아동 성폭력으로 인한 불법행위 손해배상채권의 소멸시효 ―발견주의 법리(discovery rule) 중심으로―
Tort Actions based on Child Sexual Abuse and Statue of Limitation―Focus on Discovery Rule
0
조회
0
다운로드
1
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
The following three reasons have been pointed out as the reasons for the inadequate protection of victims of child sexual abuse(hereinafter “CSA”) in the statute of limitation(hereinafter “SOL”) regulations of the civil law before modification in 2020. First, in the case of CSA, it is a mistake to make it possible to judge the starting point of the subjective SOL based on the time of recognition of the legal representative, even though the guardian or legal representative is often the perpetrator. Second, in the case of CSA, it is necessary to recognize the long-term extinctive prescription period rather than the nature of the case. Third, if both the objective starting point of the long-term extinctive prescription and the subjective starting point of the short-term extinctive prescription are applied as in the current law, the protection of victims of CSA cannot be faithful. The first concern was largely resolved by the amended Civil Code. In other words, Article 766 (3) of the amended Civil Act suspends the statute of extinctive prescription of the right to claim damages for illegal acts until the victim reaches adulthood. It was calculated from the point of adulthood and allowed to claim damages from the perpetrator within a three-year period. Next, the point that a longer period of extinctive prescription should be recognized in the case of sexual violence against children is in line with the trend of each country emphasizing the sexual protection of children. In the case of sexual violence against children, whether the long-term extinctive prescription period is specifically recognized, and if so, how long it should be decided through more research and review in the future. However, as long as the objective base point system remains, stopping the SOL until adulthood is not sufficient to protect victims of CSA, and acknowledging the long-term extinction period is not a complete solution. In the end, in the case of CSA, it is necessary to apply only the subjective starting point, excluding the objective starting point, which is applied regardless of whether the victim is recognized or not, by introducing the American discovery rule.
Abstract
The following three reasons have been pointed out as the reasons for the inadequate protection of victims of child sexual abuse(hereinafter “CSA”) in the statute of limitation(hereinafter “SOL”) regulations of the civil law before modification in 2020. First, in the case of CSA, it is a mistake to make it possible to judge the starting point of the subjective SOL based on the time of recognition of the legal representative, even though the guardian or legal representative is often the perpetrator. Second, in the case of CSA, it is necessary to recognize the long-term extinctive prescription period rather than the nature of the case. Third, if both the objective starting point of the long-term extinctive prescription and the subjective starting point of the short-term extinctive prescription are applied as in the current law, the protection of victims of CSA cannot be faithful. The first concern was largely resolved by the amended Civil Code. In other words, Article 766 (3) of the amended Civil Act suspends the statute of extinctive prescription of the right to claim damages for illegal acts until the victim reaches adulthood. It was calculated from the point of adulthood and allowed to claim damages from the perpetrator within a three-year period. Next, the point that a longer period of extinctive prescription should be recognized in the case of sexual violence against children is in line with the trend of each country emphasizing the sexual protection of children. In the case of sexual violence against children, whether the long-term extinctive prescription period is specifically recognized, and if so, how long it should be decided through more research and review in the future. However, as long as the objective base point system remains, stopping the SOL until adulthood is not sufficient to protect victims of CSA, and acknowledging the long-term extinction period is not a complete solution. In the end, in the case of CSA, it is necessary to apply only the subjective starting point, excluding the objective starting point, which is applied regardless of whether the victim is recognized or not, by introducing the American discovery rule.
