표제지

목차

제1장 서론 13

제1절 연구의 목적 13

제2절 연구의 범위 및 방법 18

제2장 전문 평가인증기관에 대한 사회적 신뢰 23

1. 안전중심사회와 전문 평가인증기관의 역할 증대 23

(1) 사회적 배경: 융복합 과학기술사회와 제조물책임법의 한계 23

(2) 안전인증제도의 강화와 평가인증의 중요성 26

2. 국내 안전인증법령과 전문 평가인증기관 29

(1) "옥시"사건 후 전기용품 및 생활용품안전관리법의 제정 29

(2) 옥시사건 후 화학물질의 등록 및 평가등에 관한 법률의 제정 32

(3) 식품안전성과 식품안전관리인증기준(HACCP) 32

(4) 일상생활과 인증 34

3. 안전인증제도와 소비자 복지의 도모 34

4. 전문 평가인증기관의 위험감소 기여기능 35

(1) 전문 평가인증기관의 의의 35

(2) 전문 평가인증기관의 유형과 위험감소기여 36

제3장 전문 평가인증기관의 고도의 주의의무 40

제1절 전문가개념과 고도의 주의의무 40

1. 현대사회의 변동 - 숙련된 직업인 중심사회로의 재편 40

2. 주요국가의 전문가 개념 43

3. 국내 판례상 전문가의 고도의 주의의무 56

제2절 민법상 주의의무위반과 전문가의 주의의무 67

1. 손해배상의 근거로서의 과실개념 67

2. 불법행위책임체계와 과실 77

3. 구체화된 추상적 과실로서의 전문가의 주의의무위반 85

제3절 전문 평가인증기관의 전문가성과 주의의무 88

1. 전문 평가인증기관의 전문가성 88

2. 전문 평가인증기관의 주의의무의 내용 92

제4절 소결: 전문가 개념의 유용성과 영미 주의의무이론 94

제4장 영미 불법행위법상 소원적(疏遠的) 제3자에 대한 주의의무이론 98

제1절 국내법상 제3자에 대한 주의의무심사기준의 미약 98

1. 제조물의 기술복잡성, 신체손해의 빈발, 제조물책임법의 한계 98

2. 계약중심 책임체계와 소원적(疏遠的) 제3자에 대한 주의의무의 모호성 99

3. 새로운 유형의 불법행위에 대한 민법 제750조의 역할 102

4. 2016년 판례평석: 환경법익침해와 엄격책임으로의 도피 104

제2절 영미법상 비계약관계의 제3자에 대한 주의의무 발전과정 108

1. 주의의무이론의 발전연혁 108

2. 객관적 과실개념과 피해자의 입증의 원칙의 탄생(19세기 중반) 117

3. 제3자에 대한 주의의무 시대의 개막(20세기초) 119

제3절 영국법상 과실심사이론으로서 Caparo 테스트의 정립 123

1. 주의의무의 확대와 소송의 홍수 - Anns 2단계 테스트 123

2. 보편적 주의의무 판단기준의 확립 - Caparo 3단계 테스트 126

제4절 Caparo의 보완이론 - 표시행위와 책임인수이론(Hedley) 137

1. Caparo 테스트 보완이론 - Hedley 책임인수이론 137

2. 책임인수이론의 후속 판례 142

3. 책임인수이론의 한계와 Caparo 테스로의 수렴 145

제5절 Caparo의 수렴이론 - 미국 제2차 리스테이트먼트(불법행위) 구성요건 147

1. 미국 제2차 리스테이트먼트(불법행위)상 신체(생명)손해의 구제 147

2. 독립시험인증기관과 제2차 리스테이트먼트(불법행위) 제324A조 163

3. 부실표시와 제2차 리스테이트먼트(불법행위) 제311, 552조 과실 불법행위책임 172

4. 제품인증단체와 제2차 리스테이트먼트(불법행위) 제311조 176

제6절 영국의 제한적 주의의무 심사이론(Caparo)과 한국, 미국 과실이론 비교 182

제5장 과학기술 적합성 평가기관의 Negligence기반 책임구성 185

제1절 논의의 실익 185

제2절 종래 제3자에 대한 계약의무 인정이론 모델과 한계 187

1. 계약책임으로서 불완전이행(적극적 채권침해)의 위치 187

2. 불완전이행(적극적 채권침해)과 확대손해 187

3. 제3자에 대한 계약의무 인정이론 191

4. 확대적 보증책임 부과의 한계 199

5. 소결 199

제3절 Caparo 테스트의 Negligence모델의 국내적 접목 201

1. 논의의 쟁점 201

2. 주의의무 심사 203

3. 위법성 심사 223

4. 인과관계 심사 230

5. 입증책임의 분배 236

6. 법익비례적 과실책임의 운용 238

제4절 과학기술 적합성 평가기관의 책임항변과 공공정책 241

1. 과학기술 적합성 평가기관의 책임 항변 241

2. 공공정책적 고려 245

제5절 소결 - 전문가 개념, 영국의 과실이론, 민법 제750조 256

1. 전문가 개념과 민법 제750조 256

2. 영국의 관계중심형 제한적 주의의무심사이론과 민법 제750조 260

3. 영국의 주의의무심사이론의 신뢰요소와 유형적 과실책임판단 269

4. 유럽불법행위법원칙과 영국의 주의의무심사이론 그리고 전문가 개념 271

제6장 결론 274

참고문헌 280

Summary 291

 Tort Liability of a Professional Assessment & Certification Body: a Science & Technology-Based Conformity Assessment One This thesis examines the tort liability of a professional assessment and certification body. In particular, it deals with the professional negligence of the science and technology-based conformity assessment body. In doing so, the thesis aims to unveil that this professional certifier may owe a high degree of duty of care to third party individuals, who are not in privity with the certifier, under the English three stage of review process, the so-called Caparo test of the renowned English case in the year 1990.

