본문 바로가기
KERD
논문KCI 등재

사용자책임의 비교법적 경향

A Comparative Study on Employer's Liability

김봉수
고려대학교 법학연구원|2009.09|고려법학 (Korea Law Review)|제54호|pp. 201-241

0

조회

0

다운로드

16

인용

0

참고문헌

키워드

불법행위책임사용자책임구상권tort liabilityvicarious liability대위책임엄격책임employer's liabilitystrict laibilityliability for othersright of indemnification or recourse타인행위에 대한 책임
주제분류법학

초록

All legal systems provide the tort liability which affects on the damage the employer causes to the auxiliary. They have more strict liability no matter the legal nature of employer’s liability is liability with fault or liability without fault, personal liability or vicarious liability. The meaning of employment between employer and employee in the sense of employment liability is extensive. So there is an agreement of comparative law that the employer’s liability occurs between employee, domestic helper, occasional helper and gratuitous helper. The main key for employment relationship is the relation of subordination. And when the employee does wrongdoing within the scope of employment, the employer is responsible for it. But the judgment within the scope of employment is very delicate issue, and each judgment is concluded by different legal systems. Still, the decision of relationship with work is not limited to the issues that directly related with work, regardless of the different standard of different country. In some legal system, they have the possibility for exemption from responsibility, Germany, Switzerland, Korea, but it’s still rare that the exemption is authorized. The presence of employer’s liability does not exempt the personal tort liability. So if the employer pays for the damages, he can normally use the indemnification or recourse. But the employer is also responsible for the damages which are caused from his employee, so the right to indemnify is restricted by the law in every legal system. The standard for restriction of the right to indemnify is different by each legal system, but it’s normally judged by the amount of fault caused by employee. Those comparative studies above can provide the point of view of analysis and interpretation on employer’s liability.

Abstract

All legal systems provide the tort liability which affects on the damage the employer causes to the auxiliary. They have more strict liability no matter the legal nature of employer’s liability is liability with fault or liability without fault, personal liability or vicarious liability. The meaning of employment between employer and employee in the sense of employment liability is extensive. So there is an agreement of comparative law that the employer’s liability occurs between employee, domestic helper, occasional helper and gratuitous helper. The main key for employment relationship is the relation of subordination. And when the employee does wrongdoing within the scope of employment, the employer is responsible for it. But the judgment within the scope of employment is very delicate issue, and each judgment is concluded by different legal systems. Still, the decision of relationship with work is not limited to the issues that directly related with work, regardless of the different standard of different country. In some legal system, they have the possibility for exemption from responsibility, Germany, Switzerland, Korea, but it’s still rare that the exemption is authorized. The presence of employer’s liability does not exempt the personal tort liability. So if the employer pays for the damages, he can normally use the indemnification or recourse. But the employer is also responsible for the damages which are caused from his employee, so the right to indemnify is restricted by the law in every legal system. The standard for restriction of the right to indemnify is different by each legal system, but it’s normally judged by the amount of fault caused by employee. Those comparative studies above can provide the point of view of analysis and interpretation on employer’s liability.

참고문헌 (42)

