징벌적 손해배상제도의 개선 방안에 관한 연구

In modern society, various forms of malicious illegal activities have led to an increase in the number of victims, highlighting the limitations of the compensation system. To overcome these limitations and punish malicious wrongdoers while deterring similar acts, a punitive damages system has been introduced. To achieve the goal of punitive damages, which is punishment and deterrence similar to criminal penalties, objective guidelines must be provided to malicious perpetrators, ensuring legal stability and predictability. The first problem with the current punitive damages system is the inconsistency in the criteria for recognizing punitive damages liability. The punitive damages law stipulates the perpetrator's subjective mental state as a criterion for recognizing punitive damages. However, it allows punitive damages to be indemnified not only for intentional illegal acts but also for damages caused by negligence. Applying different legal standards to the same illegal act could undermine the consistency of applying the punitive damages system. The second problem is the disparity in the limits set for punitive damages indemnity. When examining the compensation amounts specified in individual laws implementing the punitive damages system, they are generally determined within the scope of not exceeding 3 or 5 times the amount of actual damage incurred. Punitive damages aim to punish malicious wrongdoers and deter similar acts through punitive compensation. To efficiently utilize the punitive damages system, the first approach is to clearly define the perpetrator's subjective element, specifically limiting it to intentional acts, to impose damages exceeding the actual losses. Recognizing punitive damages liability for acts of negligence, ranging from gross negligence to slight negligence, goes beyond the intention of introducing the system and could result in excessive sanctions. Since gross negligence is a subjective mental state distinct from intent, the application of punitive damages should be limited to the perpetrator's malicious intent. The second approach is to set a limit on the maximum amount of punitive damages, such as three times the compensatory damages or an amount equivalent to criminal fines or administrative penalties. By imposing punitive damages that correspond to criminal or administrative sanctions on malicious wrongdoers who face significant public criticism, a practical punishment and an equal effect can be expected. Additionally, by applying a fixed amount and a ratio of punitive damages to compensatory damages, it becomes possible to reasonably achieve the purpose of punitive damages while ensuring appropriate compensation for the victims when the punitive damages ratio exceeds the criminal or administrative penalties.