컴퓨터 프로그램의 물성에 관한 재검토 = Whether a computer program is a thing in legal sense or not?

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

I. Introduction Koran Civil Code has a provision, article 98 that a thing is defined as material objects and manageable natural energy such as electricity. It has been a controversy whether computer program is a thing from a legal point of view or not. The major theory in Korea denied computer program is a thing in legal sense, but a new theory that computer program belongs to a thing is formulated in the latest paper for doctor degree. The new theory is firmly influenced by german legal theory and decision of the germen supreme court that regarded a computer program as a thing with intend to apply provisions for sales contract to a defect of standard computer program. Especially the germen supreme court has decided not only software contained tangible medium but also computer program downloaded through wireless computer network is a thing in legal sense in ASP case. However there are opposite opinions which software is not a thing but information goods. This paper tries to examine thoroughly a new theory with a critical eye. II. Computer program as a Information goods Computer program is never a thing for the following reasons: (1) The nature of computer program is inconsistent with the definition of a thing in the article 98, Korean Civil Code. It regulates a thing in legal sense consisted a tangible goods and manageable natural energy such as electricity. For computer program is not tangible goods but also a kind of natural energy, it is not a thing according to the regal wording. Notwithstanding decision of the germen supreme court, software is not a thing under Korean Civil Code. (2) The assumed premise of definition of a thing is exclusive domination by owner. The replication makes it impossible for a provider to exclusively dominate computer program. After a computer program provider sales a computer program to a end-user, he still has held ownership of it. In the traditional regal sense, there is no thing which a seller can keep his ownership after selling. These non-excludability and non-rivalry of is a typical nature of information goods. (3) If computer program is a thing, that is in disharmony with a property law in Korean Civil Code. Provided that a computer program is one thing and its storage is another, ownerships of them is belonged to a computer program copyright holder as an owner of a main thing on the principle of fusion under article 257 Korean Civil Code. Actually a computer program purchaser buys it from a storekeeper, in that case a storekeeper who does not hold ownership of a computer program may be a unauthorized person. It is totally impractical to think that a storekeeper has ownership of not only a storage for software but also intangible computer program. (4) To harmonize with another applicable laws, a computer program is not treated as a thing. If computer program is a thing, a reproduction without permission(piracy) may not be dealt with an infringement of copyright but larceny. That is in disagreement with decision of Korean Supreme Court. III. Computer program as Digitalized labor Computer program composed by digital is artificial. While an artificial thing means "objectification(Versachlichung) of labor", an computer program is "digitalized labor" on the other hand. The labor can not be separated from a person except for objectification in industrial society. In information society the labor can be separable from a person by digitalizing. The "digitalized labor" is unfamiliar with traditional legal system. We need a new legal paradigm for information society which constitutes a thing, a labor and an information(digitalized labor) as a third value. The Roman Law system is based on traditional dualism of the credit as a labor not be separated from a person and real right as a labor separated from a person. Because intellectual property is not dominant trading subject until now, quasi-real right has remained in a nominal terminology that can not be developed to the co

참고문헌 (Reference)

1 허명국, "표준 컴퓨터 프로그램 거래의 법적 성질 - 라이선스설 및 혼합계약설에 대한 비판적 입장에서 -" 한국비교사법학회 16 (16): 21-69, 2009

2 신봉근, "컴퓨터소프트웨어와 製造物責任" 법무부 (27) : 103-130, 2005

3 홍춘의, "컴퓨터 소프트웨어의 오류와 민사책임" 한국기업법학회 20 (20): 335-356, 2006

4 이승우, "컴퓨터 소프트웨어 생산자의 민사책임" 10 (10): 2002

5 주지홍, "소프트웨어하자로 인한 손해의 제조물책임법리 적용여부" 한국민사법학회 (25) : 433-462, 2004

6 권대우, "소프트웨어 및 디지털콘텐츠 이용에 따른 책임에 관한 민사법리의 적용" 정보통신정책연구원 2002

7 정규, "소프트웨어 거래에서 shrinkwrap계약의 유효성" 8 (8): 2001

8 한봉희, "새롭게 맞게 된 제조물책임법 시대" 2002

9 정진명, "사권의 대상으로서 정보의 개념과 정보관련법리" 7 (7): 2000

10 오병철, "디지털정보계약법" 법문사 2005

11 배대헌, "거래대상으로서 디지털 정보와 ‘물건’개념 확대에 대한 검토" (12) : 2003

12 "民法(財産編) 改正 資料集" 법무부 2004

13 황찬현, "shrinkwrap계약" (3) : 2000

14 Redeker, "Software - ein besonderes Gut"

15 "Redeker, IT-Recht, 4. Auflage 2007"

16 "Leupold/Glossner, MAH IT-Recht, 1. Auflage, 2008"

17 "Killan/Heussen, 「Computerrechts-Handbuch」, 27. Ergänzungslieferung, 2009"

18 "Junker/Benecke, Computerrecht, 3. Auflage, 2003"

19 "Baus, 「Verwendungsbeschränkungen in Softwareüberlassungsverträgen」, Köln"

20 "BGH, NJW 1993 Heft 38, S. 2437"

21 "BGH, NJW 1988, S. 406"

22 "BGH, MMR 2007 Heft 4, S. 244"

23 "BGH, CR 1990, 24, 26f"