법학교육에 대한 새로운 방법론

고세일(Se-il, Ko) 한국재산법학회 2009 재산법연구 Vol.25 No.3

According to Oliver Wendell Homes, Jr., “The life of the law has not been logic. It has been experience.” However, Korean people have never had experiences concerning the new legal education system - law schools, which are supposed to start on March, 2009. It is totally new institutions to Koreans. Especially a large number of Korean Civil Law professors have not experienced the US style law schools. When a new system is adopted, many things are necessary to be discussed. However, it is hard to find discussions as to how to teach in a new legal education system, because Korean legal academiae only have been concentrating on how to prepare their colleges of law to be admitted into Korean law schools by Korean government. In this respect, this author attempts to mention his experiences how to adopt Socratic Method to the newly coming Korean law schools or current colleges of law. In this article, this author writes about American legal education and Socratic method in II. And then this author mentions cases and materials for texts to be used in US Socratic teaching ways in III. In IV, this author explains how Socratic methods have been used in American law school classes. In V, this author attempts to speak of how the Socratic methods would be adopted in upcoming Korean law schools and current colleges of law, showing this author’s teaching experiences for three semesters. Finally this author suggests that the Socratic methods could be used for Korean law schools as well as Korean colleges of law as a potentially competitive teaching way.

자동차 사고에 따른 적정한 책임 분배에 대한 연구

고세일(Se-Il Ko) 충남대학교 법학연구소 2014 法學硏究 Vol.25 No.3

우리 현행 손해배상법제에서는 불법행위 요건을 충족하면, 사고로 발생한 피해자의 손해를 전보해준다. 그런데 이러한 원칙을 자동차 사고에 그대로 투영하는 경우, 문제가 되는 상황이 발생한다. 예를 들어, 값 비싼 자동차와 값 싼 자동차가 서로 충돌한 경우, 값 싼 자동차의 운전자는 자신의 과실이 적은 경우에도, 상대방인 값 비싼 자동차 운전자에게 자신이 받는 손해와 견주어 훨씬 많은 손해를 배상해야 한다. 현행 민법의 손해배상법리에 따라 손해 총액을 모두 고려하여, 서로의 과실 비율에 기초해서 과실상계를 한다면, 목적물의 가액에 따라서 손해배상을 해야 하는 범위가 달라지기 때문이다. 이런 상황을 평가하는 관점에 대해서 크게 두 가지가 가능하다. 첫 번째 관점은 현행 손해배상법제에서는 어쩔 수 없는 상황으로 받아들이는 것이다. 이런 관점은 손해배상액 산정에 있어서 다른 기준도 고려요소 하지만, 결국 발생한 물적 손해는 그 사고가 없었다는 있었을 가정적 상태의 차이를 기준으로 하기 때문이다. 그런 점에서 현실에서 물적 손해의 경우 피해 목적물의 가액이 중요한 기준으로 되므로 어쩔 수 없는 상황으로 인식한다. 이는 대체로 대륙법의 전통을 이어받은 우리 법제의 태도라고 할 수 있다. 두 번째 관점은 교통사고와 같은 불법행위 사안에서 당사자의 과실을 기준으로 책임 귀속을 달리하고, 경우에 따라서 책임을 분배하는 관점이다. 이는 비교법의 측면에서 현재 미국이 채택하는 방식이다. 값 비싼 자동차와 값 싼 자동차가 서로 충돌한 경우, 첫 번째의 방식으로 해결할 때와 두 번째의 방식으로 해결할 때는, 자동차의 가액과 자동차 사고의 과실 비율에 따라서 그 결과가 달라진다. 따라서 어느 방식에 따라 발생한 손해배상을 하는지에 따라, 당사자의 이해관계가 많이 달라진다. 그런데 이는 결국 “값 비싼 자동차와 값 싼 자동차가 서로 충돌한 경우, 값 싼 자동차의 운전자는 자신의 과실이 적은 경우에도, 값 비싼 자동차 운전자에게 자신이 받는 손해와 견주어 훨씬 많은 손해를 배상하는 것이 타당한지?”에 대한 물음이기도 하다. 값 싼 자동차의 운전자가 교통사고에 따른 대물보험의 한도를 상대적으로 낮게 설정하여 보험계약을 한 경우, 실제로 값 비싼 자동차와 교통사고 충돌하여, 막대한 손해를 배상하지 못하는 현실적인 어려움이 있다. 이런 문제로 말미암아 가끔씩 교통사고가 발생했을 때, 상대방의 물적 손해(자동차 가격, 수리 할 때까지 자동차 임차비용)를 배상하지 못하는, 현실적 어려움이 보도되기도 한다. 그리고 일부 아주 비싼 자동차를 위해서, 사회의 많은 수의 값 싼 자동차 운전자가 그에 대한 위험을 보험으로 감수해야 하는 것이 타당한지에 대한 물음도 제기된다. 따라서 이 글에서는 자동차사고에 따른 적정한 책임 분배가 어떤 것인지를 주로 손해배상법의 관점에서 살피고자 한다. 그리고 비교법 관점에서 과실을 기초로 해서, 당사자의 책임을 분배하는 미국의 과실상계 법리를 주된 대상으로 삼는다. 