중국 불법행위법의 최근동향에 관한 연구 : 불법행위책임법(2009년)의 구성과 주요내용을 중심으로

김성수(Seong-Soo Kim) 한국비교사법학회 2010 비교사법 Vol.17 No.2

The purpose of this study is to survey the Tort Liability Act, passed on december 26, 2009, will take effect on July 1, 2010(hereafter, the Tort Act). China has made the Civil Code since 2002, which is not completed but is developing step by step, followed by the Contract Act(1999) and the Real Rights Act(2007). The Tort Liability Act is one of the most important law field of the Civil Code of China, because the Tort law protects the private rights and interests. The Tort Act is mainly based on existing provisions, such as the general Principles of the Civil Law, the Act on Protection of Consumenr Rights, the Product Quality Law, etc and some judicial interpretations of the supreme court. Especially, it affirms, modifies and elaborates the he general Principles of the Civil Law(1986). Before its proclamation, there were two official drafts, the first in 2002, and the second in 2008, which are mainly the some with the Tort law, and several private drafts. The Tort Act contains 12 chapters with 92 provisions,as follows : General provisions(chapter 1)ㆍConstituting liability and methods of assuming liability(ch. 2) ㆍCircumstances to waive and mitigate liability(ch. 3)ㆍSpecial provisions on tortfeasors(ch. 4)ㆍProduct liabilityㆍ(ch. 5)ㆍLiability for motor vehicle traffic accident(ch. 6)ㆍLiability for medical malpractice(ch. 7)ㆍLiability for environmental pollution(ch. 8)ㆍLiability for ultra-hazardous activity(ch. 9)ㆍLiability for harm caused by domestic animal(ch. 10)ㆍLiability for harm caused by object(ch. 11)ㆍ Supplementary provision(ch. 12). Compared to the Korean Civil Code,which under the part of obligations(part III), provides, concurrently, a contract and a tort, the Tort Act has no part of obligations, but has only the contract act and the tort act. According to the Tort Act, one who is at fault for infringement upon a civil right of another person shall be subject to the tort liability(article 2). It also covers infringements of personal rights, such as name, reputation, portrait, privacy and etc. The principle of tort liability on the basis of general provisions, is universally accepted. The default rule of the liability is the fault liability and in exception of the presumption of fault and no-fault liability without fault(articles 6and 7). The tort act contains, in its general part, criteria for liability, compensation for damages, defenses and mental damages, as well as in its specific part, product liability, motor vehicle accident liability, internet service provider liability, medical malpractice, environmental pollution liability, liability for ultra-hazardous activity and liability for damage caused by animals or by objects. It has also special provisions such as liability of persons with diminished capacity, joint and several liability of the joint tortfeasors. Introducing punitive damages is also one of its key features. All these are the result of the unification of related provisions which are currently found in many fields. Its new and revolutionary approach and contents will be very suggestive for us preparing the reform of our code civil since 2009, although it seems to have a some lack of harmony in it.

