第三者의 過失과 過失相計
A Study on the Third Party’s Negligence and Culpa Compensatio
0
조회
0
다운로드
0
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
This article reviews existing theories on whether we can equate the third party’s negligence with the injured party’s negligence in calculating wrongdoer’s amount of damages, explores the scope of the third party related to the injured principal in considering culpa compensatio and, ultimately, concludes as follows. First, in the case of culpa compensatio, we should consider the third party’s negligence in calculating the amount of damages mainly because, for example, a person’s negligence who has same social status or similar living relationship with injured party, or is under injured party’s direction can be equated with the negligence of the injured party. Thus, extending the definition of injured party in order to include the third party’s negligence who can be identified with the injured party accords with the idea of fair attribution in the theory of compensation liability. Second, although there are some arguments on the theoretical basis of whether we can equate the third party’s negligence with the injured party’s negligence in calculating wrongdoer’s amount of damages, we should consider the third party’s negligence who are somewhat related with the injured party as culpa compensatio because the idea of fairness which means that the damage should be properly and fairly attributed is the basis of the theory of culpa compensatio. Although there also are some viewpoints in this context such as the theory of family group, theory of family association, theory of joint torts, theory of application mutais mutandis of employer‘s liability, and theory of fairness, the theory of fairness seems the most persuasive and the Korean Supreme Court supports this perspective. Third and lastly, the unity with the injured party should be the standard in deciding the scope of the third party. In relation to this issue, the Japanese case law and academia supports the theory identical devolvement although the Korean Supreme Court does not present a specific standard.
Abstract
This article reviews existing theories on whether we can equate the third party’s negligence with the injured party’s negligence in calculating wrongdoer’s amount of damages, explores the scope of the third party related to the injured principal in considering culpa compensatio and, ultimately, concludes as follows. First, in the case of culpa compensatio, we should consider the third party’s negligence in calculating the amount of damages mainly because, for example, a person’s negligence who has same social status or similar living relationship with injured party, or is under injured party’s direction can be equated with the negligence of the injured party. Thus, extending the definition of injured party in order to include the third party’s negligence who can be identified with the injured party accords with the idea of fair attribution in the theory of compensation liability. Second, although there are some arguments on the theoretical basis of whether we can equate the third party’s negligence with the injured party’s negligence in calculating wrongdoer’s amount of damages, we should consider the third party’s negligence who are somewhat related with the injured party as culpa compensatio because the idea of fairness which means that the damage should be properly and fairly attributed is the basis of the theory of culpa compensatio. Although there also are some viewpoints in this context such as the theory of family group, theory of family association, theory of joint torts, theory of application mutais mutandis of employer‘s liability, and theory of fairness, the theory of fairness seems the most persuasive and the Korean Supreme Court supports this perspective. Third and lastly, the unity with the injured party should be the standard in deciding the scope of the third party. In relation to this issue, the Japanese case law and academia supports the theory identical devolvement although the Korean Supreme Court does not present a specific standard.
