본문 바로가기
KERD
논문KCI 등재

과실불법행위로 인한 경제적 손해의 배상- 대법원 1996. 1. 26, 94다5472 (소위 송전케이블 사안)의 평석 -

Economic loss in torts

0

조회

0

다운로드

3

인용

0

참고문헌

키워드

초록

One of basic tasks in modern studies on torts is laid in how to understand standards and principles for settling its scopes on the compensation for damages. In other words, settling the compensation for damages on torts is a matter of how to decide damage’s subjects and contents, and Article 763 of our Civil Law is making it decided by applying correspondently to Article 393 of the same law on insolvency. That is, it is interpreted such like compensation for damages owing to illegal acts is limited to ordinary damages, and limiting compensation principle is being adopted by clearing the compensation’s responsibility only when predictable possibilities are accepted such like the injurer knows or could recognize its situations. As our Civil Law is taking limiting compensation principles, and further its Article 750 is interpreted as supposing illegal act’s types of so-called pseudo-responsibility, established requirements of illegal acts and settling matters on compensation scopes have to be combined, integrated, and understood to some extents, not being classified strictly. In fact, viewpoints that established requirements on torts and compensation acts’ settlement are different could be interpreted properly in case of taking perfect compensating principles like German code, or our interpretation on compensation for damages is read as aiming at perfect compensating spirits and considering it as implementing values of legal policies at least. But, our civil law systems on torts is quite different from Germans’. These differences in viewpoints could become problems when it is put on established requirements of illegal acts and compensation scopes together. For example, so-called indirect victim’s problems or economic losses are representative modern torts, and it could be said as being belonged to established requirements on illegal acts and boundary scopes of compensation scopes really, and thus these viewpoints shall be considered to such interpretations. On the other hand, though legal theory’s explanations and interpretations are important in compensation theories in which its positive and negative characters are discussed directly, but these matters have characteristics of requiring fields such like searching for axiology of legal policies called fair shares on damages are expressed and necessary as essential compensating principles in more fundamental tort liability act. Ultimately, tasks of modern legal principles composing systems on tort liability act and explanations on compensating ones existed in its background cannot but be added in the above boundary cases. Among them, this study will grope for a solution matching with the above task by taking a meaningful judgment of our Supreme Court that can be evaluated as a representative case on the economic loss as a subject. Merely, this study will discuss about economic losses in negligent torts after limiting discussed objects, and look into cases of economic damages occurred to indirect victims in priority when direct victims suffered from asset infringement corresponding to economic- damaged matters of indirect damage type on this research, that is, cases of economic losses belonged to the above object judgment. However, the study will describe developing aspects of discussions and characteristics from comparative laws on the generalization on economic loss required for discussing, and research, review on compensation scope theories differentiated to each case type. Therefore, this study clarifies its concepts by taking compensation theories on economic loss as a theme, categorizing issued cases, and roughly investigating on compensation discussions from each country according to types of economic loss. Through these investigations, this study will evaluate and interpret compensation theories on economic loss having been appeared in our judgment while looking into applications to our laws, and aim to suggest a proposition on the economic losses’ compensation that is fit to our legal systems finally.

Abstract

One of basic tasks in modern studies on torts is laid in how to understand standards and principles for settling its scopes on the compensation for damages. In other words, settling the compensation for damages on torts is a matter of how to decide damage’s subjects and contents, and Article 763 of our Civil Law is making it decided by applying correspondently to Article 393 of the same law on insolvency. That is, it is interpreted such like compensation for damages owing to illegal acts is limited to ordinary damages, and limiting compensation principle is being adopted by clearing the compensation’s responsibility only when predictable possibilities are accepted such like the injurer knows or could recognize its situations. As our Civil Law is taking limiting compensation principles, and further its Article 750 is interpreted as supposing illegal act’s types of so-called pseudo-responsibility, established requirements of illegal acts and settling matters on compensation scopes have to be combined, integrated, and understood to some extents, not being classified strictly. In fact, viewpoints that established requirements on torts and compensation acts’ settlement are different could be interpreted properly in case of taking perfect compensating principles like German code, or our interpretation on compensation for damages is read as aiming at perfect compensating spirits and considering it as implementing values of legal policies at least. But, our civil law systems on torts is quite different from Germans’. These differences in viewpoints could become problems when it is put on established requirements of illegal acts and compensation scopes together. For example, so-called indirect victim’s problems or economic losses are representative modern torts, and it could be said as being belonged to established requirements on illegal acts and boundary scopes of compensation scopes really, and thus these viewpoints shall be considered to such interpretations. On the other hand, though legal theory’s explanations and interpretations are important in compensation theories in which its positive and negative characters are discussed directly, but these matters have characteristics of requiring fields such like searching for axiology of legal policies called fair shares on damages are expressed and necessary as essential compensating principles in more fundamental tort liability act. Ultimately, tasks of modern legal principles composing systems on tort liability act and explanations on compensating ones existed in its background cannot but be added in the above boundary cases. Among them, this study will grope for a solution matching with the above task by taking a meaningful judgment of our Supreme Court that can be evaluated as a representative case on the economic loss as a subject. Merely, this study will discuss about economic losses in negligent torts after limiting discussed objects, and look into cases of economic damages occurred to indirect victims in priority when direct victims suffered from asset infringement corresponding to economic- damaged matters of indirect damage type on this research, that is, cases of economic losses belonged to the above object judgment. However, the study will describe developing aspects of discussions and characteristics from comparative laws on the generalization on economic loss required for discussing, and research, review on compensation scope theories differentiated to each case type. Therefore, this study clarifies its concepts by taking compensation theories on economic loss as a theme, categorizing issued cases, and roughly investigating on compensation discussions from each country according to types of economic loss. Through these investigations, this study will evaluate and interpret compensation theories on economic loss having been appeared in our judgment while looking into applications to our laws, and aim to suggest a proposition on the economic losses’ compensation that is fit to our legal systems finally.

