본문 바로가기
KERD
논문KCI 등재

손해배상산정의 기준시

The Date for Assessment of Damages

0

조회

0

다운로드

1

인용

0

참고문헌

키워드

주제분류법학

초록

The courts of Commonwealth countries, traditionally, have held that damages are to be assessed as ofthe date of the breach of contract and have refused to consider events that have transpired between thedate of breach and that of trial. In the 1960s and 1970s, our courts had held that damages are to be assessed as of the date of trial. The modern trend of our courts, however, appears to measure damages by reference to the position of theplaintiff at the date when the loss was suffered, normally the date of the breach of contract. This is because what damages are to be assessed as of the date of the breach of contract is relatedto the duty of the victim to mitigate loss or damages inflicted. Another ground of this trend can be seenas convenience, namely, this can be a detour to avoid the discussion when damages should be assessed. However, over the years this rule has proved to be unjust and a number of exceptions to it havebeen formulated in the case law. Where there is a delay between the breach of contract and the date at which the injured partyacquires knowledge of the breach, it is often appropriate to use the date of knowledge of the breach forthe purpose of determining the quantum of damages. Since it was the earliest date at which they couldhave mitigated their damages. One determining factor governing the proper date for assessment of damages relates to the date onwhich the object of the contract could have been replaced. If a substitute product can be readily found ina stable market, the date of assessment should be the date of the breach since plaintiff has a duty tomitigate his damages. In other instances, it is appropriate to assess damages as at the expiry of the periodreasonably necessary to replace the goods. The Korean cases have similar position at this point. As was stated above, the date for assessment of damages vary according to facts of cases. Therefore,it can be found in various cases that there can’t be an absolute fixed rule like a mathematical formula inassessing damages flowing from a breach of contract or a tort. It is submitted that one of the most important consideration in compensation of damages that theobject of damages is to put the party complaining in the position he should have occupied “if the wronghad not been done”, or the position he would have occupied ‘if his rights had been observed’. It is,therefore, important to find an appropriate date for assessment according the specific material facts of eachparticular case.

Abstract

The courts of Commonwealth countries, traditionally, have held that damages are to be assessed as ofthe date of the breach of contract and have refused to consider events that have transpired between thedate of breach and that of trial. In the 1960s and 1970s, our courts had held that damages are to be assessed as of the date of trial. The modern trend of our courts, however, appears to measure damages by reference to the position of theplaintiff at the date when the loss was suffered, normally the date of the breach of contract. This is because what damages are to be assessed as of the date of the breach of contract is relatedto the duty of the victim to mitigate loss or damages inflicted. Another ground of this trend can be seenas convenience, namely, this can be a detour to avoid the discussion when damages should be assessed. However, over the years this rule has proved to be unjust and a number of exceptions to it havebeen formulated in the case law. Where there is a delay between the breach of contract and the date at which the injured partyacquires knowledge of the breach, it is often appropriate to use the date of knowledge of the breach forthe purpose of determining the quantum of damages. Since it was the earliest date at which they couldhave mitigated their damages. One determining factor governing the proper date for assessment of damages relates to the date onwhich the object of the contract could have been replaced. If a substitute product can be readily found ina stable market, the date of assessment should be the date of the breach since plaintiff has a duty tomitigate his damages. In other instances, it is appropriate to assess damages as at the expiry of the periodreasonably necessary to replace the goods. The Korean cases have similar position at this point. As was stated above, the date for assessment of damages vary according to facts of cases. Therefore,it can be found in various cases that there can’t be an absolute fixed rule like a mathematical formula inassessing damages flowing from a breach of contract or a tort. It is submitted that one of the most important consideration in compensation of damages that theobject of damages is to put the party complaining in the position he should have occupied “if the wronghad not been done”, or the position he would have occupied ‘if his rights had been observed’. It is,therefore, important to find an appropriate date for assessment according the specific material facts of eachparticular case.