However, it might be worthwhile to note, at the same time, that, historically speaking, the Caparo Test has, since 1990, played a pivotal role in restraining an unbridled expansion of negligence liabilities in the U.K. for injuries incurred by the negligent activities of wrongdoers including professionals. This common sense-based theory logically presents not only foreseeability, but also proximity and public policy(fairness, just and reasonableness) before liability is imposed upon to any negligent behaviors under the law of torts. This paper seeks to emphasize the nature and criteria of the duty of care owed by the professional conformity assessment bodies, which lays foundation for those certification institutions to be reasonably found to be liable or not to be liable pursuant to the intelligible and restrictive review theory called the 'Caparo Test' for which this thesis demonstrate its general applicability regarding the issue of negligence and duty of care.

The value which may be put on this study would be at the in-depth analysis with regard to the elements of the Caparo Test applicable to negligence cases of the certifiers, coping with the current unceasing demand for safety under the contemporary science & technology-driven society. First of all, this thesis proves that the conformity assessment bodies are not that remote to the third parties in that there could be, to some degree, normative expectations and potential reliance from the society on the certifiers who are legally sufficient to qualify as professionals under the precedent decisions of the courts in Korea and foreign countries. Moreover, this paper offers that the certification bodies may be liable to individual citizens and consumers, who are injured by the products or services inspected and/or certified by the certifiers, depending on the assessment bodies' inter-relationships with the third party normal persons regardless of contractual setting.

The approaches taken in this paper highlight differences between the Korea's negligence theory under the article 750 of the Civil Act and the English negligence doctrine developed under the common law court system of a judge-made law. The distinguishing factors to differentiate each other seem to be at the way of approach to find how a duty of care may be owed given the factual circumstances and the requirements of the law of torts in each country. Korea appears to be more inclined to have the element of 'Unlawfulness' in the Article 750 of the Civil Code play more interpretive roles in finding negligence('dualist approach'). However, the English review test focuses on the proximate relationship between the parties as well as public policy aspects of fairness in the U.K.('monolist methodology'). Rather than suggesting one outweighs the other, this thesis carefully examines the possibility of generality and applicability of the English restrictive three stage methodology in professional negligence case.

Notably, the Restatement (Second) of Torts that feeds the U.S. courts also provides intelligible principles involving the expert certifier's liability toward any remote third parties in Section 324A, 311 and 552, which are examined, in this thesis, to be understood in the same ambit of the restrictive English test. Moreover, the Principles of European Tort Law(PETL) unequivocally proscribes under Article 4:102(1) that the required standard of care should consider the expertise, the foreseeability, and the relationship of proximity or special reliance, hinting that the PETL embraces the Caparo principle. Consequently, this paper argues whether the conformity assessment body qualifies as, in a normative sense, a professional at the last citadel to check out safety in a product and what legal scrutiny may be available to find such a body liable for its negligent inspection or certification causing physical damages to the third party users not in agreement with the certifying body. The recent changes in societies, technologies, and jurisprudence cannot be taken for granted where the very function of negligence is required to legitimately interact with those changes.

This paper is arranged into three sections. The first section involves societal reliance on the conformity assesment bodies and their function as professionals where this thesis examines the concept and function of a science and technology based conformity assessment body, suggesting that this assessment body falls within the definition of a professional who must act with a high degree of duty of care in most of countries like England, the U.S. Japan, France, Germany and Korea.

In the second section, this paper touches the historic developments of a theory of duty of care in the western legal environment before a general duty of care is established and is found to be controlled by the well-balanced principle to scrutinize negligence. Most of all, the three elements underlying the 1990's Caparo Test show the potential for the English test to be a general tool to apply to any negligent incidents even in a code-based civil law system. Being widely recognized and cited by subsequent cases in the U.K. till now, the relationship-focused restrictive test appears to be useful to logically justify the existence and non-existence of certain duty of care between a wrongdoer and an injured. The generality of the English restraint theory is strong enough to be inclusive of the voluntary assumption of responsibility theory under the Hedley case and of the relevant clauses of the Restatement (Second) of Torts which are designed to protect the third parties who are reliant upon negligent misstatements by professional services.

The last part deals with the application of the three stage test to negligence of the certification body under Korea's Civil Act. When the interactions between the certifier and the injured are closely looked into, this English approach appears to be quite novel, innovative, and so rarely observed in the Korean civil cases. However, the proximity approach presents the potential to be able to make up for the way how the Korean tort law judges negligent wrongdoings. Moreover, Korea's Unlawfulness test may well be supplemented or partly reasonably replaced by this Caparo test's proximity and public policy doctrine including fairness, just and reasonableness to finally reach a balanced conclusion as to liability.

In the meantime, we can not dismiss the public function that the technical assessment body contributes to the considerable public good by means of developing, establishing, interpreting and applying the de facto standards incorporating and absorbing a variety of conflicting interests among the private and public sectors. Thus, without reconsidering the defense factors of the science-technology conformity assessment body, the courts would not be able to reach fair decisions as to negligence. The nature of certification inherently involves the uniqueness such as no warranty of product safety, methodology of sampling tests, professional judgement, autonomous rule-making & applying activities, and no physical control of the products under inspection, etc.

In a nutshell, the duty of care as the core of negligence is expected to more effectively contribute, with the English three-stage restrictive test, to normatively engineering the safer society, protecting reliant individuals in this risk-riddled technical society from the risky products rolled out in the market which are so technically complicated that those convergence outputs get to the extent of threatening unspecified countless consumers with their potentially imperfect design, assembling and manufacturing process. Now is the time to take into account the social roles of, and the legal implications from, the science & technology based conformity assessment body.