인터넷분쟁과 國際裁判管轄 = Global jurisdiction issues created by the internet

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

The advent of the Internet has revolutionized the global marketplace and has presented the unique challenge to jurisdiction. Jurisdiction concerns the power of the State to affect people, property and circumstances and reflects the basic principle of State sovereignty, equality of States and non-interference in domestic affairs. Therefore jurisdictional principles originally derived form an assumption about the absoluteness of boundaries and sovereign power within them.
The Internet, unlike earlier forms of electronic communication, created a non-linear network where data moves in a widely diffused fashion. Therefore users of the internet benefit from the network's ability to free them from geographic limits. By its nature, it raises questions about whether by adapting traditional rules to fit new paradigms, or by erecting new standards solve the disputes on the internet and needs to reshape the fixed and firm boundary between domestic and international spheres and to change our conceptions of jurisdiction. The internet should be inherently global and borderless. But more important element to address the issue of over disputes on the internet is that even though an activity occurs in cyberspace, it remains true and critical that parties themselves always exist in real, not virtual, space and the results of an activity on the internet always exist in real space, too. Moreover the internet is a just medium through which a user in real space in one jurisdiction communicates with a user in real space in another jurisdiction. So cyber-activity is not above the law.
Accordingly the examination, mainly of the development of the U.S. law and Preliminary draft Convention on Jurisdiction and the Effect of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters, regarding the problems caused by electronic transactions, together EC Convention on Jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgment in Civil and Commercial Matters (Brussels Convention), compared to traditional rule will bring out the degree of efficiency of them to directly solve the problems or need for a change in order to be effective.
In determining under what circumstances such extraterritorial jurisdictional assertions are proper, courts and legislatures focused, as they had previously on physical location but at a different temporal point. Most frequently, the focus was on where certain activities that gave rise to the plaintiff's claim had occurred, where a negligent act took place, where the injury was suffered, where a contact was entered into or was to be performed and where a service was performed, a security offered for sale, or a trademark infringed became the touchstones of the personal jurisdiction inquiries. As long as activities continue to occur in "real" space, the place of such occurrences remains relevant. As long as activities continue to happen in "cyber" space, the place of such occurrences remains relevant, too.
In an aspect of cyberspace, the legal system must decide what relationship is necessary between the forum and either the conduct occurring outside the forum or the parties. It is the tie between a party and a forum, not necessarily a physical connection between the forum and the conduct of that party, that is critical.
In the United States, Jurisdiction over defendants never physically present in the forum can be determined by the three different situations identified by the U.S. Supreme Court: I) Jurisdiction based on indirect economic benefit, ii) Jurisdiction based on intentional causation of effect, iii) Jurisdiction based on Intentional affiliation. Above all, the assertion of jurisdiction over the defendant by the three situations must comport with long-arm statutes and due process that includes "minimum contacts" and "traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice".
Under the Brussels Convention, The Convention provides for jurisdiction by defendant's forum clause, choice of court clause, contracts clause, contracts concluded by consumers clause, torts clause, consumer protection clause etc.
Actually the key of determining of the jurisdiction emerged by cyberspace transactions is to analyze the web site's nature and quality of commercial activity that an entity conducts over the Internet. Since Web Sites are accessible worldwide, a web siet sponsor might be exposed to global jurisdiction. But mere maintenance of a web site cannot subject a defendant to global jurisdiction if the new technology is to be capable of meaningful use. If each web site subjected its sponsor to global jurisidiction, many would forego use of the technology for fear of its secondary costs.
It, therefore, becomes necessary to determine what more must be found in order to satisfy the requirement that a defendant invokes the benefits and protection of the forum through the web sites.
In the United States, the analytical frameworks supplied by "Zippo Test", light of varied tests being applied by courts to establish jurisdictional rights in the online environment, this paper tried to analyze which approach method might be useful to enable the internet users on the worldwide websites to take somewhat legal certainty and foreseeability.
