, in the field of law related to artificial intelligence, it is the role and responsibility of jurist to continuously track phenomena, predict legal phenomena in the near future, and continue legal interpretation and legislative efforts accordingly. This article is intended to uncover judicial issues related to artificial intelligence in the process of development and to serve as a starting point for future discussions. Starting with the issue of expression of intention or contract by artificial intelligence, which is the most realistic issue on the judicial aspect of artificial intelligence, this article deals with the problem of artificial intelligence guardianship or artificial intelligence as a subject of rights that is expected to become a reality in the far future. This paper is meaningful because it provides a legal basis for efforts to continue to respond appropriately by presenting legal issues that we should consider, rather than presenting immediate answers right now. It is expected that further in-depth research will continue on various judicial issues related to artificial intelligence, including the issues presented in this article, to provide a legal environment in which people can benefit from the development of artificial intelligence and coexist peacefully.

Web 2.0 시대의 저작권 소송과 준거법

최경진 ( Kyoungjin Choi ) 한국지식재산연구원 2008 지식재산연구 Vol.3 No.2

The infringement of copyright have been widely expanded by new digital phenomenon called as Web 2.0 and now is calling forth a problem in the international litigation. In the perspective of ‘choice of law’, it means copyright in multiple countries can be infringed by a large number of users scattered in different territories. Consequently, it is time to reconsider the principle of territorial privilege for jurisdiction, at least in the copyright law area. This paper first deals with general theory of choice of law and looks into concrete questions, such as validity of user agreement, tort liability of infringers in multiple countries, effectiveness of excessive damages clause in other country, tort liability of online service provider as joint-tortfeasor, etc. Many problems like deciding the place where infringement takes place or question of lex domicilii v. principle of lex protectionis still remain despite the above discussion and need further research.

빅데이터와 개인정보

최경진(Choi, Kyoungjin) 성균관대학교 법학연구소 2013 성균관법학 Vol.25 No.2

Big Data, which arises as new growth power, contributes to promote public interest or to reinforce competitive power of industry. To contrary, Big Data inevitably accompanies with a side effect because it needs collecting or using personal information. Its special features could bring new problem or deepen the previous problem in the area of personal information protection. One of the problems is the 'profiling' issue. This paper deals with what is a special problem related with Big Data under the applicable laws, and the foreign trend of legislation. And this tries to suggest reasonable reform plan of personal information protection laws. The reform should include the followings : (1) clarifying the definition of personal information, (2) declaration of right to object to profiling, (3) duty of notice, (4) regulation by stages, (5) improvement of certification system, (6) provision of "separation principle" . (7) reforming period of time to keep personal information, (8) unity of governance, etc. In conclusion, personal information protection laws should keep balance between development of Big Data and protection of personal information.

民法上 金錢의 法理에 관한 小考

최경률(KyoungJin Choi) 성균관대학교 법학연구소 2004 성균관법학 Vol.16 No.1

In this thesis I reviewed legal problems related to money what has not only' tangible feature but intangible feature at the same time. Especially I focused on whether money or electromc money can be Res and the status of its m civil law. With regard to the discussion whether money IS Res or not, jurist grasp It as Res or Value. Then I found the concept of Res under Korean Civil Act as an abstract legal concept encompassing tangibles and intangibles. Also, about the requirement to be Res, I separated it into General requirement which is applicable to Res in general, and Special requirement which is applicable to object of ownership or obligation. So I pointed out that whether money can be protected under the Law of Realty is under the control of whether be specified or. I also considered electronic money from the viewpomt of lutangible as value.