그리고 그 법리가 자동차 사고와 관련한 우리 손해배상법의 해석론과 입법론에 어떤 시사점을 줄 수 있는지를 고찰한다. Under the Korean Civil Law, if all requirements of torts have been satisfied, the plaintiff may be eligible for damages occurred by an accident. When this principle is applied to car accidents without modification, sometimes problematic circumstances may happen. For example, when there is a collision between a very expensive car and a very cheap car, the driver of the cheap car has to pay for a huge amount of money to the opposite driver, even though her or his fault is very smaller than that of the expensive car driver. Because the current Korean Civil Law has considered the total amount of damages of both cars and drivers, based on the two driver’s negligence, the scope of damages may be differentiated on the value of the injured objects. In this situation, two solutions may be possible. One is to maintain the current Korean compensation law. According to this approach, although considering all other factors in calculating damages, the main focus may be the difference between the situations between before and after the incident. Thus it has taken the first position of the value of injured objects. Many European law and its influenced legal systems have taken this approach. The other is to estimate joint-tortfeasors’ faults, and to apportion each person’s liabilities and damages. The United States has taken this approach. Therefore, when a very expensive car and a very cheap car collides, the first and second solution, the outcome of damages may be different depending on prices of cars and faults of each drivers. In this context, parties’ interests may be different based on these different approaches. Put simply, we may summarize this question as: “when there is a collision between a very expensive car and a very cheap car, is it fair for the cheap car driver to pay a huge amount of money to the expensive car driver, although her or his negligence is relatively small?” In this aspect, this author examines what would be proper way to pay damages in these circumstances. In a comparative perspective, this author mainly studies the rules of comparative negligence in torts and then attempts to apply this rules to apportionment of car accidents. Finally this author suggests what and which points we may obtain from these principles of comparative negligence into Korean law.

미국의 민사배심에 대한 연구 -불법행위 보통법전집의 규정을 중심으로-

고세일 ( Se Il Ko ) 고려대학교 법학연구원 2011 고려법학 Vol.0 No.62

American law has not been well known, in Korean legal academic communities, especially in civil law area. This phenomenon may have been occurred due to relatively strong influence of European law or Civil Law System on Korean legal system. However, as this world has become smaller by development of communication technology and transportation systems, this author thinks that Korean legal community also may need to consider the US laws, its legal theories and methodologies. In this respect, this author proposes that introducing the Restatement of US law to Korean legal community may be a good starting point to study American private law. Thus this author attempts to examine provisions of the US Restatement (Second) of Torts. This author considers that studying US civil jury system and its background is very important to understand US torts law. In this regard, this author studies 25 provisions of the US Restatement (Second) of Torts in this article. While focusing on torts provisions concerning civil jury, this author provides that the historical origin, cultural, legal background of civil jury, including the controversy of maintaining civil jury system in U.S. In addition, this author examines the good function of jury trial, and civil jury`s award of non-economic and punitive damages. Finally this author suggests what we may be able to obtain for Korean Civil Law after studying this American Civil Jury System.

