생활방해에서 수인한도 적용에 관한 연구 - 판례를 중심으로 -
A Study for the Application of the Endurance limit on Nuisance - Focusing on Precedent -
0
조회
0
다운로드
4
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
Article 217 of Civil law is ban to nuisance in principle. It was devised to adjust for the problem of real estate used between neighboring in reasonably and covers ownership disturbance but also the resident’s right of pain avoidance in a daily life and interpreted to neighboring land and buildings, thus carving personal interest to live in decent conditions out of its applicaton. According to this have to duty of endurance for the any condition but if beyond that condition can do the claim of the appropriate action and ruled rated for determining the illegality. That is the basis judged for illegality and over the endurance limit is determined illegality on the nuisance and environmental violations, this judgment is based on the illegality. In other words, endurance limit means a limit that a rational man can endure while he leads a social life, which accepts illegality when an extent of infringement goes beyond the limit generally acceptable in leading a social life in respect with environmental pollution and nuisance. The court is to judge for endurance limit, whether it goes beyond endurence limit by comprehensively considering decided taking into account public utility of inflicting company, locality, the order of priority of land use, special circumstance of the inflicted, continuance of infliction, abservance of public regulating standard, evasion possibility of damge and measure of damage prevention of inflicting party. So judgment stages can be divided into 3 in applying, which is factor of preferential, factor of residual and factor of referential for endurence limit judged equip objectivity. This leads to a demand for more detail and objective standard for the endurance limit, adjusting established requisites for protecting nuisance. They are will help to ensure rationality and objectivity of the endurance limit.
Abstract
Article 217 of Civil law is ban to nuisance in principle. It was devised to adjust for the problem of real estate used between neighboring in reasonably and covers ownership disturbance but also the resident’s right of pain avoidance in a daily life and interpreted to neighboring land and buildings, thus carving personal interest to live in decent conditions out of its applicaton. According to this have to duty of endurance for the any condition but if beyond that condition can do the claim of the appropriate action and ruled rated for determining the illegality. That is the basis judged for illegality and over the endurance limit is determined illegality on the nuisance and environmental violations, this judgment is based on the illegality. In other words, endurance limit means a limit that a rational man can endure while he leads a social life, which accepts illegality when an extent of infringement goes beyond the limit generally acceptable in leading a social life in respect with environmental pollution and nuisance. The court is to judge for endurance limit, whether it goes beyond endurence limit by comprehensively considering decided taking into account public utility of inflicting company, locality, the order of priority of land use, special circumstance of the inflicted, continuance of infliction, abservance of public regulating standard, evasion possibility of damge and measure of damage prevention of inflicting party. So judgment stages can be divided into 3 in applying, which is factor of preferential, factor of residual and factor of referential for endurence limit judged equip objectivity. This leads to a demand for more detail and objective standard for the endurance limit, adjusting established requisites for protecting nuisance. They are will help to ensure rationality and objectivity of the endurance limit.