‘불법행위책임’과 ‘형사책임’ 체계의 분별에 대한 필요성 연구* - ‘책임능력’을 중심으로 -

가정준(Ka, Jung-Joon) 한국재산법학회 2018 재산법연구 Vol.35 No.2

This paper emphases that tort law should be different from criminal law. This is because the tort law should be framed based on victims while criminal law based on actors. ‘Criminal Liability’ is based on the principle of contra value behavior , which determines how to decide whether to punish an act. Tort Liability’ is based on the principle of ‘contra value consequence’ which determines who is burdened with damages. In other words, Criminal Liability is focused on whether it is rational to punish an actor for his action regardless of outcome. It can be said that ‘Criminal Liability’ is a system based on the perpetrator. ‘Tort Liability’ is focused on whether it is rational to impose liability regardless of whose action. It can be said that ‘Tort Liability’ is a system based on the victim. This paper is centralized with the defense of tort liability, the competency of ‘Tort Liability’. It is started with the comparison to the competency of ‘Criminal Liability’. The competency of ‘Tort Liability’ is supposed to differ from the competency of ‘Criminal Liability’ because of their characteristics. In fact, tort law and criminal law are similar to each in the point of view that both of them have played a role to interfere with socially unaccepted behaviors. Futhermore, tort law has traditionally followed the frame and interpretation of criminal law. Because of these, it is likely that the issue of competency in tort law is based on the stance of criminal law. Eventually, tort law in other countries has been independent of criminal law in a different and diverse ways. The regulation and interpretation for the competency of ‘Tort Liability’ is an excellent example how much tort law is different from criminal law. It comes from the competency of ‘Criminal Liability’ such as the minority and insanity. This issue in criminal law makes it likely to exempt from criminal liability because it is about the blamefulness of an actor. If he or she is not qualified to understand penal penalty, his or her criminal liability is unlikely imposed. The competency of ‘Tort Liability’ is supposed to be totally different from one of ‘Criminal Liability’. This is because the victim must be endured with his or her damage if the actor is excused with his or her tortious liability. Two kinds of responses are shown in most of jurisdictions. First, the competency of ‘Tort Liability’ has basically followed with the competency of ‘Criminal Liability’. The