상표법상 법정손해배상 제도의 적용 현황과 과제 - 하급심 판례 분석을 중심으로 -

This study analyzes the legislative history, legal nature, comparative characteristics, claim requirements, and practical implementation of the statutory damages system under the Korean Trademark Act. The system, introduced in 2011 and revised in 2020 to increase the upper limit of damages to KRW 300 million in cases of willful infringement, was intended to provide effective relief to right holders in situations where proving actual damages is difficult and to deter infringement. A comparative analysis with the United States and China reveals that while Korea allows discretionary claims and permits up to threefold damages for willful infringement—similar to the U.S. approach—the absence of a statutory minimum and the limited extent of enhancement indicate a hybrid rather than a fully punitive model. Regarding claim requirements, the Korean Supreme Court requires proof of actual use of the registered trademark, but a more flexible interpretation considering consumer appeal and advertising effects is being suggested. The current judicial position on assessing the similarity of marks based on their entirety—while excluding partial similarities—is deemed appropriate. As for the assessment of intent and negligence, although lower courts apply statutory presumptions, it is argued that presumptions of intent should be used sparingly due to their significant impact on damages, and a clearer standard is needed. There is also variation in how courts articulate their reasoning for calculating damages, which reflects broader inconsistencies found in civil litigation practice. Therefore, referencing the evaluative factors used in punitive damages systems—such as intent, repetitiveness, and severity—may enhance predictability and legitimacy. Although the Supreme Court has ruled that no statutory damages can be awarded in the absence of actual damages, elements such as advertising expenditure, market exposure, and consumer attraction should also be considered. In cases involving multiple infringed marks, divergent interpretations in lower court decisions suggest the need for legislative clarification on the unit of calculation. While there are no clear precedents on statutory damages in multi-right-holder cases, the liability of multiple infringers can be assessed under existing tort principles. In practice, most lower court cases focus on whether the statutory requirements are met, without developing independent legal theories. Repeated dismissals of claims due to insufficient factual pleadings or failure to meet the requirements for general damages highlight a need for improved awareness among legal representatives. Courts should actively exercise their explanatory powers to guide the proper application of the system. Regarding claim structures, combining general and statutory damages as primary and secondary claims is legally appropriate, whereas alternative pleading may require judicial clarification. Although there are no cases directly addressing the evidentiary burden under the Trademark Act, it is desirable that while infringement itself must be clearly proven, the scope of damages should be inferred based on circumstantial evidence, in line with the system’s purpose and Supreme Court precedent. Based on this analysis, the study aims to propose interpretive and legislative improvements that will allow the statutory damages system to evolve into a balanced civil remedy that ensures substantive rights protection and enhances legal predictability—beyond merely alleviating the burden of proof.