새로 도입된 법정손해배상에 관한 비판적 검토 -개인정보보호 관련법에서의 법정손해배상을 중심으로-

최경진(Kyoungjin Choi) 성균관대학교 법학연구소 2015 성균관법학 Vol.27 No.2

한미 자유무역협정을 통하여 국내에 처음 도입된 법정손해배상제도가 최근 개인정보침해로 인한 피해자의 효과적인 구제라는 취지하에 정보통신망법과 신용정보법에 각각 규정되었다. 이에 따르면 개인정보의 누출등의 사실을 안 날부터 3년 이내에 실손해배상을 청구하는 대신 300만원 이하의 범위에서 상당한 금액을 손해액으로 하여 배상을 청구할 수 있도록 규정하였다. 이처럼 새롭게 도입된 법정손해배상제도의 합리적이고 조화로운 해석과 함께 문제가 있는 경우에는 개선방안을 도출하는 것을 이 글의 목표로 삼았다. 이를 위하여 한미 자유무역협정을 통하여 소개된 미국의 법정손해배상제도와 비교법적인 검토와 함께 국내 여러 법률에 규정된 법정손해배상제도 사이의 비교를 시도하였다. 그 결과 우리의 법정손해배상제도는 기존에 존재하던 상당손해액형 손해배상과 미국의 실손해 대체형 법정손해배상의 중간에 위치한 절충형으로 파악할 수 있었다. 그러나 향후 피해자 구제의 실질화 내지 강화라는 측면에서 법정손해배상액의 하한 설정을 심도있게 검토할 필요가 있다. 아울러 명확성을 제고하기 위해서 증명책임의 전환을 명확히 하고, 소멸시효를 일원화하며, 시간적 적용범위와 선택권의 행사 및 그 기한을 명확히 하는 방향으로 입법적 노력이 전개되어야 할 것이다. The Statutory Damages Claim was recently provided in two controversial laws, ‘Information Communications Network Act’ and ‘Credit Information Act’ after it had been first introduced as “pre-established damages” in the Korea-U.S. Free Trade Agreement. According to those laws, statutory damages can be claimed in lieu of real damages claim no later than three years after data subject may have knowledge about infringement fact. The maximum damages to be allowed should be no more than three million Korean won. This paper focuses on reasonable interpretation on the statutory damages provisions as well as suggestions to the legal reform on problematic issue if any. For such purpose, this also tries to analyze various provisions on statutory damages in Korea as well as US from the comparative perspective. To the conclusion, Korean statutory damages claim deems to be in the middle of American statutory damages and the previous Korean claim for considerable damages. Most important aspect of legal nature of the statutory damages claim is that it is not a punitive damages claim, but have ‘in lieu’ nature because it can be raised instead of real damages claim. For reinforcing its nature of protecting victim from personal data infringement, in-depth study is necessary to stipulate the minimum of statutory damages. Clarification is also necessary to transfer burden of proof and Statute of limitations for statutory damages claim should be simplified and unified in line with the Civil Act. A legislative effort should be taken to clarify application scope of time, selection between general claim and statutory claim, and time limit to exercise the claim.