minor or insane actor is excused with his or her tortious liability like in criminal law and his or her legal supervisor is vicariously liable for his or her protege instead. Second, the competency of ‘Tort Liability’ is not allowed contrary to criminal law. Basically the actor is liable for his or her tortious outcome regardless of his or her age or mental deficiency and additionally his or her legal supervisor is jointly and severally liable for his or her protege. The second option is more likely to protect tortious victims than the first option. The second one is based on the protection of victim while the first one on the protection of actor. The first one is a traditional point of view based on criminal law while the second one is an independent point of view from criminal law. European law and common law is close to the second option while Korean and Japanese law to the first option. This article has studied to find out how much tort law in Korea is different from criminal law and what tort law in Korea has pursued by comparing other jurisdictions. 본 논문은 ‘불법행위법’상 ‘책임능력’을 비교법적으로 고찰함으로써 ‘불법행위법’의 의미를 다시 한 번 깊게 고찰해 보고자 하였다. 무엇보다도 ‘불법행위법’은 피해자를 중심으로 구성되어야 하는 법이고 ‘형법’은 행위자를 중심으로 구성되어야 하는 법이라는 시각 에서 출발한다. 우리 민법에서 ‘책임능력’은 가해자의 불법행위를 원인으로 발생한 피해 자의 손해를 배상받기 위한 전제 조건으로 작동한다. 이러한 ‘책임능력’의 존재는 ‘불법행 위법’이 ‘형법’과 같이 가해자 중심의 법체계를 이루고 있는 증거라고 할 수 있다. 본 논문은 ‘책임능력’과 관련하여 일본, 대만, 독일, 프랑스 민법, ‘DCFR’, 그리고 영미 법을 비교 고찰해 보았다. 이러한 비교법적 고찰을 통해 프랑스의 민법이 피해자 중심의 ‘불법행위법’ 체계라는 것과 우리나라와 일본 민법은 가해자 중심의 ‘불법행위법’ 체계라는 것을 알 수 있었다. 반면 ‘DCFR’의 내용은 가해자와 피해자 측면을 중립적으로 반영 하였으나 그 중심은 피해자 보호였다. ‘불법행위법’은 가해자 중심의 법체계가 아님은 주지의 사실이기에 우리 민법의 ‘불법행위법’은 ‘책임능력’에 관하여 ‘형법’과 다른 기준과 해석을 나름 제시하고 있다. 그럼에도 불구하고 우리 민법은 적극적으로 가해자가 아닌 피해자 중심의 규정과 해석을 제공하지 못하는 것 같다. 이를 다른 법계에서의 ‘책임능력’ 과 비교․분석하여 보았다. 최근 미성년자의 불법행위의 형태는 좀 더 성인화될 뿐만 아니라 좀 더 이른 나이에서 성인들의 불법행위 모습이 발견된다. 따라서 미성년자의 경우에는 그 감독의무자의 주의 의무와 감독자책임은 좀 더 가중되어야 피해자 보호에 도움이 될 것이다. 스트레스와 정신질환의 증가 그리고 기대수명이 늘어나면서 심신장애는 과거보다 늘어날 것으로 예상된다. 이러한 심신장애의 원인은 일시적인 경우, 예상치 못한 경우, 심지어 예상이 가능한 경우 등으로 다양하다. 다양한 원인의 심신장애와 높아질 발생 가능성 등을 고려해 보았을 때 심신장애자의 ‘책임능력’을 강화하는 것이 그 감독자에게 책임을 가중시키는 것 보다 피해자 보호에 도움이 될 것이다. 본 논문은 미성년자와 심신장애자의 ‘책임능력’을 기본적으로 부인하는 ‘형법’의 태도를 ‘불법행위법’에서는 어떻게 수용해야 하는 것이 합리적인지를 비교법적 검토를 통해 살펴보았다. ‘불법행위법’은 불법행위를 원인을 발생한 손해를 가해자, 피해자, 제3자 중누가 부담하는지를 결정하는 법체계이다. 많은 부분 규범적인 내용을 담고 있지만 경우에 따라 ‘불법행위법’은 가해자의 책임을 규범적으로 결정하지 않는 경우도 있다. 미성년자와 심신장애자의 ‘책임능력’을 정책적으로 접근해 나아가는 것은 규범적 측면에서 불편할수 있다. 하지만 ‘불법행위법’을 규범적 측면에서 바라보지 않아야 하는 분야를 빨리 찾아 내어 이를 발전시키는 것이 ‘불법행위법’의 역할을 확대하는데 큰 도움이 될 것이다. 본논문이 ‘불법행위법’을 바로 보는 기본적인 시각을 재정립하는 데 일조하는데 도움이 되었기를 바란다.