참고문헌 (46)

  1. 곽윤직, "채권총론" (2003), 박영사
  2. 김기선, "한국채권총론" (1987), 법지사
  3. 김동훈, "지출비용의 배상과 손해경감의무", 법률신문, ~ (2002)
  4. 김종배, "일실이익의 산출방법과 산정기준", 재판자료 21집
  5. 김준호, "채권자의 손해경감조치의무", 고시연구, 31(3) (2004)
  6. 김증한, "채권총론" (1988), 박영사
  7. 김형배, "채권총론", pp.271~274
  8. 박동진, "손해배상액의 산정", 민사법학, (36), pp.541~578 (2007), 한국민사법학회
  9. 박찬주, "손해경감조치의무의 법리", 법조 (1987)
  10. 吳宗根, "불법행위법상 과실상계의 적용요건에 관한 연구", 박사, 법학, pp.1995
  11. 윤기택, "채무불이행에 있어서 손해배상액산정의 기준시", 법학논집, 14 (1998), 청주대학교 법학연구소
  12. 윤진영, "불법행위의 피해자에게 요구되는 손해 경감조치의무", 대법원판례해설 제18호, ~
  13. 이은영, "채권총론" (2009), 박영사
  14. Christine A. Carron, "Why Hypothesis should not Replace History: Admissibility of Hindsight in Damage Claims", Journal of Business Valuation, 43, pp.45~ (1997)
  15. Jamie Cassels, "Remedies : The law of Damages" (2000), Irwin Law Inc
  16. "대판 1966.01.25 65다1789", ~ (1966)
  17. "대판 1967.6.13, 66다1842", ~ (1967)
  18. "대판 68.9.17 68다917", ~ (1968)
  19. "대판 1969.5.13 68다1726", ~ (1969)
  20. "대판 1970.02.10 69다1096", ~ (1970)
  21. "대판 1970.04.14. 70다276", ~ (1970)
  22. "대판 1975.5.27, 74다1872", ~ (1975)
  23. "대판 1981.06.09 80다417", ~ (1981)
  24. "대판 1984.12.11. 84다카1162", ~ (1984)
  25. "대판 1987.6.23 86다카2549", ~ (1987)
  26. "대판 1992.9.25. 91다45929", 법원공보 932호, ~ (1992)
  27. "대판 1992.11.27, 92다29948", ~ (1992)
  28. "대판 1993.5.27. 92다20163", ~ (1993)
  29. "대판 1994.1.11. 93다17638", ~ (1994)
  30. "대판 1996.6.14. 94다61359, 61366", ~ (1996)
  31. "대판 1997. 12. 26, 97다24542", ~ (1997)
  32. "대판 1998.7.10. 96다38971", ~ (1998)
  33. "대판 1998.6.12. 96다27469;", ~ (1998)
  34. "대판 2000.11.24. 2000다38718,38725", ~ (2000)
  35. "대판 2005.9.15. 2005다29474", ~ (2005)
  36. "대판 2006.1.27. 2005다16591⋅16607", ~ (2006)
  37. "대판 2007.9.20, 2005다63337", ~ (2007)
  38. "대판 2009.10.29. 2007다22514,22521", ~ (2009)
  39. "대판 2010.10.14. 2010 다 40505", ~ (2010)
  40. 1 S.C.R. 633, , 1979
  41. "Begusic v. Clark, Wilson & Co. (1991) 82 D.L.R. (4th) 667 (B.C. C.A.)", ~ (1991)
  42. 4 W.W.R. 551 (B.C. S.C.), , 1984
  43. S.C.R. 413, , 1927
  44. 1 W.W.R. 454(Alta. Q.B.), , 1988
  45. 2 S.C.R. 324, , 1976
  46. "United States Trust Co. v O’Brien, 143 N.Y.284(1894)", ~ (1894)

관련 논문AI추천

이 간행물의 다른 논문 (16건)