참고문헌 (39)

  1. 김상중, "채권관계의 상대성원칙과 제3자의 재산상 손해", 재산법연구, 20(1), pp.15~34 (2003), 한국재산법학회
  2. 곽민희, "불법행위에 있어서 간접피해자의 손해배상청구", 박사, pp.2010
  3. 박흥대, "營業權의 侵害와 損害賠償責任-間接被害者의 損害와 관련하여-", 判例硏究 (1998), 부산판례연구회
  4. 平井宜雄, "債権各論II不法行為" (2006), 法律講座双書
  5. 吉田邦彦, "債権侵害論再考" (1991), 有斐閣
  6. 菅原勝伴, "経済的損害(一)(二)", 法学研究, 15(1) (1979)
  7. 松田健児, "イギリス法における純粋経済的損失とネグリジェンス責任(一)(二)(三)", 倉価法学, 26(2)
  8. 川和功子, "英米法のおける電子情報と経済的損失の賠償について(一)(二)", 同志社法学, (339)
  9. 新堂明子, "契約と過失不法行為責任の衝突-建物の瑕疵により経済的損失(補修費用額)が生じる例をめぐって", NBL, (936) (2010)
  10. 徳本伸一, "間接被害者の損害賠償請求権1", 法学, 33(3) (1969)
  11. 鈴木竹, "流通の対象たる企業と侵害の対象たる", 企業法協, 59(9)
  12. 徳本伸一, "過失による送電線の切断と損害賠償請求 現代の民事法 川崎秀司先生․重倉珉祐先生古希記念" (1977), 法律文化社
  13. 加藤一郎, "不法行為法の研究" (1961)
  14. 山口成樹, "不法行為に起因するPTSD等の精神疾患と損害賠償責任-間接被害者論․損害賠償範囲論の一帰納的考察-", 法学会雑誌, 42(2) (2002), 東京都立大学法学会
  15. H.Lawson, "Remedies of English Law" (1972)
  16. W. Binchhy, "Negligence and Economic Loss", The Modern Law Review, pp.320~ (1974)
  17. P.F.Cane, "Recovery for Purely Economic Loss in Australia", Law Quarterly Review, 93, pp.330~ (1977)
  18. K.Thomson, "Economic Loss in the High Court of Australia", Cambridge Law Journal, 27 (1978)
  19. M.Brazier, "Economic Loss An Australian Solution", New Law Journal, 128, pp.327~ (1978)
  20. K.Moumi, "Economic loss: a change in attitude?", New Law Journal (1975)
  21. R.Smith, "The economic loss cases-the light at the end of the tunnel?", Journal of Business Law (1974)
  22. R.Dwokrin, "Taking Rights Seriously" (1977)
  23. P.P.Craig, "Negligent misstatements, negligent acts and economic loss", pp.92~ (1976)
  24. Pollock, "The Law of Torts" (1951)
  25. Salmond, "The Law of Torts" (1965)
  26. Winfield, "The Law of Tort" (1967)
  27. Fleming, "Law of Torts" (1965)
  28. Street, "Law of Torts" (1963)
  29. Clerk, "On Torts" (1964)
  30. Mayne, "On Damages" (1964)
  31. William Schofield, "The Principle of Lumley v. Gye, and its Application", Harv. L. Rev, 2, pp.19~ (1888)
  32. Francis Bowes Sayre, "Inducing Breach of Contract", Harv. L. Rev, 36, pp.663~ (1923)
  33. Payne, "The Tort of Interference with Contract", Current Legal Problems, 7, pp.94~ (1954)
  34. Carpenter, "Interference with Contract Relations", Harv. L. Rev, 41, pp.728~ (1928)
  35. A.V.Alexander, "Tortious liability for uninternational harm in the Common law and the Civil law" (1982)
  36. Street, "The Law of Torts" (1968)
  37. Winfield, "The history of negligence in the law of torts", L.Q.R, 42, pp.195~ (1926)
  38. H.Lehmann, "Handel und Gewerbe" (1938)
  39. Gieseke, "Die rechtliche Bedeutung des Unternehmens, in Festschrift Ernst Heymann II" (1940)

관련 논문AI추천

이 간행물의 다른 논문 (13건)