SHERP

경제학적(經濟學的) 논증(論證)의 법적(法的) 지위(地位) -배제적(排除的) 법실증주의(法實證主義)의 관점(觀點)에서-
The Legal Status of Economic Reasoning in Adjudication -From the Perspective of Exclusive Legal Positivism-

Cited 0 time in webofscience Cited 0 time in scopus
Authors
조홍식
Issue Date
2007
Publisher
서울대학교 법학연구소
Citation
법학, Vol.48 No4 pp.124-178
Keywords
의존테제체계상의 효력조정문제경제학적 논증배제적 법실증주의일차적 규칙포용적 법실증주의경제학적 추론효력의 연쇄고리서비스적 정당화기술주의시장모방적 규칙
Abstract
In 2005, the Korean Ministry of National Defense (“plaintiff”) filed a lawsuit
against five major domestic refineries (“defendants”), with the Seoul Central
District Court claiming that they suffered damages in amount to Korean Won
165,967,357,805 due to the collusive bid riggings performed by the defendants.
On January 23, 2007, the court rendered a judgment holding that the defendants
were liable for the collusive bid riggings as claimed by the plaintiff and responsible
for the damage of Korean Won 80,997,385,398. Calculating the damage
amount, the court mainly relied on the econometric method. Depending upon
Joseph Raz’ “exclusive legal positivism,” this essay explores whether Korean
legal system recognizes the economic reasoning that the court relies on in calculating
the damage amount. Main point of this essay’s conclusion is two-pronged.
First, the court decision to rely on econometric method in calculating damage is
valid in Korean legal system. Second, the court decision to normatively control
various aspects of expert witness’ damage-calculating practice is also valid even
though expert witness’ practice is so professional that courts seem to be unable
to handle.
ISSN
1598-222X
Language
Korean
URI
http://lawi.snu.ac.kr/

http://hdl.handle.net/10371/10193
Files in This Item:
Appears in Collections:
College of Law/Law School (법과대학/대학원)The Law Research Institute (법학연구소) 법학법학 Volume 48, Number 1/4 (2007)
  • mendeley

Items in S-Space are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.

Browse