배우자에 대한 정조의무 위반과 이혼위자료 ―재산분할 및 위자료의 기능을 고려하여―
Marital Infidelity and Non-pecuniary Damages for Divorce ―Considering the Functions of Division of Property and Alimony―
0
조회
0
다운로드
5
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
One who did an act of infidelity should be legally sanctioned, i.e., he(or she) cannot file for divorce, should pay damages to the other party. This article, which discusses the role relationship between nonpecuniary damages for divorce and division of property, summarizes the following. 1. Non-pecuniary Damages for Divorce and compensation for damages under Article 806(2) of the Civil Act shall be based on the principle of compensating the reliance interest in the sense that it is aimed at the settlement of the marital relationship. In this respect, the compensation of damages under Article 806(2) is not liable for illegal acts but liable for damages due to the breach of contract. 2. Legislative, it is desirable to realize the liquidation of property relations through property division. The realization of post-divorce care through divorce compensation and damages under Article 806 (2) is not reasonable in that it reverses the differentiation of institutional functions. It is desirable to provide support after divorce through the separate system. 3. In calculating the non-pecuniary damages for divorce in violation of the duty of fidelity, the amount of alimony shall not be increased for sanctions and deterrence against marital infidelity. Even if considering the sanctions factor in the case of calculating the alimony, it is for the purpose of overcoming the methodological difficulties for the case, but not for the sanction, so the divorce obligation should not be used for sanction. In the future, it will be appropriate to set up a support system after the divorce. Ultimately, it is reasonable that the divorce obligation is directed only to the compensation of the damage caused to the victim. In addition, we expect that objective and specific criteria for the alimony calculation that faithfully reflects the damage occurred to the victim.
Abstract
One who did an act of infidelity should be legally sanctioned, i.e., he(or she) cannot file for divorce, should pay damages to the other party. This article, which discusses the role relationship between nonpecuniary damages for divorce and division of property, summarizes the following. 1. Non-pecuniary Damages for Divorce and compensation for damages under Article 806(2) of the Civil Act shall be based on the principle of compensating the reliance interest in the sense that it is aimed at the settlement of the marital relationship. In this respect, the compensation of damages under Article 806(2) is not liable for illegal acts but liable for damages due to the breach of contract. 2. Legislative, it is desirable to realize the liquidation of property relations through property division. The realization of post-divorce care through divorce compensation and damages under Article 806 (2) is not reasonable in that it reverses the differentiation of institutional functions. It is desirable to provide support after divorce through the separate system. 