민사특별법(民事特別法)의 쟁점(爭點) 공동불법행위자의 책임귀속과 책임분배에 대한 연구 -미국 불법행위 보통법전집 제3판 책임분배를 중심으로-

고세일 ( Se Il Ko ) 고려대학교 법학연구원 2014 고려법학 Vol.0 No.74

In Korean academic community, civil law scholars have argued the meaning of joint and solidarity of article 760 (liability of joint tortfeasor) of the Korean Civil Code for quite a long time. In addition, a large number of Korean scholars and courts have interpreted liabilityof joint tortfeasors as untrue solidarity liability. However, a small number of scholars have intended as just solidarity liability, after interpreting its literal context of the article. So far the article 760 of the Korean Civil Code has been understood as a provision of multiple tortfeasors with another issue: If one of multiple tortfeasors compensated entire damages to the injured party, he or she is entitled to seek contribution from other tortfeasors. However, there have been a few discussions concerning apportionment of liability based on fault among multiple tortfeasors in Korean academic society and in practice. Officially the Korean Office of Court Administration proposed a draft of apportionment of liability of joint tortfeasors in 2000, when the Korean Ministry of Justice attempted to amend the Korean Civil Code. Although recently the possibility of adapting apportionment of liability had been discussed, the final amendment draft has not accepted the apportionment liability of multiple tortfeasors. Yet in comparative law aspect, several countries have adopted apportionment liability into their Civil Codes or statutes. In addition, comparing with classical torts, modern torts have been more various and more complicated. Also merging intentional tortfeasors, gross negligent tortfeasors, and slightly negligent tortfeasors into just single category of tortfeasors, attributing them to entire tort liability would be unfair and injustice. In this respect, assigning shares of responsibility of multiple tortfeasors, would be good with the self-responsibility idea of private law. In this context, this author examines the American Restatement of Torts (Third) Apportionment of Liability, the most detailed provisions concerning attribution and apportionment of multiple tortfeasors, by the American Law Institute. This article consists of mainly four parts. InII, this author overviews the second and third of the American Torts Restatements, concerning liability of tortfeasors and then in III, explains basic rules of apportionment liability and comparative responsibility. In IV, this author examines liability of multiple tortfeasors for indivisible harm. Finally, in V, this author attempts to mention what Korean Civil Law would take from the American Torts Apportionment of Liability Restatement.

