미국에서의 테러행위와 관련된 민사책임에 대한 논의와 우리나라에의 시사점

As acts of terrorism increase around the world, more civilians in the U.S. who were victims of terrorism are initiating civil lawsuits seeking compensation for damages arising therefrom against, not the terrorist, but countries, local governments, and private corporations that have played a role in exacerbating terrorism. A number of landmark judgments have been rendered regarding the matter. This paper aims to identify major legal issues that may likely arise and seek solutions in cases where the above-mentioned civil lawsuits were to occur in Korea. If another country, other than Korea, was connected to an act of terrorism in Korea, a victimized Korean's claim seeking compensation for damages against the relavant foreign country would be impermissible according to the legal principle on sovereign immunity under international law. Ultimately, this is an issue that should be carefully dealt with through legislative action. Conversely, if a foreign private person or corporation were to have engaged in an act of terrorism in Korea, Korean courts have jurisdiction from the interpretative standpoint of the Act on Private International Law. Furthermore, compensation claims may be sought inasmuch as the laws of the Republic of Korea serve as the governing law. Meanwhile, in cases where the State or local governments of the Republic of Korea either played a part in causing an act of terrorism or aggravating damages resulting therefrom in Korea, the establishment of liability for compensation falls under the purview of constructing the State Compensation Act; provided, however, that predictability ought to be examined by considering the nature of terrorism, etc. Where a domestic entity is involved in an act of terrorism, depending on the existence of a contractual relationship between the entity and the victim in question, it may be feasible to seek compensation for damages caused by the nonperformance of the contractual duty to protect of caused by a tort. Establishment of liability should be determined in full view of the usage and size of facilities operated by said entity, the relationship between the entity and the victim, etc. In such extenuating circumstances where an entity provided information and communications service that was used in an act of terrorism, tort liability can be recognized when meeting the following requirements based of interpreting the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, Etc.: (i) if there is an obvious conspiracy to commit terrorism involving the use of information and communication service; and (ii) in an information and communications service provider was aware of such conspiracy or was negligent in preventing the provision of such service.