판례상 책임제한의 의미와 정당화
The Meaning and Justification of the So-called Limitation of Liability in Precedents
0
조회
0
다운로드
21
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
The amount of damages calculated by each claims is finally accounted on the process of damages adjustment by application of fault offset rule, benefits rule. The process aims at the fair apportionment of damage as an ideal of damages. In the cases of no fault and no benefits, the compensation of total losses of victims often contradicts the dominant legal sentiment or sense of justice. If the amount of damages exceeds the wrong-doer’s fault, it should be reduced by judges on the basis of damages adjustment in the light of fair and just sharing of losses. It corresponds with the idea of corrective justice on which law of damages should be based. The above solution is the so-called limitation of liability in precedents. But the reduction of damages through limitation of liability sometimes infringes on the legal security in connection with the controversy surrounding law making by judges. So, the so-called limitation of liability in precedents requires justification. Justice or equity as an ideal of law in general including law of damages can be its ideological foundation. The paper tries to define and justify the so-called limitation of liability as the third adjustment of damages resulted from torts. It focuses on the corrective justice and distributive justice, and equity for the purpose of justification of damages reduction. Besides, it points out the limits of the so-called limitation of liability in precedents as an example of law making by judges.
Abstract
The amount of damages calculated by each claims is finally accounted on the process of damages adjustment by application of fault offset rule, benefits rule. The process aims at the fair apportionment of damage as an ideal of damages. In the cases of no fault and no benefits, the compensation of total losses of victims often contradicts the dominant legal sentiment or sense of justice. If the amount of damages exceeds the wrong-doer’s fault, it should be reduced by judges on the basis of damages adjustment in the light of fair and just sharing of losses. It corresponds with the idea of corrective justice on which law of damages should be based. The above solution is the so-called limitation of liability in precedents. But the reduction of damages through limitation of liability sometimes infringes on the legal security in connection with the controversy surrounding law making by judges. So, the so-called limitation of liability in precedents requires justification. Justice or equity as an ideal of law in general including law of damages can be its ideological foundation. The paper tries to define and justify the so-called limitation of liability as the third adjustment of damages resulted from torts. It focuses on the corrective justice and distributive justice, and equity for the purpose of justification of damages reduction. Besides, it points out the limits of the so-called limitation of liability in precedents as an example of law making by judges.