참고문헌 (27)
- 곽윤직, "민법총칙" (2013), 박영사
- 김용덕, "주석 민법 (총칙 3)" (2019), 한국사법행정학회
- 김제완, "고의ㆍ중과실 공무원 개인의 배상책임에 있어서 소멸시효와 권리남용", 민주법학, (69), pp.9~52 (2019), 민주주의법학연구회[DOI]
- 김제완, "未成年者가 被害者인 不法行爲에 있어서 損害賠償請求權의 消滅時效-比較法的 考察과 民法 제766조의 解釋論-", 고려법학, (48), pp.141~178 (2007), 법학연구원
- 서종희, "아동기 성폭력에 대한 소멸시효 - 의정부지방법원 2019. 11. 7. 선고 2018나214488 판결을 계기로 한 해석론과 입법론 -", 비교사법, 27(2), pp.465~505 (2020), 한국사법학회[DOI]
- 엄동섭, "불법행위법의 개정", 민사법학, 60, pp.97~149 (2012), 한국민사법학회
- 아동·청소년 성범죄 발생 동향과 개선 과제, "윤덕경", 한국여성정책연구원, ~ (2017)
- 이영준, "민법총칙" (2007), 박영사
- 이은경, "반인권 국가범죄에 주관적 소멸시효 기산점 적용에 대한 이해-헌법재판소 결정(2014헌바148)을 바탕으로-", 저스티스, 170(1), pp.62~85 (2019), 한국법학원[DOI]
- 이은경, "아동 성학대 소송의 ʻ손해의 현실화ʼ로서 외상 후 스트레스 장애(PTSD)에 대한 이해 - 의정부지법 2019. 11. 7. 선고 2018나214488 판결 중심으로 -", 법조, 69(4), pp.355~383 (2020), 법조협회[DOI]
- 임건면, "소멸시효기간과 기산점", 민사법학, (47), pp.53~90 (2009), 한국민사법학회
- 지원림, "민법강의" (2020), 홍문사
- 추선희, "미성년 성폭력 피해자의 손해배상청구권에 있어서 소멸시효의 기산점 : 미국에 있어서 ‘연장된 발견주의 법리(delayed discovery rule)’의 시사점 - 대상판결 : 의정부지방법원 2019.11.7. 선고 2018나214488 판결 -", 비교사법, 27(2), pp.505~544 (2020), 한국사법학회[DOI]
- 홍성균, "소멸시효 기산점에 관한 객관적 체계의 완화 - 대법원 판례의 ‘객관적 인식가능성’을 중심으로 -", 비교사법, 25(4), pp.1361~1436 (2018), 한국사법학회[DOI]
- Basham, Susan M., "Forging the Causal Link : Reasonable Delay in Commencing Action for Childhood Sexual Abuse", Suffolk U. L. Rev, 27, pp.749~ (1993)
- Crump, David, "Statutes of Limitations : The Underlying Policies", U. Louisville L. Rev, 54, pp.437~ (2016)
- D'Appolonia, Christina J., "Nuccio v. Nuccio: The Doctrine of Equitable Estoppel Will Not Bar the Statute of Limitations Deffense in a Child Sexual Abuse Case Involving Repressed Memonry", Me. L. Rev., 49, pp.235~255 (1997)
- Gray, Anthony, "Extending Time Limits in Sexual Abuse Cases in Australia, America and Canada", Whittier J. Child & Fam. Advoc, 10, pp.227~ (2011)
- Hagen, Ann Marie, "Tolling the Statute of Limitations for Adult Survivors of Childhood Sexual Abuse", Iowa L. Rev, 76, pp.355~ (1991)
- Hamiltond, Marci A., "The Time Has Come for a Restatement of Child Sex Abuse", Brook. L. Rev, 79, pp.397~ (2014)
- Hamiltond, Marci A., "JUSTICE DENIED: WHAT AMERICA MUST DO TO PROTECT ITS CHILDREN" (2008), Cambridge University Press
- Khorram, Erin, "Crossing the Limit Line : Sexual Abuse and Whether Retroactive Application of Civil Statutes of Limitation Are Legal", U. C. Davis J. Juv. L. & Pol'y, 16, pp.391~ (2012)
- Lowe, Rebecca, "Extending Statutes of Limitations for Victims of Child Sexual Abuse Based on the Developmental Model and International Law", B. U. Pub. Int. L. J, 24, pp.27~ (2015)
- Ovrom, Theodore R. A., "Reasonable For Whom? Developing a More Sensible Approach to the Discovery Rule in Civil Actions Based on Childhood Sexual Abuse", Iowa Law Rev, 103, pp.1843~ (2018)
- Salten, Melissa G., "Statutes of Limitations in Civil CSA : Preserving the Victim’s Remedy", Harv. Women’s L. J, 7, pp.189~ (1984)
- Strauss, Gary, "Child Sexual Abuse Civil Actions and the Statute of Limitation: Time Is Running out", Det. C.L. Rev, pp.1641~ (1993)
- Wistrich, Andrew J., "Procrastination, Deadlines, and Statutes of Limitation", Wm. & Mary L. Rev, 50, pp.607~ (2008)