3. In calculating the non-pecuniary damages for divorce in violation of the duty of fidelity, the amount of alimony shall not be increased for sanctions and deterrence against marital infidelity. Even if considering the sanctions factor in the case of calculating the alimony, it is for the purpose of overcoming the methodological difficulties for the case, but not for the sanction, so the divorce obligation should not be used for sanction. In the future, it will be appropriate to set up a support system after the divorce. Ultimately, it is reasonable that the divorce obligation is directed only to the compensation of the damage caused to the victim. In addition, we expect that objective and specific criteria for the alimony calculation that faithfully reflects the damage occurred to the victim.
참고문헌 (103)
- 강남진, "재산분할청구권", 민사법연구, 1 (1991), 대한민사법학회
- 김미경, "프랑스민법상 이혼 배우자에 대한 보상급부", 민사법학, 54(2), pp.111~144 (2011), 한국민사법학회
- 김상용, "채권각론" (2009), 화산미디어
- 김선석, "위자료의 산정과 그 기준에 관한 제 문제" (1984), 법원행정처
- 김주수, "친족·상속법" (2011), 법문사
- 김준모, "재산분할제도의 성격 실무상 문제점을 중심으로" (2003)
- 민유숙, "실무연구(X)" (2005), 서울가정법원 법관가사재판실무연구회
- 박동진, "損害賠償法의 指導原理와 機能", 비교사법, 11(4), pp.291~322 (2004), 한국사법학회
- 박민수, "이혼 후 재산분할의 비율 및 이혼 위자료액의 결정: 2009년~2011년 합의부 재판례의 실증분석", 가족법연구, 28(1), pp.99~132 (2014), 한국가족법학회
- 박순성, "이혼을 원인으로 하는 손해배상청구권의 법적 성격" (1993)
- 서광민, "위자료에 관한 몇 가지 문제점", 서강법학, (2) (2000)
- 서종희, "청산적 재산분할과 부양적 재산분할의 독립과 ‘2분의 1 원칙’에 대한 재고 -Miller v.Miller 사건과 오오무라 아츠시(大村敦志)의 입법제안의 시사점-", 법학논총, 20(2), pp.119~146 (2013), 법학연구원
- 송덕수, "친족상속법" (2015), 박영사
- 신영호, "로스쿨가족법강의" (2010), 세창출판사
- 안문희, "2004년 프랑스 이혼법 —이혼의 효과를 중심으로—", 가족법연구, 27(2), pp.1~36 (2013), 한국가족법학회
- 안병하, "위자료 기능의 새로운 이해", 사법, 1(21), pp.3~39 (2012), 사법발전재단[DOI]
- 안병하, "독일 인격권 논의의 근래 동향―카롤리네(Caroline)와 말레네(Marlene)", 한독법학, (17) (2012)
- 윤진수, "혼인과 이혼의 법경제학", 법경제학연구, 9(1), pp.35~69 (2012), 한국법경제학회[DOI]
- 윤진수, "주해친족법 제1권" (2015), 박영사
- 이동진, "혼인관념, 인적 혼인의무 및 그 위반에 대한 제재", 서울대학교 법학, 53(3), pp.483~531 (2012), 법학연구소
- 이동진, "부부관계의 사실상 파탄과 부정행위(不貞行爲)에 대한 책임: 비교법적 고찰로부터의 시사", 서울대학교 법학, 54(4), pp.61~108 (2013), 법학연구소
- 이동진, "不倫關係의 相對方에 대한 遺贈과 公序良俗", 비교사법, 13(4), pp.1~40 (2006), 한국사법학회
- 이명갑, "제재적 위자료의 입론 II" (1987), 사법행정
- 이정엽, "가사재판연구(I)" (2007)
- 이은영, "채권각론" (2007), 박영사
- 이은영, "계약교섭의 일방파기와 손해배상책임", 法學論文集, 30(2), pp.321~345 (2006), 법학연구원
- 이창현, "不法行爲에 기한 慰藉料에 대한 小考", 비교사법, 16(2), pp.133~170 (2009), 한국사법학회[DOI]
- 이창현, "위자료에 관한 연구―불법행위를 중심으로" (2011), 경인문화사
- 이현재, "민사법의 새로운 전개: 한도 정환담 교수 정년기념논문집" (2006), 용봉민사법학회
- 이홍민, "이혼급부에 대한 검토 ―재산분할, 부양료, 위자료 청구의 개별적 근거―", 가족법연구, 24(2), pp.33~60 (2010), 한국가족법학회
- 이화숙, "1996년 영국의 개정 이혼법의 폐기와 프랑스의 이혼법 개정이 주는 시사점", 비교사법, 12(4), pp.263~301 (2005), 한국사법학회
- 장재옥, "이영준교수화갑기념논문집" (1999)
- 정상현, "離婚으로 인한 財産分割請求權의 法的 性格과 相續의 認定 與否에 대한 法理 再檢討(上)", 성균관법학, 18(2), pp.315~342 (2006), 법학연구원
- 조현락, "가사재판연구(3)" (2018), 서울가정법원 가사소년재판연구회
- 조은희, "유럽부부재산제의 입법례가 우리에게 주는 시사점", 비교사법, 12(2), pp.35~69 (2005), 한국사법학회
- 최창열, "이혼에 따른 위자료의 법적 성질에 관한 고찰", 가족법연구, (14) (2000)
- 한복룡, "가족법강의" (2009), 충남대학교출판부
- 한봉희, "민사법과 환경법의 제 문제: 송헌 안이준박사 화갑기념논문집" (1986), 박영사
- 한삼인, "가족법논집, 박병호환갑기념논문집 (1)" (1991)
- 홍춘의, "간통과 손해배상", 가족법연구, (8) (1994)
- I. Kant, "윤리형이상학" (2012), 아카넷
- G. W. F. Hegel, "법철학" (2008), 한길사
- 加藤雅信, "新民法大系Ⅴ: 事務管理·不当利得·不法行為" (2005), 有斐閣
- 加藤一郎, "不法行為" (1974), 有斐閣
- 久貴忠彦, "民法の争点" (1978), 有斐閣
- 淡路剛久, "不法行為法における権利保障と損害の評価" (1984), 有斐閣
- 大津千明, "離婚給付に関する実証的研究" (1990), 日本評論社
- 道垣内正人, "懲らしめとしての損害賠償", 法教, (154) (1993)
- 島津一郎, "妻の地位と離婚法ー妻の権利の実質的検討" (1974), 有斐閣
- 島津一郎, "新版注釈民法(22)" (2008), 有斐閣
- 鈴木眞次, "離婚給付の決定基準" (1992), 弘文堂
- 本沢巳代子, "離婚給付の研究" (1998), 一粒社
- 四宮和夫, "事務管理·不当利得·不法行為(中)" (1983), 青林書院
- 四宮和夫, "事務管理·不当利得·不法行為(下)" (1985), 青林書院
- 山下純司, "比較家族法硏究: 離婚·親子·親權を中心に" (2012), 商事法務