Under the Zippo Test a person makes a definite attempt to entice people in the forum state to use a person's web site. An active web site is grounds for the exercise of personal jurisdiction. Where a person has simply posted information on the web site, which is accessible to user in foreign jurisdictions, the person makes no attempt to entice people in the forum state to use the person's web site. This so-called passive web site dose little more than make information available to those who are personally interested at it, and this type can make no grounds for the exercise of personal jurisdiction. Decision of cases of interactive web sites on which internet users can exchange information between themselves depends primarily on the level of interactivity and the commercial nature of the exchange that occurs on the web site.
In spite of its widespread use, many courts were no longer strictly applying the Zippo Test and the tendency is shifting away from that because of the test's problems that are legal uncertainty, unworkable in every instance, the contrary to public policy that seek to encourage the e-commerce, and ever-changing standards for classifying web sites by the three categories.
Under the Effect test, rather than examining the specific characteristics of a web site and its potential impact, courts focused their analysis on the effects that the web site had in the jurisdiction.
As geographical lines and locations are increasingly being imposed on the internet by newly-emerging technologies, virtual borders are returning to the internet. The upshot is that it is possible to apply traditional law to the disputes on the internet. Obviously the idea that cyberspace dose not lie within your borders will be outmoded.
There can be probably no international rule of regulation of dispute resolution in the cyberspace, so the harmonization of various jurisdictional principles across state and national lines is very critical to erect E-Confidence for stimulating E-Commerce around world.
* A thesis submitted to the committee of Graduate School, Chungnam National University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Interdisciplinary Graduate Program for Patent Conferred in February 2002.

목차 (Table of Contents)

• 목차
• 제1장 서론 = 1
• 제1절 연구의 목적 = 1
• 제2절 연구의 범위와 방법 = 3
• 제2장 인터넷의 보급과 국제재판관할에 대한 파라다임의 변화 = 5
• 제1절 인터넷관련 기술문제 = 5
• I. 서설 = 5
• II. 인터넷의 역사와 법적 분쟁의 발생관계 = 6
• III. 인터넷의 구성과 도메인 네임 = 8
• IV. ISPs, OSPs = 9
• V. 보안기술 = 10
• 제2절 인터넷의 보급에 따른 국제재판관할 = 11
• I. 인터넷관할법리의 변화 = 11
• 1. 인터넷과 현존의 원칙 = 12
• 2. 법정지의 겨냥 = 13
• II. 사회적 변화와 인터넷재판관할 = 14
• 1. 인터넷이 가져온 소비자 지위의 변화 = 14
• 2. 인터넷상의 ISPs, OSPs의 책임문제 = 14
• 제3장 속지적 재판관할배분원칙과 인터넷에의 적용상의 문제점 = 17