참고문헌 (39)
- 곽윤직, "물권법" (2000), 박영사
- 곽윤직, "채권각론" (2012), 박영사
- 곽윤직, "민법주해(Ⅴ)" (1999), 박영사
- 공순진, "일조권 침해에 있어서의 수인한도", 토지법학, 25(1), pp.167~203 (2009), 한국토지법학회
- 구연창, "환경오염피해의 사법적 구제 재조명", 환경법연구, (11) (1989), 환경법연구회
- 구재군, "교통소음과 법적대응", 환경법연구, 32(1), pp.151~178 (2010), 한국환경법학회
- 김경호, "조망이익의 침해와 수인한도론-대법원 2007. 6. 28. 선고 2004다54282 판결-", 판례연구, 19 (2008), 부산판례연구회
- 김덕중, "환경침해의 위법성 판단과 수인한도의 법리에 관한 연구", 원광법학, 25(1), pp.39~66 (2009), 법학연구소
- 김상용, "채권각론" (2003), 법문사
- 김선이, "항공기소음침해와 수인한도론", 항공우주법학회지, 14 (2001), 한국과학기술정보연구원
- 김재형, "한국민사이론의 발전⑴" (1999), 박영사
- 김종률, "조망권의 법적 구성론", 법조, 52(4) (2003), 법조협회
- 김증한, "물권법" (1997), 박영사
- 김태훈, "소음·진동피해에 대한 권리구제 검토", 부동산연구, 15(2), pp.31~49 (2005), 한국부동산연구원
- 류창호, "드론(Drone)의 운행과 토지소유권의 침해", 경희법학, 50(4), pp.233~279 (2015), 법학연구소
- 류창호, "조망권에 관한 연구 - 민법 제217조의 적용가능성을 중심으로 -", 법제연구, (29), pp.187~210 (2005), 한국법제연구원
- 박신욱, "무인항공기에 의한 소유권 및 사생활", 민사법학, 70, pp.413~446 (2015), 한국민사법학회
- 서원우, "서울대학교 법학", 서울대학교 법학, 25(1) (1984), 서울대학교
- 손윤하, "환경침해를 원인으로 한 민사소송에 관한 문제", 저스티스, (81), pp.120~152 (2004), 한국법학원
- 안경희, "임미시온의 위법성 판단기준 - 민법 제217조와 수인한도론을 중심으로 -", 환경법연구, 37(2), pp.263~296 (2015), 한국환경법학회
- 안경희, "독일법상 항공기소음으로 인한 손실보상청구", 법조, 58(10), pp.154~206 (2009), 법조협회
- 안경희, "환경침해에 대한 민사법적 구제", 환경법연구, 28(3), pp.3~58 (2006), 한국환경법학회
- 양창수, "민법산고", pp.237~ (2007), 박영사
- 양형우, "아파트(공동주택)의 층간소음에 대한 분양회사의 법적 책임", 재산법연구, 31(1), pp.91~124 (2014), 한국재산법학회
- 윤용석, "토지소유권의 침해와 수인의무", 법학연구, 48(1), pp.901~928 (2007), 법학연구소
- 윤용석, "생활방해와 소유권의 침해", 법학연구, 47(1) (2006), 부산대학교
- 이동원, "일조권 침해에 관한 판례의 동향", 민사법학, (27), pp.257~298 (2005), 한국민사법학회
- 이상천, "일조갈등의 豫防的 解消를 위한 立法論的 硏究", 동아법학, (45), pp.41~95 (2009), 법학연구소
- 이영준, "물권법" (2009), 박영사
- 이영창, "민사소송을 통한 환경오염피해 구제의 현실과 한계- 소음피해로 인한 소송을 중심으로 -", 환경법연구, 36(1), pp.65~121 (2014), 한국환경법학회
- 이은영, "물권법" (2006), 박영사
- 이은영, "채권각론" (2007), 박영사
- 전경운, "환경침해로 인한 위법성판단과 환경정책기본법 제31조의 효력", 민사법학, (22) (2002), 한국민사법학회
- 최민수, "조망이익의 침해와 보호범위 - 건물신축에 의한 시야차단으로 인한 압박감(개방감 상실)을 조망이익 이외의 별도의 독자적인 권리나 보호법익으로 볼 수 있는지 -", 재산법연구, 30(1), pp.157~188 (2013), 한국재산법학회
- 조선준, "공동주택 층간소음 분쟁해결에 대한 기준조사", 대한건축학회 지연합회 학술발표대회논문집 (2010)
- 최창렬, "日照權 侵害에서의 受忍限度의 判斷", 성균관법학, 25(4), pp.223~262 (2013), 법학연구소
- 최용전, "환경권으로서의 일조권과 일조규제입법에 관한 검토", 유럽헌법연구, (19), pp.233~264 (2015), 유럽헌법학회
- 湖見佳男, "不法行爲法" (2004), 信山出版社
- 淡路剛久, "景觀權の生成と國立ㆍ大学通り訴訟判決", ジュリスト, (1240) (2003)