감염방지의무와 민사책임

Abstract

This paper is related with how to remedy the harm caused by transmission of infectious diseases. There is discussed the liability for damages owed to the victim when a person with a legal duty to prevent its spread violates his duty. First of all, the content of such duty, that is, the duty to prevent infection, was analyzed focusing on Infectious Disease Control and Prevention Act. And then the requirements for the establishment of liability for damages due to the violation, the scope of damage, and the calculation of damages were discussed separately. Regarding the establishment requirements, the arguments focused on the causes in fact. With mention of the difficulty of the proof, it was discussed in what context the jurisprudence of joint tort can be applied. Regarding the scope of damage, the legal interests to be protected by the norms that establish the duty to prevent infection were analyzed. In particular, remedy of infringement of the legal interests related with properties, that is, redemption of the financial expenditure of the state or local government, which is responsible for the cost of diagnosis and treatment of infectious diseases, and the cost of prevention and quarantine, and the loss of the victims in the process was dealt with in more depth. Regarding the calculation, the fact that the contribution of the victim's fault should be taken into consideration as the reason for the reduction of the amount of compensation was found and the legal principle to reduce the amount of damages for which the violator is liable, who is not intentional or reckless but only slightly negligent in causing the damage was analyzed. Other issues include the relationship between the breach of duty to prevent infection and the health care benefits of the National Health Insurance Corporation, the relationship between the behavior of the person violating the duty to prevent infection and the restriction of medical care benefits, the indemnification and claims for damages between the state or local government that has expended its finance and the person who caused the expenditure by violating his or her duty to prevent infection and so on. The conclusion included a proposal to discuss a system in which violators of the infection prevention obligation who commit a light negligence are exempt from liability for damages and a heavy administrative penalty is imposed on violators who commit intentional breach of duty or gross negligence, and so on.