불법행위 손해배상청구권의 장기(長期)행사기간의 법적성질-제척기간으로 보는 전통적 견해에 대한 비판적 고찰-
The Legal Nature of Long-term Period in Tort Claim
0
조회
0
다운로드
9
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
In the Civil law system, the extinctive prescription is formulated to promote legal efficiency. It prevents stale claims as well as encourages the resolution of legal claims within a reasonable time period. The general view has it that the prescription period of 10 years set out in paragraph 2, Art. 766 of the Korean Civil Code is perceived as a means to limiting(restricting?) the extension of the prescription period by 3 years set out in paragraph 1 for further observative purpose. Therefore, the 10 year term of exercise period in all respects functions only when considering the purpose of the 3 year limitation term stipulated in the preceding paragraph and it does not carry raison d´être on its own. In correspondence to the suspensibility and instability of the 3 year limitation term, interpretation and usage of this 10 year clause should be standardized yet remain absolute. An extension period results from interruption, suspension, and delayed commencement of the prescription, as well as the pleading based on the good faith doctrine, will not be allowed. This theory(view) is very consistent as an ideological claim, however it does not coincide with the substantive enactment prescribed in Art. 766 of the Civil Code. Therein lies the problem. Problematic issues arise when it comes to real-world implementation or in consideration of the results. Further in-depth theoretical consideration should be applied in regards to whether the 10 year term carries raison d´être on its own; if it does, what is its connection with the 3 year term; also, if the running of 10 year term prescription is interrupted, what would interruption mean under such circumstances; how should one interpret the significance of the comprehensive Art. 766, and so forth. At the very least, the interpretation of exercise period prescribed in paragraph 2 of Art. 766 as extinctive prescription, will sufficiently reflect the legislative history and legal terminology of our legal system. It will also be more reasonable from the dimension of comparative law. Futhermore, the Supreme Court's recent decisions on tort claims concerning unlawful acts of state, product liability, pharmaceutical product possessing an incubation period etc., show that the Court has adopted a more flexible approach in dealing with the commencement point of the prescription or pleading based on the good faith doctrine, with focus to protect the rights of the injured party. Taking that on board, the clause should no longer be interpreted in the conventional manner that attempts to promote legal efficiency in favour of protecting the so-called general public interest, and neither should it be imposed upon the injured party. In short, the general view that perceives the long-term period for exercise of a right as an exclusion period purporting to promote legal efficiency from the dimension of generating general public interest is nothing more than a "creative interpretation that differs from the substantive enactment" which lacks of objective rationality and appropriateness of the results.
Abstract
In the Civil law system, the extinctive prescription is formulated to promote legal efficiency. It prevents stale claims as well as encourages the resolution of legal claims within a reasonable time period. The general view has it that the prescription period of 10 years set out in paragraph 2, Art. 766 of the Korean Civil Code is perceived as a means to limiting(restricting?) the extension of the prescription period by 3 years set out in paragraph 1 for further observative purpose. Therefore, the 10 year term of exercise period in all respects functions only when considering the purpose of the 3 year limitation term stipulated in the preceding paragraph and it does not carry raison d´être on its own. In correspondence to the suspensibility and instability of the 3 year limitation term, interpretation and usage of this 10 year clause should be standardized yet remain absolute. An extension period results from interruption, suspension, and delayed commencement of the prescription, as well as the pleading based on the good faith doctrine, will not be allowed. This theory(view) is very consistent as an ideological claim, however it does not coincide with the substantive enactment prescribed in Art. 766 of the Civil Code. Therein lies the problem. Problematic issues arise when it comes to real-world implementation or in consideration of the results. Further in-depth theoretical consideration should be applied in regards to whether the 10 year term carries raison d´être on its own; if it does, what is its connection with the 3 year term; also, if the running of 10 year term prescription is interrupted, what would interruption mean under such circumstances; how should one interpret the significance of the comprehensive Art. 766, and so forth. At the very least, the interpretation of exercise period prescribed in paragraph 2 of Art. 766 as extinctive prescription, will sufficiently reflect the legislative history and legal terminology of our legal system. It will also be more reasonable from the dimension of comparative law. Futhermore, the Supreme Court's recent decisions on tort claims concerning unlawful acts of state, product liability, pharmaceutical product possessing an incubation period etc., show that the Court has adopted a more flexible approach in dealing with the commencement point of the prescription or pleading based on the good faith doctrine, with focus to protect the rights of the injured party. Taking that on board, the clause should no longer be interpreted in the conventional manner that attempts to promote legal efficiency in favour of protecting the so-called general public interest, and neither should it be imposed upon the injured party. In short, the general view that perceives the long-term period for exercise of a right as an exclusion period purporting to promote legal efficiency from the dimension of generating general public interest is nothing more than a "creative interpretation that differs from the substantive enactment" which lacks of objective rationality and appropriateness of the results.