인공지능과 불법행위책임

최경진(Kyoungjin Choi) 한국정보법학회 2021 정보법학 Vol.25 No.2

기술이 발전함에 따라 과거에는 상상에 그쳤던 인공지능이 점차 일상생활 속으로들어오고 있다. 인공지능이 사회·경제 각 분야에 접목됨으로써 인공지능에 대한 법적 규율에 대하여도 관심이 높아지고 있다. 또한 인공지능의 수준이 점점 더 고도화됨에 따라 법적 규율에 있어서도 변화가 발생할 것으로 예상된다. 인공지능의 활용에따른 민사법상의 책임문제도 그 중의 하나이다. 인공지능과 관련한 불법행위책임의 문제는 민법상 일반 불법행위책임으로부터 제조물책임, 공작물책임, 자동차손해배상보장법 상의 자동차사고 책임에 이르기까지 다양하게 나타난다. 인공지능은 불법행위책임에 새로운 도전으로 다가왔지만, 어떻게 불법행위책임을 인정할 것인가와 관련해서는 일반 불법행위책임의 성립요건인고의·과실, 위법성, 인과관계, 손해, 책임의 주체 등에 대하여 근본적인 검토를 한 후에 종래의 법해석에 의하여 해결하기 어려운 문제가 확인된 경우에 인공지능의 특성을 고려한 해석론 혹은 입법론적 접근을 하는 것이 바람직하다. 이 글에서는 일반 불법행위책임 측면에서 인공지능을 둘러싼 고의·과실이나 위법성 등의 의미를 살펴보고, 특수 불법행위책임 측면에서의 인공지능의 규율 가능성과 한계 등을 살펴보았다. 일반 불법행위책임이나 민법 및 특별법 상의 특수 불법행위책임에 의한 해결을 최대한 먼저 시도해보아야 한다. 그럼에도 기술적 특성이 강해서 일반적인 증명이 쉽지않거나 실제 생명·신체·재산에 대한 인공지능의 위험성이 높은 경우에는 제한적범위 내에서 강화된 책임을 단계별로 인정하는 것은 향후 깊이 검토할 필요가 있다. 또한 앞서 살펴본 바와 같이 인공지능을 포함한 디지털제품에 대하여 종래의 제조물책임법을 개정해서 포섭할 것인지 그렇지 않으면 별도의 ‘디지털제조물책임법’을 제정할 것인지에 대하여도 깊이 있는 논의가 필요하다. 이러한 논의들은 서로 긴밀히 관련되어 있기 때문에 인공지능과 관련한 과도한 책임법의 범람을 지양하기 위해서라도 일반 불법행위책임으로 다룰 수 있는 영역과 구체적인 요건·효과, 종래 특수 불법행위책임의 적용을 위한 요건 및 효과, 제조물책임법 등 특별법 상의 인공지능에 대한 규율 등을 종합적이고도 정밀하게 검토하면서 상호간에 보충적인 작용을 하면서 적절히 인공지능으로 인한 불법행위책임을 규율할수 있는 연구와 입법적 논의가 진행되어야 할 것이다. 향후 다각적이고 깊이 있는 연구를 통하여 인공지능의 변화 속도에 발맞춰서 적절한 규율체계를 정립해나는데 이글이 논의의 기초가 되길 기대한다. As technology advances, artificial intelligence, which was only imaginary in the past, is gradually entering our daily life. As artificial intelligence is applied to various fields of society and economy, interest in legal regulations on artificial intelligence is also increasing. In addition, as the level of artificial intelligence becomes more and more advanced, it is expected that changes will also occur in legal regulations. One of them is the issue of liability under the civil law for the use of artificial intelligence. The problem of tort liability related to artificial intelligence is diverse, ranging from general tort liability under the Civil Act to product liability, work piece liability, and automobile accident liability under the Automobile Damage Compensation Act. Artificial intelligence has come as a new challenge to tort liability, but in relation to how to recognize tort liability, it is first reviewed from the point of view of general tort liability. It is desirable to adopt a new interpretation or legislative approach considering the characteristics of artificial intelligence. This article examines the meaning of intention, negligence, and illegality surrounding artificial intelligence in terms of general tort liability, and examines the possibility and limitations of civil regulation on artificial intelligence in terms of special tort liability. The resolution of general tort liability or special tort liability under civil and special laws should be attempted first. Nevertheless, in cases where general proof is not easy due to strong technical characteristics, or when the risk of artificial intelligence to real life, body, or property is high, it is necessary to consider in depth the acknowledgment of reinforced responsibility step by step within a limited scope. In addition, it is necessary to discuss in depth whether or not to revise and include the existing Product Liability Act for digital products including artificial intelligence or to enact a separate ‘Digital Product Liability Act’. Since these discussions are closely related, various types of tort liability should be comprehensively and precisely reviewed in order to avoid the overflow of excessive liability laws related to artificial intelligence. In addition, research and legislative discussions should be conducted to properly regulate liability for torts caused by artificial intelligence while complementing each other. It is hoped that this article will serve as a basis for future in-depth research and establishing an appropriate discipline system for the pace of change in artificial intelligence.

