지원사업
학술연구/단체지원/교육 등 연구자 활동을 지속하도록 DBpia가 지원하고 있어요.
커뮤니티
연구자들이 자신의 연구와 전문성을 널리 알리고, 새로운 협력의 기회를 만들 수 있는 네트워킹 공간이에요.
초록· 키워드
오류제보하기
Though our Anti-trust law has been applied over 25 years, many people still point out that there are some defects in the content of the law and it needs to be revised or made up for the better effectiveness. One of the means to reach that goal is said that the "stimulation and promotion of the use of personal suits" in the field of anti-trust law. And, the substantial method to promote the use of personal suits is known as the "treble damage" which is generally used as a recovery against the offences to the anti-trust laws in the U.S.
The treble damage has three main functions for the enforcement of the anti-trust law. First, it becomes possible to sanction the offender to the anti-trust law and to abstrain the other businessmen from doing things in the some nature in the future. Second, as the persons who have suffered damages from the offences can recover far more compensation that the loss which they actually sustained, there is an incentive for them to resort to the treble damage in the pursuit of recovery. As the result, the businessmen should try to keep the regulation of the law and to establish the compliance system. Third, as we can see in the case of some states in the U.S. , the punitive damage sometimes functions as a system to support a social activities. Because in those states, a part of the compensation of punitive damage belongs to the victim of the offences and the other part of it should be apportioned to the state government.The state government use that money as a fund for aiding the people who might be sustained loss from the offences.
Referring to these functions and merits, the treble damage of the U.S. law is worth being introduced and accepted into our legal system, especially into the field of anti-trust law. But, due to the differences between our legal system and the U.S. legal system regarding to the tort damage, it is not desirable to accept that institution into our private law immediately in general.
We need somewhat long period to consider the way how we can accept the treble damage into our legal system and in what legal branches the acceptances should happen. But, as now, it seems not there is any difficulties or trouble in acceptances and merge of treble damages into some restricted area of our legal system such as anti-trust law. Furthermore, it is expected that the institution will be able to cause the foresaid functions or desirable effect in respect of the effectiveness of our anti-trust law.
In reviewing that acceptance, it looks that to make a provision for treble damage respectively about some of the offences to the anti-trust law (i.e. price-fixing, monopoly) is the better way than to make a general provision which is common to all type of offences.
The treble damage has three main functions for the enforcement of the anti-trust law. First, it becomes possible to sanction the offender to the anti-trust law and to abstrain the other businessmen from doing things in the some nature in the future. Second, as the persons who have suffered damages from the offences can recover far more compensation that the loss which they actually sustained, there is an incentive for them to resort to the treble damage in the pursuit of recovery. As the result, the businessmen should try to keep the regulation of the law and to establish the compliance system. Third, as we can see in the case of some states in the U.S. , the punitive damage sometimes functions as a system to support a social activities. Because in those states, a part of the compensation of punitive damage belongs to the victim of the offences and the other part of it should be apportioned to the state government.The state government use that money as a fund for aiding the people who might be sustained loss from the offences.
Referring to these functions and merits, the treble damage of the U.S. law is worth being introduced and accepted into our legal system, especially into the field of anti-trust law. But, due to the differences between our legal system and the U.S. legal system regarding to the tort damage, it is not desirable to accept that institution into our private law immediately in general.
We need somewhat long period to consider the way how we can accept the treble damage into our legal system and in what legal branches the acceptances should happen. But, as now, it seems not there is any difficulties or trouble in acceptances and merge of treble damages into some restricted area of our legal system such as anti-trust law. Furthermore, it is expected that the institution will be able to cause the foresaid functions or desirable effect in respect of the effectiveness of our anti-trust law.
In reviewing that acceptance, it looks that to make a provision for treble damage respectively about some of the offences to the anti-trust law (i.e. price-fixing, monopoly) is the better way than to make a general provision which is common to all type of offences.
목차
Ⅰ. 서
Ⅱ. 징벌적 손해배상
Ⅲ. 3배손해배상소송의 절차적 구조
Ⅳ. 원고적격 및 손해의 입증
Ⅴ. 공정거래법상의 도입방안
Ⅵ. 결어
Abstract
참고문헌 (0)
참고문헌 신청함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문
논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!
-
「中華人民共和國 反壟斷法(案)」의 立法現況과 主要內容에 관한 考察
기업법연구
2007 .06
-
A Background, Current Application and Prospect of Korean Anti-trust Law
기업법연구
2001 .04
-
독점규제법과 지적재산권과의 관계에 관한 재고찰
비교사법
2005 .06
-
WHAT IS LAW
저스티스
1965 .04
-
재산승계제도로서 민사신탁제도 활용상의 문제점
한양법학
2013 .05
-
한·중 환경기본법 비교 : 중국의 「환경보호법」을 중심으로
중앙법학
2009 .08
-
우리나라 신탁업의 현황과 전망
법과기업연구
2012 .12
-
중국 불법행위법(침권책임법)의 주요 내용과 특징
재산법연구
2010 .01
-
로스쿨에서 형사소송법 교육
형사법연구
2008 .01
-
擬制信託(Constructive Trusts)의 理解
비교사법
2011 .12
-
예금채권에 대한 신탁법의 적용과 문제점 : 민사신탁의 기반확대를 위한 관점에서
비교사법
2010 .06
-
부양신탁에 관한 연구
한양법학
2014 .05
-
법학교육의 과제
사회이론
2002 .06
-
사업신탁의 기업조직적 특징과 수익자책임법리
기업법연구
2008 .03
-
미국의 독점규제법의 기본체계에 관한 연구
강원법학
2007 .06
-
하도급 입법의 과제- 징벌적 손해배상의 확대 문제를 중심으로 -
경영법률
2014 .01
-
중국 불법행위법상의 징벌적 손해배상제도
재산법연구
2010 .01
이 논문의 저자 정보
이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0
UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2009-360-015296362