집단소송 확대 도입방안에 관한 법적 검토

Abstract

In the era of mass production, mass consumption, and information industry, collective damage is constantly occurring, such as the humidifier disinfectant disaster, credit card company personal information leakage, BMW vehicle fire, and DLF/Lime/ Optimus large-scale investment loss. Accordingly, discussions on the general introduction of a class action system as an effective remedy for collective damage have been ongoing for a long time. has been introduced On September 28, 2020, the Ministry of Justice made a legislative notice of the class action bill prepared as a government bill. Immediately after the announcement, major media outlets such as the business area and economic newspapers expressed strong opposition to the bill, citing the increased burden on companies. The main point of opposition was that there could be an increase of abuse of the litigation, and that management uncertainty could increase. In addition, there was strong disagreement within the government citing the burden on companies following the expansion of the class action system, and due to this, consultations between ministries were not successfully concluded, and the current situation was that the State Council for the submission of the bill to the National Assembly was not made.
 The government draft of the class action act prepared by the Ministry of Justice applied the class action act to all claims for damages involving 50 or more persons by fully and generally introducing the class action system and applying it to all fields. As a representative party-type class action, opt-out method is adopted, and based on the existing “Securities-Related Class Action Act,” an attempt has been made to improve strict lawsuit filing and litigation permission requirements, which have been pointed out as problems. In addition, there are parts in which the burden of claim and proof has been eased for efficient relief of collective victims, such as the establishment of a summary responsibility for claim and improvement of the order to submit materials, etc. In addition, forward-looking bill contents that could not be found in the existing class action bill are being prepared, such as allowing the use of jury system according to the will of the representative party.
 At the time of the legislative notice, the business area, the media, and even some government departments expressed serious concerns about the government's bill for the class action act. It was that there was no safety device against the abuse of lawsuits, so there was concern about contraction of business activities and increase in social costs due to malicious lawsuits, and the shock that companies would experience due to the rapid expansion of the application field was too great. In addition, it criticized the effectiveness of opt-out, the representative party lawsuit method, and the adoption of jury system, etc., which are contrary to our legal system or legal principles, and that serious side effects such as trade secret leakage are expected due to excessive mitigation of the burden of proof.
 However, when looking back at the operation of securities-related class actions, the business's concerns about misconduct are close to speculation, and the existing strict measures to prevent abuse, such as the litigation permit system, are generally maintained. In addition, some argue that our legal system is based on civil law, and some object that the various victim protection measures embraced by the government are contrary to legal principles, is not a problem.
 If it is difficult for a small number of victims to file a lawsuit on their own, it can provide relief, and from the standpoint of the company being sued, a class-action is the most appropriate, as it prevents multiple lawsuits from being repeated and resolves the dispute on a one-time basis. It is thought to be a means of resolving disputes, and the government bill of the Class Action Act also adopts this method.