미국 계약법의 사정변경 법리

고세일(Ko Se il) 한국재산법학회 2014 재산법연구 Vol.31 No.2

영국과 미국 계약법은 '사정 변경'(change of circumstance)이란 용어를 쓴다. 그렇지만 우리 법의 사정변경 법리와 견줄 수 있는 것은 이행불능(impossibility), 이행곤란(impracticality), 계약목적 달성불능(frustration)이다. 이행불능을 가장 넓은 의미의 계약목적 달성불능으로 설명하기도 한다. 미국 계약법상 이행불능은 '물리적'인 불능을 뜻한다. 반면에 이행곤란은 물리적으로는 이행 가능하지만, 실질적 측면에서 이행할 수 없음을 뜻한다. 계약 당사자의 측면에서 '이행곤란'은 목적물 인도와 같이 물품제공 채무의 관점에서, '계약목적 달성불능'은 대금지금 채무의 관점에서 바라본 것이다. 보통법은 계약 당사자가 계약상 이행을 약정한 경우, 계약 당사자가 통제할 수 없는 외부 사건으로 이행불능이 되어도, 채무불이행에 대한 항변을 할 수 없었다. 그러나 이 경우에도 중요한 몇 가지 예외가 있었다. 보통법 법원은 19세기 후반 계약목적 달성불능 법리를 만들었다. 처음에는 계약이 이행불능이 되었으면, 계약 당사자를 더 이상 구속하지 않은 것으로 당사자가 의도했다는 '묵시적 조건'을 사용했다. 그런데 계약목적달성 불능 법리의 주춧돌은 1903년의 영국 판례 Krell v. Henry이다.항소법원은 대관식이 계약의 기초이고, 또한 계약 목적이 대관식이 행해지지 않음으로써 목적달성 불능으로 판단했다. 그 결과 임차인의 채무가 해소되었다고 하여, 임차인의 승소 판결을 내렸다. 미국 통일거래법전은 계약목적 달성불능 법리를 명시적으로 규정하지 않지만, 이 법리가 동산 계약에 적용된다고 해석한다. 미국 계약법 보통법전집 제1판과 제2판 모두 계약목적 달성불능 법리를 규정한다. 후발적인 이행곤란이나 계약목적 달성불능의 효과는 계약 당사자로 하여금 남아있는 이행의무를 해소시킨다. 기존 이행곤란이나 계약목적 달성의 효과는 계약 당사자가 자신의 이행의무를 하지 않도록 한다. 이 글은 크게 네 부분으로 이루어진다. II.에서는 미국 계약법의 사정변경 법리의 논의 내용으로 논의 기초와 역사적 흐름에서 이행불능을 살핀다. III.에서는 미국 계약법의 사정변경 법리의 요건을 고찰한다. 구체적으로 이행곤란과 계약목적 달성불능의 법리를 다룬다. IV.에서는 미국 계약법의 사정변경 법리의 효과를 설명한다. 마지막으로 V.에서는 미국 계약법의 사정변경 법리가 우리 법에 어떤 시사점을 주는 지를 살피고자 한다. The similar terms to the Korean doctrine of change of circumstance may be impossibility, impracticality of performance, and frustration of purpose in American Contract Law. The impossibility of performance may be explained as the largest category of frustration of purpose. The impossibility of performance means a physical impossible performance. In contrast, the impracticability means that a promisor is still able to perform what the promisor had undertaken, it has become very hard for her or him to perform in reality, after occurrence of unforeseeable supervening events. Generally, the doctrine of impracticability of performance may work for parties who are bound to furnish goods or services, while the doctrine of frustration of purpose may work for parties who are to pay money in return for those performances. The common law courts were less receptive to claims of excuse based on supervening events after parties had made their contracts than they were to claims of excuse based on facts that already existed when the parties had made at the time of their agreements. However, there had been three significant exceptions. From the second half of the 19th century common law courts developed the doctrine of frustration. At first it was put in the language of an 'implied term' in contracts. The contracting parties must have intended that their contract would no longer bind them if it became impossible to perform. The cornerstone of the doctrine of frustration of purpose is the English case of Krell v. Henry. In 1903 the Court of Appeal held for Henry on the ground that his duty to pay had been discharged because the coronation procession was the foundation of their contract, and the object of the contract was frustrated by the non-happening of the coronation and its procession on the days proclaimed. The American Uniform Commercial Code does not provide an express article concerning the doctrine of frustration of purpose. However there is no doubt that the doctrine of frustration of purpose would be applicable into sale contracts. The first and second American Restatement of Contracts provide the doctrine of frustration of purpose. The effect of impracticability and frustration of purpose discharge parties from remaining duties of performances. This article consists of four parts. In II, this author mentions concepts and historical aspects of the American doctrine of change of circumstance, and then explains impossibility of performance. In III, this author looks into the requirements of impracticability of performance and of frustration of purpose. In IV, this author examines the effects of impracticability of performance and of frustration of purpose. Finally this author attempts to propose what the American doctrine of impossibility, impracticability of performance, and frustration of purpose may provide for Korean Contract Law.