• 제1절 서설 = 17
• 제2절 국제재판관할의 발전과정 = 18
• I. 우리 나라의 경우 = 19
• 1. 구 섭외사법상의 국제재판관할 = 19
• (가) 법규홈결의 보충방법 = 19
• (나) 인터넷거래와 방문판매등에 관한법률 = 20
• 2. 신 국제사법상의 국제재판관할 = 22
• (가) 토지관할과 국제관할의 분화 = 22
• (나) 소비자재파적의 도입 = 23
• (다) 관할합의 제한 = 23
• II. 국제적 차원에서의 발전방향 = 24
• 1. 미국법상 재판관할 = 24
• 2. 유럽연합에서의 브뤼셀협약에 따른 재판관할 = 26
• 3. 헤이그협약상의 재판관할 = 26
• 제3절 문제의 제기 = 28
• 제4장 인터넷상 재판관할확정을 위한 미국법리의 현황과 분석 = 30
• 제1절 일반관할 = 30
• I. 일반재판관할 = 30
• 1. 서설 = 30
• 2. 역외자인 피고에 대한 일반관할권 부인 판례 = 32
• II. 인터넷과 일반관할 = 33
• 1. 사건의 개요 = 33
• 2. 사건의 분석 = 34
• 3. 사건의 의의 = 35
• III. 체재관할 = 35
• 제2절 특별재판관할 = 36
• I. 서설 = 36
• II. 재판관할확장법 (Long-Arm Statutes) = 37
• III. 적법절차조항 (Due Process) = 37
• 1. 최소관련이론 (minimum contacts theory) = 38
• 2. 공정과 실질적 정의 = 38
• IV. 고의에 의한 불법행위 = 39
• 1. 동향 = 39
• 2. 인터넷 이전 고의에 의한 불법행위 = 39
• 3. 인터넷상의 고의에 의한 불법행위 = 40
• (가) 상표권 침해사건에서 효과이론에 따른 관할인정 사례 = 41
• (나) 명예훼손사건에서의 관할권 인정 사례 = 42
• V. 계약책임 = 43
• 1. Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewiez 사건과 계약책임 = 43
• 2. 인터넷상의 계약책임 = 44
• (가) 법리 = 44
• (나) Desings88 Ltd. V. Power Uptik Productions LLC 판결 = 45
• 제3절 지적재산권 침해 = 46
• I. 지적재산권의 국제적 조화와 통일의 문제 = 46
• II. ISPs, OSPs와 지적재산권자간의 이해관계의 상충문제 = 47
• III. 물리적 현존성과 재판관할권의 확정문제 = 47
• IV. 겨냥과 등록지의 관계 = 48
• V. Compuserve, Inc. v. Patterson 판례로 본 계약책임과 지적재산권 침해 = 49
• VI. Heroes, Inc v. Heroes Foundation판례로 본 불법행위와 지적재산권 침해 = 50
• 제4절 제조물책임과 Stream of Commerce = 51
• I. 역사적 배경 = 51
• II. 유통과정이론과 인터넷 = 52
• 1. Bensusan Restaurant Corp. v. King사건과 유통과정이론 = 52
• 2. 평가 = 53
• 제5절 합의관할 = 54
• I. 서설 = 54
• II. 미국에서의 관할합의의 특색 = 55
• III. 구체적 경우 = 57
• 1. 서비스약관에 합의된 법정지를 인정한 사례 = 57
• 2. 서비스약관에 합의된 법정지를 부인한 사례 = 58
• 제5장 인터넷상 재판관할확정에 관한 기타 국제사회의 발전방향 = 59
• 제1절 유럽연합 = 59
• I. 보통재판적 = 59
• 1. 피고가 유럽연합 회원국의 국민인 경우 = 59
• 2. 피고가 유럽연합 회원국의 국민이 아닌 경우 = 30
• II. 특별재판적 = 60
• 1. 브뤼셀협약 제5조 1항의 이행지재판적 = 60
• 2. 불법행위재판적 = 61
• (가) Fione Shevil 사건 = 61
• (나) 인터넷상의 명예훼선에 의한 불법행위 = 62
• III. 적용 및 분석 = 63
• 1. 일반재판관할 (피고주소지주의) = 64
• 2. 이행지 재판적 = 64
• 3. 소비자보호규정 = 64
• 4. 평가 = 65
• IV. 합의관할 = 65
• 제2절 헤이그 신협약에서의 논의현황 = 66
• I. 기본원칙 = 66
• II. 고의에 의한 불법행위 = 67
• III. 책임계약 = 68
• 1. B2B 계약 = 69
• 2. B2C 계약 = 70
• IV. 합의관할 = 71
• 제6장 인터넷 재판관할확정 방법론에 대한 검토와 국내법에의 적용가능성 = 73
• 제1절 서설 = 73
• 제2절 웹사이트의 분석과 인터넷 재판관할권 = 74
• I. 수동형 웹사이트 (Passive Web Site) = 74
• 1. 판례분석 = 74
• 2. 소결 = 78
• II. 상호교환형 웹사이트 (Interactive Web Site) = 78
• 1. Zippo Test 접근방법의 유용성 검토 = 78
• (가) 판례분석 = 78
• (나) Zippo Test 접근방법의 평가 = 82
• 2. Effect Test 접근방법의 유용성 검토 = 84
• (가) 판례분석 = 85
• (나) Effect Test 접근방법의 평가 = 88
• 3. Targeting Test 접근방법의 유용성 검토 = 88
• (가) Targeting Test와 예견가능성 = 91
• (나) 새로운 인터넷 기술과 인터넷에의 경계설정 = 92
• (다) 판례분석 = 94
• (라) Targeting Test 접근방법의 평가 = 96
• 제7장 결론 = 97
• 참고문헌 = 100
• ABSTRACT = 106