알고리즘 혁신의 민사적 쟁점 = Civil Issues in Algorithmic Innovation

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

If damage compensation is problematic due to hatred, discrimination, or biased results caused by algorithms, it is difficult to prove intentional or negligence, and only mental damage is likely to be problematic, so the effectiveness of relief is not great. In this regard, it is necessary to interpret the algorithm as a software product and apply the "defect estimation" provision of the 「Product Liability Act」 or apply the provisions of Article 29 of the 「Cloud Computing Development and User Protection Act」. Considering that it is remarkably difficult to prove due to information asymmetry, switching the burden of proof based on the risk liability law is considered a realistic way to remedy after death. Since it is not practically easy to receive ex-post relief for civil liability, it is also necessary to refer to the introduction of liability insurance, deduction, or compensation accumulation system, as in Article 39-9 newly established in the revision of the 「Personal Information Protection Act」.
On the other hand, foreign legal trends generally erase the obligation to notify and explain algorithm service providers and give users the right to consent and choice in a way that users do not know regardless of the user's intention. In the bills actively proposed by the 21st National Assembly, we also focus on enhancing transparency and accountability by imposing an obligation to explain and agree to profiling in advance, and granting users the right to refuse or choose. However, it would be desirable to regulate similar regulations through the 「Algorithm Service User Protection Act」 in terms of legal stability or the improvement of uniform legislation, rather than confusing similar regulations.

참고문헌 (Reference)

1 박상돈, "헌법상 자동의사결정 알고리즘 설명요구권에 관한 개괄적 고찰" 23 (23): 2017

2 유영국, "행태정보에 기반한 온라인 맞춤형 광고에 대한 경쟁·소비자법적 관점의 접근" 한국유통법학회 9 (9): 2022

3 최란, "행태정보(Behavioral Information)의 법적 개념, 규제의 현황 및 그 한계에 관한 소고" 전남대학교 공익인권법센터 27 : 2021

4 정진명, "인공지능에 대한 민사책임 법리" 한국재산법학회 34 (34): 2018

5 고학수 ; 정해빈 ; 박도현, "인공지능과 차별" 한국법학원 (171) : 2019

6 양종모, "인공지능 알고리즘의 편향성, 불투명성이 법적 의사결정에 미치는 영향 및 규율 방안" (723) : 2017

7 이나래, "인공지능 기반 의사결정에 대한 법률적 규율 방안" 서울대학교 기술과법센터 15 (15): 2019

8 이제희, "알고리즘의 취급에 대한 법적 논의" 한국공법학회 19 (19): 2018

9 김윤명, "알고리즘과 법 – 알고리즘 차별에 따른 공정성 확보방안, 지능정보사회 경제법연구" 한국정보화진흥원 2019

10 박소영, "손해배상책임 관점에서의 인공지능 특징과 관련 제도 논의" 서울대학교 기술과법센터 15 (15): 2019

11 "https://www.natlawreview.com/article/cfpb-provides-new-guidance-discrimination-algorithmic-credit-decisions"

12 "https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/6580/text?r=2&s=1"

13 "https://gdpr-info.eu/art-22-gdpr/"

14 "https://artificialintelligenceact.eu/article/5/"

15 FTC, "Using Artificial Intelligence and Algorithms"

16 Joshua New, "How to Fix the Algorithmic Accountability Act"

17 Alexander Binder, "Explaining Decisions of Neural Networks by LRP" Theory, Algorithms, and Applications 2017

18 Samek, W, "Explainable Artificial Intelligence: Understanding, Visualizing and Interpreting Deep Learning Models"

19 Bruce Schneier, "Click Here to Kill Everyone, Policy Issues surrounding Artificial Intelligence" Algorithms & Privacy 2017

20 Mark MacCarthy, "An Examination of the Algorithmic Accountability Act of 2019" Transatlantic Working Group 2019

21 Joshua A. Kroll, "Accountable Algorithms, Policy Issues surrounding Artificial Intelligence" Algorithms & Privacy 2017

22 이형기, "AI에 의한 알고리즘 매매거래의 법적책임에 관한 소고" 한국산업경제학회 33 (33): 2020