製造物責任法에 관한 硏究

Abstract

A study on the Product Liability Law Youn, Sung-Ho Advisor : Prof. Park, Woon-Kil, Ph. D. Department of Law, Graduate School of Chosun University

In today's consumer market, consumer spending is improving along with economic growth, the development of industrial technology and the advancement of science and technology have resulted in mass production, mass distribution, and mass consumption. It is highly developed so that it can not be used while properly grasping the properties and functions of manufactured and distributed products. However, due to the technical development of the product performance and the complexity of the distribution process of the product, consumers or users are often exposed to risks due to defective products that occur due to the ignorance of knowledge or information on the products. Traditionally, when a consumer is injured due to safety defects of a product, he / she is requested to pay damages in accordance with the Tort Liability Rules or Contractual Liability Rules under the Civil Act against the manufacturer or the dealer. However, it is difficult for general consumers who do not have expert knowledge to prove not only causality between cause and damage even if accidents caused by safety defects of products but manufacturers' no negligence or the fault in the case of products produced by professional and scientific methods. In addition, in the absence of a contractual relationship, it may be difficult or impossible to receive damages from the manufacturer by claiming damages directly against the manufacturer. Also, product accidents caused by defective products have been raised as a problem both at home and abroad. In the aspect of protecting the rights of consumers' rapid damage relief and in an international atmosphere, Korea has also been urgently demanding a basic law for guaranteeing consumer rights. As a result, it was enacted on January 12, 2000 and introduced and implemented the Product Liability Act on July 1, 2002. The Product Liability Act, by significantly alleviating the victim's burden of proof , does not require the consumer to prove the manufacturer's or dealer's fault and demand compensation for damages but insist the objective nature and Status defects of the product by the Principle of Strict Liability so that the damage compensation can be made easier. The purpose of this study is to review the implications , examine problems of the Product Liability Act and to suggest improvement measures through theoretical basis in connection with the enforcement of the Product Liability Act and the comparative legal approach to the Product Liability Act in the world. First, the scope of the manufacturer should be clarified in relation to responsible person. In other words, it is not systematic to take responsibility for product without including vendor or leasing company in the scope of the manufacturer. In addition, even though the seller and the supplier can be identified, this is because the liability is provided only if the notice is found to be negligent. both manufacturers and suppliers are able to provide infinite trust in the trading market by trying to supply defect- free products(good products) with the attention to safe products. If they fail to pay attention to it, it is expected that safe products will be supplied to the market because they have to take responsibility for it. Second, it is necessary to expand the range of products subject to the Product Liability Act. The Product Liability Act has the problem that the scope of the product is limited to personal property-such as real estate, unprocessed natural products, electricity, intangible energy, information, and other intellectual products. Third, there is no definite criterion to judge defects in Product Liability Law, and only a few criteria are presented. In our legal system, it is appropriate to illustrate the criteria for judging defects and enact into law such as the EU Legislation Directive or the Product Liability Law of Japan. Fourth, even if acknowledging the development risk defense in relation to exemptions, partial exceptions need to be recognized. If product liability is acknowledged to be at risk of development, there is a high possibility of hindering the national economy. If the development risk protest becomes a minor issue, this is because of the prolonged lawsuits and the possibility of a refuge from product liability. The existence of defects and the proving of the causal relationship are problematic because there is no provision. Although it can be resolved by interpretation, it is reasonable to stipulate the law to presume the defect of the product if there is circumstantial evidence such as Article 3 of the US Restartement of the third party.