참고문헌 (92)
- Bamberger, "BGB" (2007)
- 김성수, "시효 및 제적치간에 관한 민법개정시안 - 2010년 1월 29일 개정시간의 조문내용과 개정이유를 중심으로 -", 민사법학, 50(46), pp.169~233 (2010), 한국민사법학회
- "법무부민법개정안(채권편·부록)", pp.600~601 (2012), 법무부
- 곽윤직, "채권각론", pp.472~ (2003), 박영사
- 김기선, "한국채권법각론", pp.452~ (1982), 법문사
- 김상용, "채권각론", pp.481~ (2009), 화산미디어
- 김석우, "채권법각론", pp.568~ (1978), 박영사
- 김주수, "채권각론", pp.821~ (1997), 삼영사
- 이태재, "채권각론신강" (1985), 진명문화사
- 임정평, "채권각론", pp.823~ (1995), 법지사
- 김증한, "채권각론" (2007), 박영사
- 김준호, "민법강의", pp.926~ (2012), 법문사
- 곽윤직, "민법주해 제19권" (2005), 박영사
- 이은영, "채권각론", pp.819~ (2007), 박영사
- 이기용, "不法行爲에 있어서의 消滅時效", 비교사법, 12(4), pp.223~261 (2005), 한국비교사법학회
- 소성규, "민법 제766조의 적용상 제문제, In 현대법학의 이론; 우재이명구박사 화갑기념논문집 III", pp.262~ (1996)
- 이상욱, "불법행위로 인한 손해배상청구권의 시효기산점, In 채권법에 있어서 자유와 책임: 김형배교수화갑기념논문집", pp.612~ (1994), 박영사
- 명순구, "실록 대한민국 민법 3", pp.826~ (2010), 법문사
- Spiro(Karl), "Die Begrenzung privater Rechte durch Verjährungs-, Verwirkungs- und Fatalfristen, 1 Bände" (1975)
- Protokolle, Mugdan(Benno), "Die gesamten Materialien zum Bürgerlichen Gesetzbuch für das deutsche Reich, Bd.Ⅱ, In Recht der Schuldverhältnis", pp.611~ (1899), von Decker’s Verlag
- Breucker, "Die Verjährung der Ansprüche aus unerlaubten Handlungen", pp.37~ (1934)
- Lorenz, "Lehrbuch zum neuen Schuldrecht" (2002), München
- 潮見佳男, "債權各論Ⅰ(契約法·事務管理·不當利得)" (2009), 新世社
- 内池慶四郎, "出訴規則期限略史ー明治時効法の一系譜ー", pp.76~77 (1968), 慶應義塾大学法学研究会
- 内池慶四郎, "不法行為責任の消滅時效 - 民法第七二四条論 -" (1993), 成文堂
- 吾妻光俊, "私法に於ける時効制度の意義", 法学協会雑誌, 48(2), pp.57~ (1930)
- 岩沢彰二郎, "不法行為に因る損害賠償請求権の時効起算点", 法学志林, 33(1∼3) (1931)
- 末川 博, "不法行為による損害賠償請求権の時効", 民法論集, 28(3) (1932)
- 中川善之助, "身分権と時効, In 身分法の総則的課題" (1941), 岩波書店
- 이상태, "除斥期間의 本質에 관한 硏究", 저스티스, 72, pp.107~137 (2003), 한국법학원
- 岩沢彰二郎, "不法行為に因る損害賠償請求権の時効起算点", 33(1), pp.59~ (1931)
- 岩沢彰二郎, "不法行為に因る損害賠償請求権の時効起算点", 33(2), pp.68~ (1931)
- 吾妻光俊, "除斥期間, In 岩波法律学辞典Ⅱ", pp.1392~ (1935)
- 我妻栄, "債権法" (1941), 法律学体系コンメンタール
- 奥田昌道, "法學講義 民法6: 事務管理․不當利得․不法行爲", pp.200~ (2006), 悠々社
- 加藤雅信, "新民法大系 I: 民法總則", pp.413~ (2005), 有斐閣