참고문헌 (90)
- 郭潤直, "債權總論(신정수정판)" (1999), 博英社
- 郭潤直, "債權各論(신정판)" (1995), 博英社
- 權龍雨, "債權總論" (1996), 法文社
- 權龍雨, "債權各論(전정판)" (1994), 法文社
- 權龍雨, "民法演習(보정판)" (1996), 法文社
- 權龍雨, "不法行爲論" (1998), 新陽社
- 權龍雨, "債權法(전정판)" (1999), 청림출판
- 金基善, "韓國債權法總論(제3전정판)" (1987), 法文社
- 金相容, "不法行爲法" (1997), 法文社
- 金相容, "債權總論" (2000), 法文社
- 金相容, "債權各論(下)" (1998), 法文社
- 金錫宇, "債權法各論" (1978), 博英社
- 金容漢, "債權法總論" (1983), 博英社
- 金疇洙, "債權總論" (1984), 三英社
- 金相容, "債權各論(下)" (1989), 三英社
- 金曾漢, "債權總論(제6판" (1998), 博英社
- 金曾漢, "新債權各論(下)" (1965), 博英社
- 金顯泰, "新債權法總論" (1964), 一潮閣
- 金顯泰, "新稿 債權各論" (1969), 一潮閣
- 金亨培, "債權總論" (1992), 博英社
- 尹完洙, "民法槪論(제2전정판)" (1999), 新陽社
- 尹喆洪, "要解 債權總論" (1999), 法元社
- 李輔煥, "自動車事故損害賠償訴訟" (1983), 育法社
- 李銀榮, "債權總論" (1991), 博英社
- 李宰勳, "判例不法行爲法(1)" (1995), 韓國司法行政學會
- 李宰勳, "判例不法行爲法(12)" (1996), 韓國司法行政學會
- 李太載, "債權總論新講" (1964), 進明文化社
- 李太載, "改訂 債權各論" (1985), 進明文化社
- 李宙興, "實務損害賠償責任法" (1997), 博英社
- 張暻根, "戰後日本의 民事判例動向" (1982), 檀國大學校 出判部
- 張庚鶴, "債權總論" (1992), 敎育科學社
- 曺喜宗, "自動車事故로 因한 損害賠償判決要旨集" (1993), 法元社
- 池元林, "民法講義(제8판)" (2010), 弘文社
- 崔明圭, "損害賠償實務總攬(제1권:交通ㆍ産災" (1995), 法律書院
- 玄勝鍾, "債權總論" (1975), 日新社
- 黃迪仁, "現代民法論 Ⅳ" (1980), 博英社
- 黃迪仁, "判例敎材 債權法(Ⅰ)" (1979), 法文社
- 考試法典編纂委員會, "註釋ㆍ判例 考試法典" (1982), 考試院
- 郭潤直, "民法注解(Ⅸ)" (1995), 博英社
- 金曾漢, "學說ㆍ判例 註釋民法(下)" (1972), 韓國司法行政學會
- 金曾漢, "註釋 債權總則(上)" (1984), 韓國司法行政學會
- 金曾漢, "註釋 債權各則(Ⅳ)" (1987), 韓國司法行政學會
- 朴駿緖, "註釋民法(債權各則 8)" (2000), 韓國司法行政學會
- 서울民事地方法院 交通, "交通ㆍ産災 損害賠償訴訟實務" (1994), 韓國司法行政學會
- 加藤一郞, "不法行爲(法律學全集)" (1957), 有斐閣
- 高木多喜男, "民法講義 6 : 不法行爲等" (1977), 有斐閣
- 幾代 通, "不法行爲法" (1993), 有斐閣
- 末川 博, "民法論集" (1959), 日本評論社
- 末弘嚴太郞, "債權各論" (1918), 有斐閣
- 於保不二雄, "新版 債權總論" (1972), 有斐閣
- 我妻 榮, "判例漫策" (1961), 有斐閣
- 我妻 榮, "事務管理ㆍ不當利得ㆍ不法行爲" (1965), 日本評論社
- 我妻 榮, "新訂 債權總論" (1980), 岩波書店
- 鈴木 潔, "注釋 交通損害賠償法" (1982), 靑林書院新社
- 吾妻光俊, "新版 債權法" (1977), 弘文堂
- 遠藤 浩, "基本法 コンメンタ-ル 債權各論(第三版)" (1988), 日本評論社
- 宗宮信次郞, "名譽權論" (1966), 有斐閣
- 法學選書刊行會, "改訂 民法(債權法 Ⅱ)" (1984)
- Beuthien, "Wolf, Studienkommentar zumBGB" (1975), Metzner
- Larenz, K., "Lehrbuch des Schuldrechts Bd. Ⅰ : Allgemeiner Teil,14. Aufl" (1987), C. H. Beck
- "Műnchener Kommentar zum Bűrgerliches Gesetzbuch Bd. 2" (1978)
- Prosser,W.L., "The Law of Torts 4th ed" (1971), West Publishing C0
- 姜玟中, "醫療事故와 被害者側의 過失”, 醫療事故에 관한 諸問題 , 法院行政處", ~ (1985)
- 權龍雨, "不法行爲와 過失相計,in債權法에 있어서의 自由와 責任" (1994), 博英社
- 權龍雨, "第三者의 過失과 過失相計", 月刊考試 (1992)
- 金基洙, "過失相計", 考試界 (1979)
- 金相容, "過失相計", 考試界 (1990)
- 金顯泰, "過失相計", 考試界 (1969)
- 閔亨基, "損害賠償額算定에 있어서의 第三者의 過失”-이른바 被害者側過失論", 司法論集(法院行政處), 10 (1979)
- 閔亨基, "自動車損害賠償事件에 있어서의 過失相計에 관한 諸問題 , 自動車事故로 因한損害賠償(下)", 法院行政處, ~ (1984)
- 朴英植, "自動車事故訴訟에 있어서의 過失相計의 本質, 現代民法學의 諸問題", pp.博英社~ (1981), 博英社
- 吳宗根, "第三者의 過失과 過失相計", 判例月報, (227) (1989)
- 吳宗根, "不法行爲法上 過失相計의 適用要件에 관한 硏究", 박사, pp.1995
- 吳宗根, "제3자의 過失과 過失相計", 한림법학 FORUM(한림대), 3 (1993)
- 李範柱, "自動車事故에 있어서 過失相計의 算定基準, in 自動車事故로因한 損害賠償(下)" (1984), 法院行政處
- 鄭範錫, "不法行爲에 관한 過失相計", 考試界 (1969)
- 洪天龍, "自動車事故損害에 있어서의 過失相計問題 , 損害賠償法의諸問題" (1990), 博英社
- 洪天龍, "過失相計論 , 現代家族法과 家族政策" (1988), 三英社
- 谷口知平, "損害賠償額算定における損害避抑義務 , 損害賠償責任の硏究(上)(我妻 榮 先生還曆記念)" (1958), 有斐閣
- 能見善久, "過失相殺の現代的機能 , 不法行爲法の現代的課題と展開(森島昭夫 敎授 還曆記念論文集)" (1995), 日本評論社
- 舟本信光, "過失相計の割合について", ジュリト, (431) (1969)
- 舟本信光, "交通事故訴訟における過失相殺適用の基準 , 實務民事訴訟講座(3) : 交通事故訴訟" (1981), 日本評論社
- 舟本信光, "過失相殺における被害者側の範圍", 判例カタイムズ(臨時增刊號), 22(15) (1971)
- 末弘嚴太郞, "被害者としての家團", 法曹時報, 12(12) (1960)
- 兵崎恭生, "交通損害賠償訴訟における過失相殺運用上の諸問題", 現代損害賠償法講座, 7 (1977), 日本評論社
- 篠田省三, "過失相殺にぉける被害者の範圍", 實務法律大系, 4 (1972), 靑林書院新社
- 篠田省三, "過失相殺の本質", 判例タイムズ(臨時增刊號), 22(15) (1971)
- 植林 弘, "無能力者の賠償請求にぉける監督義務者の過失參酌の許否", 民商法雜誌, 34(5) (1958)
- 川井 健, "過失相殺の本質", 判例タイムズ, 21(1) (1970)
- 平井宜雄, "過失相殺", ジュリスト, (500) (1975)