Pure Economic Loss: A Korean Perspective
0
조회
0
다운로드
3
인용
0
참고문헌
초록
In general, pure economic loss is understood as economic loss without antecedent harm to plaintiff’s person or property. Traditionally, pure economic loss was only a topic of interest in the limited number of countries such as Germany, England or the United States. Recently, pureeconomic loss began to be discussed intensively in the context of the harmonization of tort law,particularly in Europe. Finding out some common principles and rules regarding pure economic loss has been the most essential goal of this recent discussion. It may be difficult to come up with a single, clear-cut solution on this complicated issue. However, it is important to note that almost all the jurisdictions are concerned about the possible indefinite expansion of liability and chilling effect on the economic activity in a substantially similar manner. This explains various attempts to limit the liability for pure economic loss to a reasonable degree regardless of a jurisdiction. It may take different forms from nation to nation, yet substances are fundamentally similar. Korea is no exception to this. In principle, pure economic loss is recoverable under the open-ended tort liability regime under Korean tort law. Since the notion of pure economic loss has generally been used as a conceptual tool to deny or limit its recoverability in the jurisdictions where there is no comprehensive tort liability regime, this notion was hardly known in Korea. However, Korean judiciary also shares the same concern that imposing excessive liability on economic loss in a densely intertwined society may lead to excessively cautious society, curbing the scope of economic activity for fear of liability. Therefore, Korean judiciary has also been striving to limit the liability by using other conceptual tools such as unlawfulness, causation or damage. This whole analysis leads to a conclusion that Korean tort law may reach a sensible and rational outcome just as other legal jurisdictions, though in somewhat different way and in slightly different conclusion. This commonness implies the feasibility of international collaborative works in this area of law. Therefore, bringing legal experiences in each nation together, discussing the differences and similarities of each approach, and striving to find the common foundation on which the doctrine of pure economic loss is based, is truly a meaningful task.
Abstract
In general, pure economic loss is understood as economic loss without antecedent harm to plaintiff’s person or property. Traditionally, pure economic loss was only a topic of interest in the limited number of countries such as Germany, England or the United States. Recently, pureeconomic loss began to be discussed intensively in the context of the harmonization of tort law,particularly in Europe. Finding out some common principles and rules regarding pure economic loss has been the most essential goal of this recent discussion. It may be difficult to come up with a single, clear-cut solution on this complicated issue. However, it is important to note that almost all the jurisdictions are concerned about the possible indefinite expansion of liability and chilling effect on the economic activity in a substantially similar manner. This explains various attempts to limit the liability for pure economic loss to a reasonable degree regardless of a jurisdiction. It may take different forms from nation to nation, yet substances are fundamentally similar. Korea is no exception to this. In principle, pure economic loss is recoverable under the open-ended tort liability regime under Korean tort law. Since the notion of pure economic loss has generally been used as a conceptual tool to deny or limit its recoverability in the jurisdictions where there is no comprehensive tort liability regime, this notion was hardly known in Korea. However, Korean judiciary also shares the same concern that imposing excessive liability on economic loss in a densely intertwined society may lead to excessively cautious society, curbing the scope of economic activity for fear of liability. Therefore, Korean judiciary has also been striving to limit the liability by using other conceptual tools such as unlawfulness, causation or damage. This whole analysis leads to a conclusion that Korean tort law may reach a sensible and rational outcome just as other legal jurisdictions, though in somewhat different way and in slightly different conclusion. This commonness implies the feasibility of international collaborative works in this area of law. Therefore, bringing legal experiences in each nation together, discussing the differences and similarities of each approach, and striving to find the common foundation on which the doctrine of pure economic loss is based, is truly a meaningful task.
참고문헌 (26)
- Bernhard Windscheid, "Lehrbuch des Pandektenrechts 2, 7th ed", pp.451~455 (1891)
- Bussani, "Pure Economic Loss in Europe", pp.5~ (2005)
- Dan B. Dobbs, "An Introduction to Non-statutory Economic Loss Claims", Ariz. L. Rev, 48, pp.713~716 (2006)
- David B. Gaebler, "Negligence, Economic Loss, and the U.C.C.", Ind. L.J, 61, pp.593~612 (1986)
- Fleming James, Jr., "Limitations on Liability for Economic Loss Caused by Negligence: A Pragmatic Appraisal", Vand. L. Rev, 43, pp.45~46 (1972)
- Francesco Parisi, "The comparative law and economics of pure economic loss", Int l Rev. L & Econ, 27, pp.29~37 (2007)
- G. Wagner, "Munchener Kommentar zum Burgerlichen Gesetzbuch, vol 5., Shuldrecht Besonderer Teil III, 5th ed", pp.823~ (2009)
- Guido Calabresi, "Some Thoughts on Risk Distribution and the Law of Torts", Yale L. J, 70, pp.499~737 (1961)
- Helmut Koziol, "Recovery for Economic Loss in the European Union", Arz. L. Rev, 48, pp.871~875 (2006)
- James Gordley, "Arthur Taylor Von Mehren, An Introduction to the Comparative Study of Private Law", pp.309~ (2006)
- James Gordley, "Foundations of Private Law", pp.271~272 (2006)
- Jane Stapleton, "Comparative Economic Loss: Lessons from Case-Law-Focused “Middle Theory”", UCLA L. Rev, 531, pp.536~537 (2002)
- David G. Owen, "Philosophical Foundations of Tort Law" (1995)
- "Principles of European Contract Law, Article 2:301 (1)", ~
- R. von Jhering, "Culpa in contrahendo oder Schadensersatz bei nichtigen oder nicht zur Perfektion gelangten Vertragen", Jherings Jahrbucher, 4, pp.12~13 (1861)
- Richard A. Epstein, "Causation and Corrective Justice: A Reply to Two Critics", J. Legal Stud, 477, pp.503~573 (1979)
- Richard A. Posner, "Common-Law Economic Torts: An Economic and Legal Analysis", Ariz. L. Rev, 48(735), pp.736~737 (2006)
- Robert J. Rhee, "A Production Theory of Pure Economic Loss", Nw. U. L. Rev, 104, pp.49~50 (2010)
- Ronen Perry, "The Economic Bias in Tort Law", U. Ill. L Rev, (25), pp.1573~1579 (2008)
- Sangjoong Kim, "A Study of the Liability for Pure Economic", Loss Human Rts. and Just., 328 (2003)
- Taeyoung Yoon, "Infringement on Business Interest and Unlawfulness", Civil Law Journal, 30 (2005)
- Victor P. Goldberg, "Recovery for Economic Loss following the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill", J. Legal. Stud, 23, pp.1~ (1994)
- W. Bishop, "Economic Loss in Tort", Oxford J. Legal Stud, 2, pp.1~ (1982)
- W.V.H Rogers, "Winfield and Jolowicz on Tort, 15th ed", pp.134~ (1998)
- W.V.H. Rogers, "Comparative Report of a Project Carried Out By the European Centre for Tort and Insurance Law", pp.246~ (2001), Damages for Non-Pecuniary Loss in a Comparative Perspective
- Walter Wilburg, "Die Elemente des Schadensrechts" (1941)