- 中川善之助, "身分権と時効, In 身分法の総則的課題", pp.26~ (1941), 岩波書店
- 椿壽夫, "除斥期間の一義性", 法律時報, 72(11), pp.5~ (2000)
- 中川善之助, "相続回復請求権の20年は時効なりや", 法学志林, 36(8), pp.45~
- 명순구, "미국계약법입문", pp.390~ (2008), 법문사
- 内池慶四郎, "近時判例における民法724条後段所定の20年期間の問題性 ─ 違法買収・売渡処分関係事例 ─", 法学研究, 59(12), pp.111~ (1986)
- 内池慶四郎, "続・近時判例における民法724条後段所定の20年期間の問題性 ─再審無罪判決・労災職業病・登記過誤その他関係事例 ─", 法学研究, 60(2), pp.73~ (1987)
- 內田貴, "民法II: 債權各論", pp.435~ (1999), 東京大學出版會
- 松本克美, "民法 724条後段 『除斥期間』 説の終わりの始まり - 『除斥期間』 説に基づき判例を <統一> した最判89年の再検討 -", 立命館法学, (304), pp.316~334 (2006)
- 松本克美, "民法 724条後段の 『不法行為の時』 と権利行使可能性 - 筑豊じん肺訴訟最高裁 2004年判決の射程距離-", 立命館法学, 30(7), pp.148~ (2006)
- 松久三四彦, "民法724条の構造 - 1期間 2起算点の視角-, In 星野英一先生古稀祝賀 『日本民法学の形成と課題 下』", pp.995~1023 (1996), 有斐閣
- 新井敦志, "《判例研究》 民法724条後段の期間について - 東京高判平成 20年 1月 31日 素材として -", 立正法学論集, 42(2), pp.165~ (2009)
- 吉村良一, "不法行為法", pp.188~189 (2010), 有斐閣
- 吉村良一, "判例批評", 民商法雑誌, 141(4・5), pp.482~483 (2010)
- 加藤雅信, "新民法大系 V: 事務管理․不當利得․不法行爲", pp.325~ (2005), 有斐閣
- 水辺芳郎, "不法行爲", pp.424~ (2006), 三省堂
- 박우동, "손해배상청구권과 소멸시효, In 민법학논총(곽윤직교수화갑기념논문집)", pp.709~ (1985), 박영사
- Mansel, "Die Reform des Verjährungsrecht, In Zivilrechtswissenschaft und Schuldrechtsreform", pp.333~378 (2001), Tübingen
- 김용담, "주석민법 총칙(3) 제4판", pp.498~ (2010), 한국사법행정학회
- "권리의 보전과 담보", pp.134~ (2012), 박영사
- 김제완, "權利行使期間에 관한 爭點과 民法改正 方案 - 소멸시효 관련 논의에 부수하여 -", 민사법학, 50, pp.35~121 (2010), 한국민사법학회
- Löhnig(Martin), "Fristen und Termine im Zivilrecht für die gerichtliche und anwaltliche Praxis mit tabellarischer Fristenübersicht" (2006)
- Fitzau, Christian, "Mobiliarsicherheiten im französischen und deutschen Insolvenzrecht", pp.136~ (2005), Hamburg
- 金山直樹, "時効理論展開の軌跡", pp.23~ (1994), 信山社
- Larenz, "Allgemeiner Teil des Bürgerlichen Rechts" (2004)
- Schwenzer, "Schweizerisches Obligationenrecht, Allgemeiner Teil", pp.83~ (2006)
- 김영희, "형성권 연구", pp.251~ (2007), 경인문화사
- 金山直樹, "除斥期間と消滅時効の将来像, 椿寿夫＝三林宏編著・権利消滅期間の研究", pp.274~ (2006), 信山社
- 서종희, "이혼 후 재결합한 경우의 재산분할청구권 - 제척기간의 중단여부 및 재산분할대상의 확장을 통한 해결 -", 비교사법, 20(2), pp.521~552 (2013), 한국비교사법학회
