금융소비자 보호를 위한 집단소송제도의 개선방안 - 최근 증권관련 집단소송법의 개정 논의를 중심으로 -
A Study on Improvement of Class Action Suit System for the Financial Consumer Protection in Korea
김홍기(연세대학교)
33권 2호, 245~286쪽
초록
A class action is a lawsuit where a group of people in similar circumstances sues another party, usually consumers suing a large business. Although there are several criticisms to class actions(such as abusive class actions, adversely affected commerce, coupon settlement etc), class actions could offer a number of advantages because they aggregate a large number of individualized claims into one representational lawsuit. Class action originated in the United States and are still predominantly a U.S. phenomenon. But, the Korean government has been developing a series of legislation with the aim of facilitating the protection of consumers. Especially, in 2005, the Securities-related Class Action Act("SRCA", Act No. 7074) came into effect. This Act prescribe securities-related class actions in order to efficiently seek a relief for collective injuries caused in the course of trading securities. However, for the last 10 years after the enforcement of the SRCA, there have been only 7 class action suits in Korea. It means that there are many obstacles to make use of securities class actions properly. Therefore, several restrictions in SRCA should be abolished and/or amended in order to actually operate our securities class actions and protect the rights of minority investors. Herebelow, I suggest ways of improving class action system in Korea. First, the application and scope of the SRCA shall be extended farther. Article 3(Scope of Application) of the SRCA shall be extended to include all claims under Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act (“FISCMA”). Second, strict litigation requirements of SRCA shall be mitigated. As we reviewed in the article, Korean courts granted very little for the lack of requirements. Therefore Article 5(Appointment of Attorney) and Article 11(Requirements for Representative Party and Attorney) shall be mitigated and amended to ease access for financial consumers suffered from illegal practices. Third, substantial incentive, such as attorney fees, shall be provided for the lead plaintiff and/or lead counsel. It appears that proper contingency fee arrangements will might be helpful for injured and its attorney.
Abstract
A class action is a lawsuit where a group of people in similar circumstances sues another party, usually consumers suing a large business. Although there are several criticisms to class actions(such as abusive class actions, adversely affected commerce, coupon settlement etc), class actions could offer a number of advantages because they aggregate a large number of individualized claims into one representational lawsuit. Class action originated in the United States and are still predominantly a U.S. phenomenon. But, the Korean government has been developing a series of legislation with the aim of facilitating the protection of consumers. Especially, in 2005, the Securities-related Class Action Act("SRCA", Act No. 7074) came into effect. This Act prescribe securities-related class actions in order to efficiently seek a relief for collective injuries caused in the course of trading securities. However, for the last 10 years after the enforcement of the SRCA, there have been only 7 class action suits in Korea. It means that there are many obstacles to make use of securities class actions properly. Therefore, several restrictions in SRCA should be abolished and/or amended in order to actually operate our securities class actions and protect the rights of minority investors. Herebelow, I suggest ways of improving class action system in Korea. First, the application and scope of the SRCA shall be extended farther. Article 3(Scope of Application) of the SRCA shall be extended to include all claims under Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act (“FISCMA”). Second, strict litigation requirements of SRCA shall be mitigated. As we reviewed in the article, Korean courts granted very little for the lack of requirements. Therefore Article 5(Appointment of Attorney) and Article 11(Requirements for Representative Party and Attorney) shall be mitigated and amended to ease access for financial consumers suffered from illegal practices. Third, substantial incentive, such as attorney fees, shall be provided for the lead plaintiff and/or lead counsel. It appears that proper contingency fee arrangements will might be helpful for injured and its attorney.
- 발행기관:
- 한국상사법학회
- 분류:
- 법학