순수재산손해에 대한 불법행위책임: 법･경제적 해명시도
Pure Economic Loss in Tort Law: Legal and Economic Analysis
0
조회
0
다운로드
5
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
민법은 순수재산손해의 야기에 대한 불법행위책임을 제한하는 별다른 규정을 두고 있지 아니하나, 판례와 학설은 이를 일정한 범위에서 제한해왔다. 이러한 현상은 비교법적으로도 어느 정도 관찰되는 바이나, 그 근거가 반드시 분명하지 아니할 뿐 아니라 특히 그 기준이 모호하다는 한계가 있다. 이 글에서는 우리 판례와 학설 및 미국, 영국, 독일, 오스트리아, 스위스, 프랑스 등의 이 문제에 대한 태도를 유형적으로 조감한 뒤 종래의 법(학)적 해명이 여러 점에서 구체적 논리와 기준을 제시하는 데 부족하였음을 보이고, 법경제학적 접근을 통하여 그 빈틈을 메울 수 있을지를 살펴보기로 한다. 이 점에서 순수재산손해는 양의 외부효과와 과잉주의, 효율적 계약위반, 부정경쟁 등으로 설명될 수 있고, 감사인책임 등의 사안유형은 가정적 내지 준(準)계약책임으로 이해할 수 있음을 논증한다.
Abstract
Pure economic loss means financial damage which does not accompany physical damage to person or property. Although article 750 of the Korean Civil Code, which constitutes the general provision for tortious liability in Korean civil law, discriminates neither intent from negligence nor pure economic loss from other losses in terms of the prerequisites as well as effects of tortious liability, the Korean Supreme Court has adopted more or less cautious approach on the compensability of pure economic loss. The same or similar approach has been observed in other countries, even though the ways to achieve this result are different. Some limit compensability of pure economic loss categorically (U.S. and U.K.), while others acknowledge compensability of loss either when it is derived from the infringement of absolute right or from the intentional commission against good moral (Germany, Austria and Switzerland). There is still other country which allow the compensation of pure economic loss in principle (France). The question is whether and how this limitation of compensability of pure economic loss is justified. In this regard, legal doctrine does not help so much. It explains why pure economic loss should not be compensated at any time, while it does not explain why and when pure economic loss should be compensated. On the contrary, economic analysis provides better explanation why and when pure economic loss should be or not be compensated. The basic intuition is as follows: Pure economic loss is a matter of redistribution and not of social cost, which is the reason why negligent inflict of pure economic loss should not be compensated. It might lead to overcaution. Even intentional or conscious infringement of pure economic loss might be allowed because it is a participation of efficient breach. An intentional participation of inefficient breach, however, should be deterred by imposing liability on the third party participants. An unfair competition with illegal means such as fraud or duress also should be deterred by imposing liability on the competitor even when he or she used these means not on the victim directly but on the counterpart of the victim. Last but not least, liability for pure economic loss of the investors who relied on the inaccurate information can be regarded as quasi-contract liability, which is an imputed contract corresponding to the hypothetical mutual intent between the prospective investors and the auditors or any other information providers. This analysis can be integrated to the legal doctrine of tortious liability and provide more detailed criteria to decide whether to compensate pure economic loss.
참고문헌 (65)
- 곽윤직, "채권총론" (2006)
- 김동훈, "제3자의 계약침해와 불법행위책임의 성부", 정보와 법연구, (4) (2002)
- 김상중, "순수 재산상 손해에 대한 책임법적 규율에 관한 비교법적 고찰을 통한 일 시론", 인권과 정의, 328, pp.2~ (2003), 대한변호사협회[DOI]
- 김재형, "판례실무연구 IX" (2010)
- 김재형, "나암 서민 교수 정년기념 민법학의 현대적양상" (2006)
- 김증한, "채권총론" (1998)
- 김형배, "채권총론" (1998)
- 박영규, "제3자의 채권침해’ 이론 비판", 서울시립대 법률행정논집, 13 (2006)
- 서광민, "남송 한봉희 교수 화갑 기념 현대민법의 과제와 전망" (1994)
- 안법영, "영업경영의 과실침해와 책임귀속의 인과적 표지", 고려대 판례연구, 8 (1996)
- 어인의, "연람 배경숙 교수 화갑기념 한국민사법학의 현대적전개" (1991), 한국민사법학의
- 오수원, "제3자의 채권침해의 개념과 급부침해의 채권침해로 인한 불법행위문제", 민사법연구, 24 (2016)
- 윤진수, "法의 解釋과 適用에서 經濟的 效率의 考慮는 가능한가?", 서울대학교 법학, 50(1), pp.39~81 (2009), 법학연구소
- 윤진수, "부동산 이중양도의 경제적 분석 – 배임행위 적극가담론의 비판 –", 저스티스, 29(1) (1996)
- 윤진수, "제삼자의 채권침해와 부동산의 이중양도", 사법논집, 16 (1975)
- 윤진수, "법경제학 이론과 응용" (2011)
- 전경근, "일헌 최병욱 교수 정년기념 현대민사법연구" (2002)
- 정상조, "부정경쟁방지법 원론" (2007)
- 정호열, "부정경쟁방지법론" (1993)
- 최민수, "부정경쟁행위와 불법행위법상 금지청구권 - 대법원 2010. 8. 25.자 2008마1541 결정 -", 법조, 62(1), pp.255~299 (2013), 법조협회[DOI]
- 최흥섭, "남강 서광민 교수 정년기념 논문집" (2007)
- 최흥섭, "한국법의 불법행위책임에서 순수경제적 손실(Pure Economic Loss) - 유럽통일민사법안(DCFR)과의 비교를 중심으로 -", 민사법학, 71, pp.201~231 (2015), 한국민사법학회
- BeVier, "Reconsidering Inducement", Va. L. Rev., 76, pp.877~ (1990)
- Bishop, "Economic loss in tort", Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 2, pp.1~ (1982)
- Van Boom, "Pure Economic Loss: A Comparative Perspective" (2004), Pure Economic Loss
- Buffelan-Lanore, "Droit civil Les obligations" (2018)
- Bussani, "The notion of pure economic loss and its setting" (2003), Pure Economic Loss in Europe
- Dari-Mattiacci, "The core of pure economic loss", International Review of Law and Economics, 27, pp.8~ (2007)
- Dari-Mattiacci, "The economics of pure economic loss and the internalization of multiple externalities" (2004), Pure Economic Loss
- Deschamp, "La réparation du préjudice économique pur en droit français" (1998), R.I.D.C.
