소비자불매운동과 채권침해의 위법성- 대법원 2001. 7. 13. 선고 98다51091 판결을 중심으로-

In the Supreme Court Case involving secondary consumer boycott in 2001, the Supreme Court held that secondary consummer boycott is an inducing breach of contract or refusal to deal, an intentional interference with contractual rights. In Korean legal theory and cases, an intentional interference with contractual rights is recognized a kind of torts. Korean Court have recognized an intentional interference with contractual only in the exceptional instances when it is regarded as a breach of public policy. This Article argues that nonviolent secondary consumer boycott itself can not be treated as a breach of public policy. In determining whether a nonviolent secondary consumer boycott may be tortious invasion of business relationship, this article suggests the following should be considered. ① the nature of the actor's conduct, ② the actor's motive, ③ the interests of the other with which the actor's conduct interferes, ④ the interests sought to be advanced by the actor, ⑤ the social interests in protecting the freedom of action of the actor and the contractual interests of the other. The American Restatement of the Law of Torts (second) §767 provides same factors to help determine whether an interference with contract or prospective economic relations is not improper. Also, these are exactly the same factors that Korean Supreme Court considered when it recognizes an intentional interference with contractual as a breach of public policy.