- "Diskussionsentwurf eines Schuldrechtsmodernisierungsgesetzs", Canaris, Schuldrechtsreform 2002, pp.3~ (2002)
- 백경일, "프랑스민법전 중 소멸시효 관련규정 개정의 취지와 내용에 관한 비교법적 고찰", 유럽법학, 6, pp.105~106
- Canaris, "Grundstrukturen des deutschen Deliktsrechtsm", VersR, pp.577~ (2005)
- 김진우, "소멸시효와 제척기간", 재산법연구, 25(3), pp.163~209 (2009), 한국재산법학회
- 我妻榮, "新訂民法総則 (民法講義Ⅰ)", pp.437~ (1965), 岩波書店
- 川島武宜, "民法総則", pp.574~ (1965), 有斐閣
- 橋本英史, "生死不明であった死亡被害者の遺族による加害者にたいする不法行為に基づく損害賠償請求と除斥期間の適用", 判例時報, (1946), pp.3~ (2006)
- 橋本英史, "民法724条後段の除斥期間の適用制限及び起算点の法解釈", 例地方自治, (288), pp.90~ (2007)
- 福田健太郎, "判例研究 (最判平成 21年の原審判決に対する判例研究)", 法律時報, 81(2), pp.118~ (2009)
- 松本克美, "判例研究(最判平成 21年に対する判例研究)", 法律時報, 81(13), pp.379~ (2009)
- 양창수, "권리의 보전과 담보", pp.135~ (2012), 박영사
- 고상룡, "민법총칙", pp.719~ (1992), 박영사
- 澤井裕, "テキストブック事務管理・不当利得・不法行為", pp.276~ (2001), 有斐閣
- 潮見佳男, "不法行為法", pp.296~297 (1999), 信山社
- 久須本かおり, "民法724条後段の適用制限について-最高裁平成 21年 4月 28日 第３小法廷判決 平成20年 (愛) 第804号 損害賠償請求事件-", 愛知大学法経論集, (183), pp.86~87 (2009)
- 松 勉, "民法724条後段の20年を除斥期間と解する説でなぜいけないのか- 東京地判平成 18年 9月 26日 判例時報 1945号 61頁を機縁として-", 福岡大学法学論叢, 52(2・3), pp.312~ (2007)
- 內田貴, "民法 I: 總則·物權總論", pp.313~314 (1999), 東京大學出版會
- 民法(債権法）改正検討委員会, "債権法改正の基本方針", pp.81~ (2009), 商事法務
- 박영규, "사법상의 권리행사기간", 민사법학, (18), pp.295~ (2000)
- 양창수, "매매예약완결권의 제척기간의 기산점", 민법연구, 4, pp.271~ (1997), 박영사
- 石松 勉, "(再論）民法 724 条後段の 20 年の除斥期間の適用制限に関する一考察(1) ― 近時の裁判例を素材として ―", 福岡大學法學論叢, 55(1), pp.1~ (2010)
- 石松 勉, "(再論）民法 724 条後段の 20 年の除斥期間の適用制限に関する一考察(2) ― 近時の裁判例を素材として ―", 福岡大學法學論叢, 55(3·4), pp.359~ (2011), 法学論叢編集委員会
- 石松 勉, "除斥期間の経過と信義則に関する一考察", 岡山商科大学法学論叢, (1), pp.53~ (1993)
- 新井敦志, "消滅時効準則に関する一考察 (一)", 法学論集, 43(1), pp.51~ (2009)
- Engelmann, "Die Verjährung der Ansprüche aus unerlaubten Handlungen (BGB §§ 852,853)", pp.224~ (1911)
- 김준호, "하자담보에 기한 매수인의 손해배상청구권-제척기간과 소멸시효의 양립-", 연세법학, (20) (2012), 연세법학회
- 김진우, "청구권에 관한 제척기간과 소멸시효", 재산법연구, 26(3), pp.1~40 (2010), 한국재산법학회
- Schwander(werner), "Die Verjährung ausservertraglicher und vertraglicher Schadensersatzforderungen", CH, 1963