참고문헌 (45)
- 곽윤직, "채권각론(신정판)" (1995)
- 김민중, "민법총칙" (1995), 두성사
- 김형환, "법철학의 근본문제 제3판" (2012), 홍문사
- 김재홍, "니코마코스 윤리학" (2006), 이제이북스
- 오종근, "민법주해 IX" (2000), 박영사
- 양창수, "민법주해 XIX" (2005), 박영사
- 양삼승, "주석 민법(채권각칙8), 제3판" (2002), 한국사법행정학회
- 심헌섭, "법철학" (1985), 한국방송통신대학출판부
- 라인홀트 치펠리우스, "법철학" (2001), 지산
- 권영준, "불법행위법의 사상적 기초와 그 시사점 - 예방과 회복의 패러다임을 중심으로 -", 저스티스, (109), pp.73~107 (2009), 한국법학원
- 김민규, "징벌적 손해배상에 대한 외국판결의 일부승인", 비교사법, 10 (1999), 부산외국어대
- 김윤구, "불법행위법상 손해배상이론의 재검토", 법학연구, 11 (2000), 충북대
- 김학동, "신의성실의 원칙", 고시연구 (1994)
- Paul Kirchhof, "“법률과 법”에 기속된 법관의 법발견", 법과 정책연구, 1 (2001)
- 류승훈, "과실상계에 관한 연구", 외법논집, 8 (2000)
- 박동진, "과실상계에서 과실의 의미", 연세법학연구, 7(1) (2000)
- 박동진, "損害賠償法의 指導原理와 機能", 비교사법, 11(4), pp.291~322 (2004), 한국비교사법학회
- 서광민, "신의성실의 원칙의 적용요건과 적용한계", 고시연구 (1993)
- 서광민, "위자료에 관한 몇 가지 문제점", 서강법학연구, 2 (2000)
- 서광민, "과학기술의 발달과 불법행위법의 대응", 민사법학, (21) (2002), 한국민사법학회
- 성금석, "상속한정승인에 있어서 중과실이 없다는 점에 관한 증명책임의 소재와 법률의 흠결에 대한 법관에 의한 법형성의 과제 -대법원 2003.9.26. 선고 2003다30517 판결", 판례연구, 17 (2006), 부산판례연구회
- 소재선, "손해의 상업적 평가 가능성과 징벌적 손해배상제도의 재검토 - 최근 독일의 논의를 중심으로 –", 성균관법학, 21(1), pp.509~536 (2009), 법학연구소
- 양창수, "민법 제765조 : 잊혀진 규정?", 법학, 39(4) (1999), 서울대
- 오종근, "제765조상의 배상액 경감청구", 비교사법, 4(1)통권 : 46 (1997)
- 윤석찬, "책임원인에 따른 비재산적 손해에 대한 배상과 위자료", 민사법학, (27), pp.521~558 (2005), 한국민사법학회
- 윤진영, "불법행위의 피해자에게 요구되는 손해경감조치의무", 대법원판례해설, (18) (1993), 법원행정처
- 이은영, "손해배상법의 이념에 비춰본 민법 제765조 배상액 경감청구* - 대상판결: 대법원 1996. 5. 10 선고 93다40454 판결(미공간) -", 재산법연구, 27(3), pp.225~253 (2011), 한국재산법학회
- 임준호, "의료과오소송에서 기여도에 의한 배상액의 비율적 인정-체질적 소인ㆍ기왕증의 참작-", 민사판례연구, XXI (1998)
- 장재옥, "위자료에 관한 몇가지 고찰, , In 영준박사화갑기념논문집" (1999)
- 장재옥, "징벌적 손해배상과 법치국가의 원리", 법학논문 (1995), 중앙대
- 정선주, "법관에 의한 법의 형성발전과 그 한계", 민사소송, 2 (1999)
- 정진명, "환경오염 피해에 대한 사법적 구제-위험책임의 입장에서", 환경법연구, 21 (1999)
- 정우형, "재산법상 신의성실원칙의 기능과 한계", 비교사법, 8(1) (2001)
- 제철웅, "채무불이행으로 인한 손해배상에 있어서 위자료의 보완적기능", 판례실무연구, Ⅶ (2004)
- 최우진, "구체적 액수로 증명 곤란한 재산적 손해의 조사 및 확정", 사법논집, 51 (2010)
- 홍춘용, "자동차사고손해에 있어서의 과실상계문제, 손해배상법의제문제, In 성현황적인박사화갑기념논문집" (1990), 박영사
- A. Ripstein, "Philosophy of Tort Law, In The Oxford Handbook of Jurisprudence and Philosophy of Law" (2002), Oxford UP
- D. Walker, "The Oxford Companion to Law" (1980), Oxford UP
- M. Murtaugh, "Wrongful Birth : The Court’s Dilemma in Determining a Remedy for a ‘Blessed Event’", Pace Law Review, 27 (2007)
- K. Larenz, "Methodenlehre der Rechtswissenschaft, 6. Aufl." (1991)
- K. Vikingstad, "The Use and Abuse of the Tort Benefit Rule in Wrongful Parentage Cases", Chicago-Kent Law Review, 82 (2007)
- S. Perry, "Tort Law, In A Companion to Philosophy of Law and Legal Theory" (1996), Blackwell
- W. Dunlap, "Damages, In The Philosophy of Law. An Encyclopedia" (1999), Garland
- W. Lucy, "Philosophy of Private Law" (2007), Oxford UP
- "Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th ed.", pp.484~ (1979), West