Non-Economic Damages in Breach of Contract Cases - Comparative Analysis of Korea, Germany, France, and the United States : 채무불이행의 경우 재산 아닌 손해배상 - 한국, 독일, 프랑스, 미국에 대한 비교법 고찰

Ko Se-il(고세일) 한국재산법학회 2007 재산법연구 Vol.24 No.2

가해자가 피해자에게 신체상 피해를 입히거나, 명예를 훼손할 때, 또는 사생활을 침해할 때, 피해자는 재산 손해뿐만 아니라 정신적 손해에 대한 배상을 청구할 수 있다. 그런데 정신적 손해는 볼 수 없고, 만질 수도 없다. 따라서 어떤 사안에 정신적 손해가 있는지에 대해서 법원이 이를 판단하기가 쉽지 않다. 이런 점에서 정신적 손해를 인정하려면 어떤 요건이 필요한지가 문제된다. 예를 들어 재산에 대한 침해나 동산을 인도하는 매매계약 위반에도 정신적 손해를 인정할 수 있을까? 우리나라에서 대다수의 민법학자는 재산침해나 계약위반에도 정신적 손해를 인정한다. 따라서 피해자는 가해자에게 정신적 손해에 대한 배상청구권을 행사할 수 있다고 한다. 이에 대해서 다음의 논거를 든다. 첫째, 피해자를 보호하기 위해서 계약법과 불법행위법을 구별할 필요가 없다. 둘째, 우리나라 대법원이 계약위반인 경우에도 정신적 손해에 대한 배상을 인정한다고 한다. 셋째, 우리 채무불이행의 일반규정인 제390조의 구조 때문에 정신적 손해를 인정한다고 한다. 마지막으로 전면적인 부정은 어렵고, 구체적인 경우에 경험칙으로 판단하여 인정할 수 있다고 한다. 글쓴이는 이런 점에서 이에 대한 여러 나라의 법운용 모습을 살펴본다. 먼저 독일은 법률 규정이 있을 때에만 정신적 손해배상을 인정한다. 그리고 2차 세계대전 뒤에 만든 인격권 이론에서도 정신적 손해에 대한 배상청구권을 제한 해석한다. 따라서 원칙적으로 재산침해나 채무불이행에 있어서 정신적 손해배상을 인정하지 않는다. 그리고 이런 정신은 2002년 독일 채권법개정에서도 나타난다고 할 수 있다. 프랑스는 청구권 경합 문제로 채무불이행의 경우에도 정신적 손해배상청구권을 인정한다. 그렇지만 이 경우에도 정신적 손해배상은 실제 손해배상이 아닌, 단지 상징적 의미만을 갖는다. 더욱이 프랑스 학자들도 정신적 손해를 사생활, 성명, 명예와 같은 인격적 법익침해에만 인정할 수 있는 손해로 판단한다. 이처럼 재산침해나 계약위반에 있어서 정신적 손해를 인정하지 않는 것은, 그 밖에 스위스, 스페인, 이탈리아에서도 고스란히 나타난다. 이는 대륙법만의 원칙이 아니다. 재산침해나 계약위반에서 미국법도 정신적 손해를 인정하지 않는다. 이런 생각은 미국 보통법전집(Restatement) 계약편 제353조에 잘 나타난다. 더 나아가 미국판례공보도 모든 주가 재산침해나 계약을 위반할 때 정신적 손해배상을 인정하지 않는 것을 보여준다. 따라서 원칙적으로 “인격적 법익”을 갖지 않으면, 정신적 손해배상을 인정하지 않는다. 그러므로 일반적으로 재산침해나 “인격적 법익”을 갖지 않은 계약을 위반할 때, 정신적 손해배상을 인정하지 않는 것이 대륙법이나 미국법의 일반원칙이다.