- Deschamp, "La réparation du préjudice économique" (1996), Civil Liability for Pure Economic Loss
- Deutsch, "Compensation for Pure Economic Loss in Germany" (1996), Civil Liability for Pure Economic Loss
- Diamond, "Understanding Torts" (2010)
- R. A. Epstein, "Inducement of Breach of Contracts as a Problem of Ostensible Ownership", J. Leg. Stud, 16, pp.1~ (1987)
- Faust, "Der Schutz vor reinen Vermögensschäden – illustriert am Beispiel der Expertenhaftung", AcP, 210, pp.555~ (2010)
- Fees, "Einige Überlegungen zur Haftung bei reinen Vermögensschaden", Festschrift für Hans-Bernd Schäfer zum, 65 (2008)
- Goldberg, "Recovery for Economic Loss following the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill", J. Leg. Stud, 23, pp.31~ (1991)
- Gordley, "The rule against recovery in negligence for pure economic loss: an historical accident?" (2003), Pure Economic Loss in Europe
- Honsell, "Der Ersatz reiner Vermögensschäden in Rechtsgeschichte und Rechtsvergleichung", Festschrift für Werner Lorenz zum, 80 (2001)
- James, "Limitations on Liability for Economic Loss Caused by Negligence: A Pragmatic Appraisal", Vand. L. Rev, 26, pp.54~ (1972)
- Keuk, "Vermögensschaden und Interesse" (1972)
- Köhler, "Die „Beteiligung an fremden Vertragsbruch‟ – eine unerlaubte Handlung?", Festschrift für Claus-Wilhelm Canaris zum, 70 (2007)
- Koziol, "Compensation for Pure Economic Loss from a Continental Lawyer’s Perspective" (2004), Pure Economic Loss
- Koziol, "Die Beeinträchtigung fremder Forderungsrechte" (1967)
- Landes, "The Economic Structure of Tort Law" (1987)
- Mauer, "Das Bewegliche System zur Konkretisierung der Sittenwidrigkeit bei § 826 BGB", ~ (2016)
- McChesney, "Tortious Interference with Contract versus"Efficient"Breach : Theory and Empirical Evidence", J. Leg. Stud, 28, pp.131~ (1999)
- Mertens, "Deliktsrecht und Sonderprivatrecht – Zur Rechtsfortbildung des deliktsischen Schutzes von Vermögensinteressen", AcP, 178, pp.227~ (1978)
- Mullis, "Torts" (2003)
- Myers, "The Differing Treatment of Efficiency and Competition in Antitrust and Tortious Interference Law", Minn. L. Rev, 77, pp.1087~ (1993)
- Perlman, "Interference with Contract and Other Expectancies : A Clash of Tort and Contract Theory", U. Chi. L. Rev, 49, pp.61~ (1982)
- R. A. Posner, "Common-Law Economic Torts : An Economic and Legal Analysis", Ariz. L. Rev, 48, pp.735~ (2006)
- Rabin, "Tort Recovery for Negligently Inflicted Economic Loss : A Reassessment", Stanford L. Rev, 37, pp.1513~ (1985)
- Rhee, "A Production Theory of Pure Economic Loss", Nw. U. L. Rev, 104, pp.49~ (2010)
- Rizzo, "A Theory of Economic Loss in the Law of Torts", J. Leg. Stud, 11, pp.281~ (1982)
- Rogers, "Winfield & Jolowicz on Tort" (2010)
- Sack, "Das Recht am Gewerbebetrieb" (2007), Geschichte und Dogmatik
- Schäfer, "Efficient Third Party Liability of Auditors in Tort Law and in Contract Law", Supreme Court Economic Review, 12, pp.181~ (2004)
- Schricker, "Rechtsvergleichende Untersuchung zur wettbewerbsrechtlichen Haftung bei Verletzung außerwettbewerbsrechtlicher Normen" (1970)
- Schwartz, "American tort law and the(supposed)economic loss rule" (2003), Pure Economic Loss in Europe
- Schweizer, "Tortious acts affecting markets", International Review of Law and Economics, 27, pp.49~ (2007)
- Shavell, "Economic Analysis of Accident Law" (1987)
- Stapleton, "Duty of Care : Peripheral Parties and Alternatives opportunities for Deterrence", L. Q. R, 111, pp.301~ (1995)
- Traullé, "La réparation du préjudice économique «pur» en question", RTD Civ, pp.285~ (2018)
- Viney, "Le ‘wrongfulness’ en droit français" (1998), Wrongfulness