- 森島昭夫, "不法行為法講義" (1987), 有斐閣
- 三島宗彦, "損害賠償と抑制的機能", 立命館法学, (105·106) (1972)
- 星野英一, "民法講座第6巻事務管理·不当利得·不法行為" (1985), 有斐閣
- 小島武司, "｢脚光を浴びる制裁的賠償", 判タ, (278) (1972)
- 水野紀子, "民法判例百選Ⅲ: 親族·相続 (別冊 ジュリスト No.225)" (2015), 有斐閣
- 我妻栄, "判例コンメンタール親族法" (1970), コンメンタール刊行会
- 我妻栄, "事務管理·不当利得·不法行為" (1989), 日本評論社
- 田中英夫, "法の実現における私人の役割(四·完)", 法協, 89(9) (1972)
- 岩志和一郎, "新·現代損害賠償法講座2" (1998), 日本評論社
- 窪田充見, "家族法ー民法を学ぶ" (2011), 有斐閣
- 樋口範雄, "制裁的慰謝料論について—民刑峻別の｢理想｣と現実—", ジュリ, (911) (1988)
- 戒能通孝, "不法行為に於ける無形損害の賠償請求(二·完)", 法協, 50(2) (1932)
- 後藤孝典, "現代損害賠償論" (1982), 日本評論社
- BÉNABENT, A., "Droit civil : Droit de la famille" (2010), Montchrestien
- Bydlinski, F., "Der Ersatz ideellen Schadens als sachliches und methodisches Problem", JBI, pp.173~ (1965)
- Bydlinski, F., "System und Prinzipien des Privatrechts" (1996)
- Courbe, P., "Droit de la famille" (2008)
- Deutsch, "Die Zwecke des Haftungsrecht", JZ, pp.244~ (1971)
- Deutsch, "FS für Gernhuber" (1991)
- Indemnités entre époux divorcés : faut-il abroger le nouvel article 266du Code civil ?, Revue juridique personnes et famille, "Fédérica Oudin", ~ (2006)
- Gernbuber, "Familienrechts" (2010), C. H. Beck
- Hauser, J., "J-CL. DIVORCE, Fasc. 230", ~
- HAUSER, J., "Les dommages-intérêts nouveaux sont arrivés!" (2009), RTD Civ
- Hippel, "Haftung fur Schockschaden Dritter", NJW, pp.1890~ (1965)
- Jourdain, P., "Relativité de la faute délictuelle: la complicité d’adultère n’est pas à elle seule une faute à l’égard de l’époux trompé" (2001), RTD civ
- Karner, "Ersatz ideeller Schäden dei Körperverletzung" (1999)
- Kern, "Die Genugtuungsfunktion des Schmerzensgeldes―ein pönales Element im Schadensrecht?", AcP, 191, pp.246~ (1991)
- Krebs(Peter), "Sonderverbindung und außerdeliktische Schutzpflichten" (2000)
- Lange, "Schadensersatz" (2003)
- Deutsch, "Allgemeines Haftungsrecht" (1995)
- Larenz, "Lehrbuch des Schuldrechts, Band I, Allgemeiner Teil" (1987)
- Larenz, "Lehrbuch des Schuldrechts, Band II, Besonderer Teil, 2. Halbband" (1994)
- Lipp(Martin), "Die eherechtlichen Pflichten und ihre Verletzung—ein Beitrag zur Fortbildung des persönlichen Eherechts" (1988)
- Maizy M.-B., "Conséquencec patrimoniales liées à la faute", AJ Famille, ~ (2011)
- Malaurie, "Droit civil. La famille" (2006)
- Meder, Stephan, "Schadensersatz als Enttäuschungsverarbeitung: Zur erkenntnistheoretischen Grundlegung eines modernen Schadenbegriffs" (1989), Duncker & Humblot
- Motive, Mugdan(Benno), "Die gesamten Materialien zum Bürgerlichen Gesetzbuch für das deutsche Reich, Bd.Ⅱ, Recht der Schuldverhältnis" (1899), R. von Decker’s Verlag
- "MüchKomm", Wagner, 6. Aufl., 2012, Vor §823, 2012
- Müller, "Handbuch des Persönlichkeitsrechts" (2008), C.H.Beck
- "MünchKomm", Koch, 6. Aufl., 2013, §1353, 2013
- "MünchKomm", Oetker, 6.Aufl., 2012, §253, 2012
- "Notarial répertoire, EFFETS DU DIVORCE, Fasc. 60", ~ (2011)
- Rosengarten, "Der Praventionsgedanke im Zivilrecht", NJW, pp.1935~ (1996)
- Schäfer, "Strafe und Prävention im Bürgerlichen Recht", AcP, 202, pp.397~ (2002)
- Schiemann, "Argumente und Prinzipien bei der Fortbildung des Schadensrechts" (1981)
- Schwab, "Handbuch des Scheidungsrechts" (2004)
- Stoll, Hans, "Haftungsfolgen im bürgelichen Recht: Eine Darstellung auf rechtsvergleichender Grundlage" (1993), C.F. Müller Juristischer Verlag
- v. Caemmerer, "Das Verschuldensprinzip in rechtsvergleichender Sicht", RabelsZ, 42, pp.5~ (1978)