토지 점유자, 매도인, 임대인의 과실 불법행위 책임 -미국 불법행위 보통법전집 제2판의 규정을 중심으로-

고세일 ( Se Il Ko ) 안암법학회 2015 안암 법학 Vol.0 No.47

In United States, there have been various sources of laws including positive laws. Further there have been various Restatements in which many members of American Law Institute have discussed and drafted. Although the Restatements may not be positive laws, they have worked similar functions as positive laws have done. Most of US law schools have used the Restatements as one of most important materials for their students’ education, and US courts have cited many provisions of the Restatements to make decisions in various civil cases. In this regard, this author has estimated that the Restatements would be a good guide to understand American law: structure and contents. Therefore this author has chosen the Restatements of Torts (Second) to show the foundation of current American Tort law, while focusing negligence as a founding part of American Tort law. In this aspect, this author attempts to explain principal provisions of liability for condition and use of land in negligence of US Restatements of Torts: mainly sections 328E through 387. This article has four parts. In II of this article, this author explains basic concepts of negligent tort liability for condition and use of land. In III, this author mentions concrete negligent tort liability of possessor, vendor and lessor for condition and use of their land, while providing the contents of sections, comments and illustrations. In IV, this author summarizes the contents of negligence provisions, sections 328E through 387 for condition and land use of the Restatements of Torts. Finally this author attempts to suggest what Korean Tort law, which has Civil Law tradition may be able to learn from the negligent tort liability provisions of the Restatement of Torts, which has Common Law tradition.

저작인격권에 대한 비교법 고찰

고세일 ( Se Il Ko ) 안암법학회 2008 안암 법학 Vol.0 No.26

대륙법에서 징벌적 손해배상 논의 -민법의 관점에서-

高世一 ( Se Il Ko ) 법조협회 2014 法曹 Vol.63 No.1

Traditionally punitive damages have been awarded in the legal system, which the Common Law Countries have adopted with their historic background and traditions. In this regard, the arguable damages may not go with the Civil Law system. However, recently several Civil Law Countries have discussed whether or not the punitive damages may be accepted in their legal systems. Further a small number of Civil Law Countries, such as France and China have adopted punitive damages for their societies. In Korea, there have been arguments over whether or not the punitive damages have been necessary in her legal system: such as, if the damages are accepted, they must be enacted in the Korean Civil Code as a general provision, or the punitive damages may be introduced in specific statutes. In the meanwhile, the punitive damages were adopted in the Korean Fair Transactions in Subcontracting Act in September 2012. In this aspect, this author attempts to examine how the punitive damages of the Common Law System may work for the Korean Legal System, which has had the civil law tradition. This article has four parts. First, it discusses that how the American punitive damages, which have played a central role in a modern society among the Common Law Countries, have worked in American society. Second, it examines why Civil Law Countries have attempted to adopt the punitive damages and how they have tried to legalize the punitive damages, which have been recognized as a Common Law institute. Third, it studies the punitive damages in the Korean Fair Transactions in Subcontracting Act and discussions of the controversial punitive damages in Korean society. Finally while summarizing the pros and cons of punitive damages, this author attempts to propose that punitive damages would be mainly substituted by non-economic damages in Korean legal system.

인터넷 거래와 실체법 규범 - 유엔 통일매매법의 가능성 : 인터넷 거래와 실체법 규범

고세일(Se-il Ko) 한국비교사법학회 2007 比較私法 Vol.14 No.4

The Internet has changed people’s everyday life in many ways. The largest network in the world has influenced every aspect of social. economic and political systems. Additionally the Internet has affected people’s patterns of buying and selling goods. With new developments in technology, the use of Internet Commerce has been more convenient and online commerce has provided virtual environments in which a buyer may experience buying in a manner similar to an offline shop. Thus the Internet Commerce market has increased astronomically year after year. However, considering the speed of the technology developments, Internet Commerce laws are still in their early stages. In this article, this author defines Internet Commerce and shows characteristics of the Internet Commerce. Additionally this author explains current Internet Commerce laws, while mentioning advantages and disadvantages of them. Most current Internet Commerce laws, including the UNCITRAL model law on electronic commerce or the European Union’s Electronic Commerce Directive, have only concentrated on technical and procedural aspects of Internet Commerce. However, for better regulation of the growing Internet Commerce, this author has considered that a substantial uniform law for Internet Commerce, especially in international transactions area, may be possible and also necessary. Thus, this author explains the necessity of a substantive Internet Commerce Model Law. While considering substantive norms, this author chooses the CISG as a starting point for an Internet Commerce Model Law as a substantive part of the Internet Commerce Model Law. Consequently this author uses the concept of “mixture of the CISG and the UNCITAL Model Law” for the Internet Commerce Model Law. Further his author proposes the Internet Commerce Model Law as a Modem or Digital Lex Mercatoria for regulation of domestic and international online transactions.