  1. 康 奉 碩, "사용자책임과 그 면책사유의 법적 성질", 저스티스, (85), pp.122~139 (2005), 한국법학원
  2. 權五乘, "使用者責任", 民事法學, (15), pp.190~ (1997), 韓國民事法學會
  3. 權龍雨, "使用者責任과 求償權의 制限", 考試硏究, pp.24~ (1990), 考試硏究社
  4. 金東勳, "프랑스 不法行爲法 一考, in: 法學論叢", pp.41~ (1993), 檀國大學校出版部
  5. 金學煥, "使用者責任에 관한 硏究", 博士, pp.1992
  6. 金亨培, "使用者責任과 求償權의 制限", 民事法學, (7), 韓國民事法學會
  7. 金亨培, "使用者責任에 관한 比較法的 考察", 司法行政, 통권 : 313, pp.39~ (1987), 韓國司法行政學會
  8. 金亨培, "危險責任에 있어서의 使用者責任", 安岩法學, pp.427~ (1993), 安岩法學會
  9. 김형배, "使用者責任과 判例 -比較法的 視覺에서-", 고려법학, (48), pp.1~35 (2007), 법학연구원
  10. 명순구, "프랑스 불법행위책임법의 이론구조와 현대적 변용", 韓日法學, (21), pp.303~ (2002), 韓日法學會
  11. 法務部, "民法(財産編)改正資料集", ~ (2004)
  12. 朴駿緖, "註釋民法 債權各則 (8)", 韓國司法行政學會, ~ (2000)
  13. 신유철, "유럽불법행위법의 통일과 전망", 민사법학, 15(27), pp.213~256 (2005), 한국민사법학회
  14. 李相旭, "프랑스 민법상의 Faute", 社會科學硏究, pp.1~ (2001), 嶺南大學校 社會科學硏究所
  15. 李銀榮, "債權各論" (1999), 博英社
  16. 鄭泰綸, "프랑스不法行爲法上 faute의 槪念에 관하여", 仁濟論叢, 4, pp.333~ (1988), 仁濟大學校
  17. 河京孝, "勤勞者의 責任制限 法理에 대한 硏究", 法政考試, pp.88~ (1995), 法政考試社
  18. 河京孝, "勤勞者의 責任制限 法理에 대한 硏究", 法政考試, pp.88~ (1995), 법정고시사
  19. 河京孝, "使用者責任과 관련된 몇 가지 問題", 考試硏究, pp.100~ (1998), 考試硏究社
  20. 韓雄吉, "代位責任(Vicarious Liability)에 관한 小考", 東亞法學, pp.293~, 東亞大學校 法學硏究所
  21. 韓雄吉, "使用者責任에 관한 硏究", 東亞法學, (19), pp.46~ (1990)
  22. 韓雄吉, "使用者責任에 있어 求償權에 대한 연구", 東亞法學, (17), pp.74~ (1994), 東亞大學校 法學硏究所
  23. Abraham, Kenneth S, "The Forms and Functions of Tort Law, Third Edition" (2007), Thomson West
  24. Amstutz, Marc, "Handkommentar zum schweizer Privatrecht, Zurich" (2007), Schulthess
  25. Bamberger, Heinz Georg, "Kommentar zum Bürgerlichen Gesetzbuch, Bd. 2", pp.611~1296 (2003), C. H. Beck
  26. Dam, von Cees, "European Tort Law" (2006), Oxford University Press
  27. Emanuel, Steven L., "Tort, seventh edition" (2005), ASPEN Publischers
  28. European Group on Tort Law, "of European tort law : text and commentary" (2005), Springer
  29. Ferid, Murad, "Französische Zivilrecht Band 2 Schuldrecht: Die einzelnen Schuldverhältnisse, Sachenrecht, 2 Aufl" (1986), mbH
  30. Fikentscher, Wolfgang, "Schuldrecht, 10. Aufl" (2006)
  31. Fuchs, "Deliktsrecht, 4. Aufl" (2003), Springer
  32. Honsell, Heinrich, "OR Art. 1-529" (2008), Helbing Lichtenhahn Verlag
  33. Honsell, Heinrich, "Schweizerisches Haftpflichtrecht, 4. Aufl" (2005), Schulthess
  34. Koziol, Helmut, "Tort Law of the European Community" (2008), Springer Vienna
  35. Medicus, Dieter, "Schuldrecht II Besonderer Teil, 12. Aufl" (2004), C. H.
  36. Palandt, Otto, "Palandt Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch, 67. Aufl" (2008), C. H. Beck
  37. Rogers, W. V. H., "Winfield & Jolowicz on Tort, Sixteenth Edition" (2002), Swet & Maxwell
  38. Schellhammer, Kurt, "Schuldrecht nach Anspruchsgrundlagen, 6. Aufl" (2007), C. F. Müller
  39. Sonnenberger, Hans Jürgen, "Einführung in das französische Recht, 3. Aufl" (2000), Verlag Recht und Wirtschaft
  40. Spier, Jaap, "Unification of Tort Law: Liability for Damage Caused by Others" (2003), Kluwer International
  42. Welser, Rudolf, "Schuldrecht Allgemeinter Teil: Schuldrecht Besonderer Teil, Erbrecht, 13 Aufl" (2007), Manzsche- und Universitätsbuchhandlung

관련 논문AI추천

사용자책임에 관한 미국 판례의 동향정소민법학연구소 · 외법논집2014 · 제38권 제1호사용자책임의 성립요건에 관한 고찰 - 판례를 중심으로 -김덕중법학연구소 · 원광법학2010 · 제26권 제3호사용자책임에서 사무집행관련성의 판단- 비교법적 연구로부터의 시사 -김형석법학연구소 · 서울대학교 법학2012 · 제53권 제2호사용자책임의 입법주의 연구- 역사적⋅비교법적 접근 -김형석법학연구소 · 서울대학교 법학2012 · 제53권 제3호사용자책임의 성립과 책임제한에 관한 연구김상명법과정책연구원 · 법과정책2013 · 제19권 제2호사용자책임의 입법론적 쟁점김천수법학연구소 · 법학논집2010 · 제14권 제4호

이 간행물의 다른 논문 (8건)

“법, 도덕 그리고 사실” - 비얼링의 승인설에 대한 켈젠의 비판윤재왕pp. 1-31프랑스공교육에서의 비종교성과 학생의 종교의 자유 - 이슬람스카프논쟁을 중심으로 -지규철pp. 33-64수형자의 선거권 제한(공직선거법 제18조 제1항 제2호)의 합헌성 여부에 대한 검토장영수pp. 65-85감사원의 독립기관화에 대한 헌법적 검토차진아pp. 87-132독일 판례에서 실체파악의 인정과 우리 판례의 한계 - 비교법적인 관점에서 -유주선pp. 133-159
원문 보기