인공지능과 약관

최경진(Choi, Kyoungjin) 한국비교사법학회 2021 비교사법 Vol.28 No.3

인공지능에 의한 계약(이하에서 “인공지능 계약”이라 한다)이 증가함에 따라 인공지능 계약에서의 약관(이하 “인공지능 약관”이라 한다)으로 인하여 소비자에게 피해가 발생하지 않도록 하면서도 동시에 인공지능의 발전도 가로막지 않도록 인공지능 시대에 약관은 어떠한 의미를 가지고 법적으로 어떻게 다루어야 할 것인가에 관하여 깊이 있는 논의가 필요하다. 이러한 시각을 바탕으로 하여 이 글에서는 인공지능을 이용하여 계약을 체결함에 있어서의 약관과 관련한 문제를 중심으로 논의를 진행하되, 인공지능 약관의 의의나 유용성, 유효성 및 법적 근거, 계약 내용으로의 편입 통제와 같은 약관법의 기초적인 문제를 중심으로 논의를 진행하였다. 발전된 인공지능 계약은 개별적인 당사자에 따라 계약을 체결하는 ‘개별화’와 함께 상황이나 시간의 변화에 따라 적절히 대응하여 변화되는 ‘현행화’의 두 가지 성격을 가지고 있고, 계약의 체결 과정에서 인공지능이 결정적 역할을 하여 약관을 형성한다는 특성을 도출할 수 있었다. 이처럼 인공지능 계약에 있어서 구체적인 약관의 내용이 인공지능에 의하여 확정되는 과정을 고려할 때 종래와 같이 사전에 계약내용의 모든 것이 확정되어 있는 고정적인 약관의 모습이 아니라 인공지능에 의하여 최종적으로 확정되는 ‘동적 약관’으로 새롭게 파악할 필요성이 인정된다. 동적 약관으로 파악하게 되면, 약관으로서의 인공지능에 대한 통제 및 투명성 의무의 도입과 같은 새로운 법적 접근이 필요하다. 즉, 종래의 약관의 계약 내용으로의 편입 통제와 약관 조항의 불공정성 판단을 통한 내용 통제는 인공지능 약관에도 그대로 적용할 수 있겠지만, 인공지능의 특성을 고려하여 특별히 계약 체결 과정에서의 투명성을 증진하기 위한 대응노력이 필요하다. 특히 투명성을 증진하기 위하여 인공지능 약관과 관련한 정보제공의무를 강화하거나 중립적인 제3자에 의한 지속적인 모니터링과 이를 통한 약관 조항의 통제 등을 제도화하는 논의가 필요하다. 인공지능과 관련한 약관규제의 논의는 이제 막 시작단계에 들어섰을 뿐이고 향후 인공지능의 발전과 계약 형성에의 적용례가 쌓여 가면 보다 더 세밀하게 논의하여 인공지능 시대에 맞는 약관규제법의 발전방안을 도출할 수 있을 것으로 기대한다. 이 글이 향후 인공지능 시대의 약관법 논의의 단초가 되기를 기대한다. As contracts by artificial intelligence (hereinafter referred to as “artificial intelligence contract”) increase, in-depth discussion is needed about the meaning and legal treatment of the Standard Form Contract in the age of artificial intelligence in order not to cause damage to consumers due to the terms of the artificial intelligence contract and at the same time not to block the development of artificial intelligence. Based on this perspective, this article discusses the issues related to the Standard Form Contract in concluding a contract using artificial intelligence. In particular, the discussion is focused on the fundamental issues, such as the meaning, usefulness, validity and legal basis of the Standard Form Contract in artificial intelligence contract, as well as the control of incorporation into the content of contract. The advanced artificial intelligence contract has two characteristics: ‘individualization’, in which contracts are concluded according to individual parties to contract, and ‘actualization’, which contracts change in response to changes in circumstances or time. Artificial intelligence plays a decisive role in the contract conclusion process and forms the Standard Form Contract. In this way, when considering the process in which the contents of specific terms and conditions are confirmed by artificial intelligence in an AI contract, it is far from the appearance of a fixed Standard Form Contract in which all the contents of the contract are confirmed in advance as in the past. Rather, it is necessary to recognize it as a Dynamic Standard Form Contract in which the contract is finally confirmed by artificial intelligence. Furthermore, in consideration of the characteristics of artificial intelligence, it is necessary to make special efforts to improve transparency in the process of the formation of the Dynamic Standard Form Contract . The discussion of standard form contract in artificial intelligence contract is only just beginning. With the development of artificial intelligence in the future, it is expected that a more detailed discussion will lead to the development of a Standard Form Contract regulation law suitable for the age of artificial intelligence. It is hoped that this article will serve as a starting point for the discussion of the Standard Form Contract law in the age of artificial intelligence in the future.

物件要件論 小考

최경진(Kyoungjin Choi) 한국비교사법학회 2004 비교사법 Vol.11 No.2

The discussion on the legal entity which is entitled to be the subject of rights has been going on with the focus of theory of legal persons. However, the object of rights was not systematically discussed and remained as shortly explained. It is because the competence to be the subject of rights can be discussed on the general and summary level as it is substantially same in different legal relationships, while the competence to be the object of rights is confirmed on the level of particular right, so that nobody felt necessary to discuss it on the general level. In addition, it is impossible and unnecessary in terms of legislative technique to set a general provision on the object. Therefore, current Civil Act has a special provision on Res which constitutes only a part of object of rights. It is meaningful to set the provision on the definition of Res in the general provisions of the Civil Act, especially because it enables the scope of application of the Civil Act to enhance in order to keep abreast of the current situation, focusing on the definition of Res. Based on this viewpoint, this thesis analyzed the concept of Res, which was not seriously discussed traditionally, by analyzing the legislative history and legal status of the Article 98 of the Korean Civil Act, so that we can draw reasonable requirements of Res as a legal concept. Then I found the concept of Res under Korean Civil Act as an abstract legal concept encompassing tangibles and intangibles. Also, about the requirement to be Res, I pointed out that the traditional discussion which draws criteria from relational understanding with real right was not reasonable, and I separated such requirement into General requirement which is applicable to Res in general, and Special requirement which is applicable to object of ownership or obligation.