징벌적 손해배상의 판단 구조에 대한 실증적 분석 - 특허법 및 상표법 판례를 중심으로 -

This study empirically examines how claims for punitive damages are handled in judicial practice and identifies the decision-making structure through which such claims are assessed. Court decisions rendered between 2011 and 2025 were first collected through an exploratory search using the keyword "punitive damages." Based on this initial review, cases arising under the Fair Transactions in Subcontracting Act, the Franchise Transactions Act, the Patent Act, and the Trademark Act were re-collected using the respective statutory provisions on enhanced damages to establish the final dataset. The analysis demonstrates that judicial decisions on punitive damages are not the result of a single discretionary determination but are formed through a sequential structure consisting of (1) the establishment of liability for damages, (2) the applicability of the punitive damages provision, and (3) the determination of enhancement and its multiplier. A substantial portion of cases were filtered out at the liability or applicability stage before reaching the enhancement determination, and the relatively low overall rate of awards should be understood as the cumulative result of these stage-based filters. Notably, the primary stage at which claims were filtered differed by statute: cases under the Subcontracting Act and the Franchise Transactions Act were predominantly dismissed at the liability stage, Patent Act cases were largely filtered at the transitional provisions and willfulness requirements stage, and Trademark Act cases were concentrated at the enhancement denial stage. In particular, an in-depth qualitative analysis of patent and trademark cases reveals that the decisive factor in granting enhanced damages is not the absolute size of compensatory damages, but the degree of willfulness attributable to the infringer. Mere awareness of the existence of patent or trademark rights, or receipt of a cease-and-desist letter, was insufficient to justify enhancement. Enhanced damages were typically awarded only where infringement continued or was intensified even after judicial determinations-such as preliminary injunctions or trial court judgments-had clarified the illegality of the conduct. These findings suggest that punitive damages in Korean practice do not function as a blanket deterrent against all willful infringement, but rather operate as a mechanism for selectively altering the economic incentive structure in cases of so-called "calculated infringement," where infringers persist in their conduct while treating potential damages as a cost of doing business.