불법행위법의 확장과 의료과오책임의 현대적 동향

김천수 사법발전재단 2012 사법 Vol.1 No.21

불법행위법은 그 적용영역을 확장하여 왔고, 그러한 모습의 하나로 등장한 것이 의료과오책임이다. 불법행위법이 규율하는 영역이 확장하는 모습은 보호법익, 위험책임, 구제방법 그리고 전문가책임 등의 관점에서 분석될 수 있다. 불법행위법으로 보호하는 법익은 신체적 및 재산적 법익의 중심에서 정신적 법익으로 심화되고 환경적 법익으로 확대되어 왔다. 현대사회에 들어서면서 인격권의 재산적 가치가 인식되어 퍼블리시티권과 같은 법익의 혼합이라는 현상도 나타났다. 법익의 충돌로 인한 수인한도론도 현대불법행위의 특징이라고 하겠다. 위험책임을 과실책임의 예외로서가 아니라 그 대등한 위치에서 이해하는 흐름도 불법행위법의 주요 변화라 할 것이다. 불법행위 피해의 구제방법이 확대되는 양상으로 원상회복청구권을 일반적인 구제방법으로 입법화하는 논의와 함께 종래 학설 판례에서 인정되어 온 금지청구권의 근거 규정을 신설하는 입법론이 있으며, 이러한 구제방법의 확대 특히 후자의 경우는 불법행위법의 확장에 기여하는 것이다. 분업화에 따른 전문화의 심화로 전문가불법행위라는 현대형 불법행위 영역이 형성되었고 그 고유의 법리가 전개되어 왔다. 이러한 전문가책임이 논의되는 대표적 직역이 의료인이며, 그 책임인 의료과오책임은 진료과오책임과 설명해태책임으로 이루어진다. 법익의 관점에서 설명의무가 보호하고자 하는 알 권리와 자기결정권의 부각은 의료과오책임의 동향을 논의함에 빠뜨릴 수 없는 요소이다. 나아가서 기형아가 자신의 출생을 손해로 주장하는 형국에서 생명 내지 출생 자체가 가지는 가치에 대한 논의가 손해배상법에 등장하였다. 한편 증명의 관점에서 진료과오책임의 과실과 인과관계의 증명책임을 완화시킨 대법원판결은 그 의미가 과장되게 인식되는 측면이 있다. 이 판결에서 완화된 증명의 기준은 예외적인 상황에서 적용되는 것이고, 여전히 증명의 원칙은 전문성 기준에서 판단된다는 점을 간과하여서는 안 된다. 그리고 진료과오책임에 대한 계약법적 접근과 불법행위법적 접근 사이에 과실에 대한 증명책임의 귀속이 동일하다는 수단채무론이 오래 전에 주장되었고 학설은 이를 대체로 수용한다. 하지만 이를 이의 없이 받아들이는 것은 문제이다. 기왕증 및 진단과오가 경합한 경우의 문제는 세 유형으로 나누어 논의를 전개할 수 있다. 즉 오진이 결과를 비로소 야기한 결과초래형, 오진 없이도 초래될 결과를 오진이 가중시킨 결과가중형, 오진으로 동일한 내용의 결과가 발생할 확률이 높아진 확률증가형을 나누어 각각의 쟁점을 검토하는 것이 논의를 보다 정교하게 전개함에 필요하다. The boundary of tort coverage is expanding, and one example is the emergence of the medical malpractice liability rule. Such expansions are also discovered in various areas including legal interests, strict liability, remedies and professional liability. The interests protected by tort law was originally the physical interests concerning the body and property. It is not very long since tort law began to protect emotional and environmental interests. The modern trend in tort law is also found in the publicity right, which results in confusion of two interests including personal one and property one. The conflict of legal interests is one of the many characteristics of modern tort law. A major change in tort law theory is a trend towards understanding strict liability rule as one of the tort law principles including negligence liability rule. A remedy of injunction has been suggested in Korea to be accepted in tort law, although the remedy could be available even without any fault. The specialization in modern society has formed the professional liability rule in the tort liability. The medical provider is one of such typical professions. The professional liability in that case is the medical malpractice liability, which is composed of medical negligence liability and liability for breach of duty to disclose. The latter liability theory provided the patient's right to be informed, as well as right to self-determination to the interests protected by tort law. The actions of wrongful birth and wrongful life triggered the argument about the value of human life itself. The precedent concerning the Korean Supreme Court about proof of medical negligence and cause in fact is one of the precedents which many academics have argued over intensively. The standard of proof established in the precedent should be taken as a exceptional one, not the principle of the proof. In principle, the general rule of proof in tort law should be applied to the proof of medical negligence and cause, aside from special situations under which the precedent could be made. There are two alternatives in the cause of action of the medical liability: liability could be claimed for breach of contract as well as for delict. It has been improperly suggested that the two approaches have the same principle of proof of medical negligence, especially regarding medical liability. This paper criticizes the approach. There are three types in the cases where the results were a combination of the patient's physical conditions and the physician's negligent diagnosis. The first case is where the negligent diagnosis merely triggers the result; the second is the case where the negligent diagnosis exaggerates the result caused by the physical conditions; the last one is where the negligent diagnosis makes the probability of the result higher.

중국 불법행위의 책임귀속원칙에 관한 연구 -불법행위책임법(2009년)의 내용을 중심으로-

김성수 한중법학회 2010 中國法硏究 Vol.14 No.-

The purpose of this study is to survey the principle of liability imputation in the Tort Liability Act of China, passed on december 26, 2009, which takes effect on July 1, 2010(hereafter, the Tort Act). To begin with, we introduce the discussion about the various views about the principle of liability imputation, with a brief survey of its provisions. In general, liability with fault and the non-fault based liability are admitted as principle of liability imputation. Nevertheless, the presumption of fault liability and the equitable liability are still in the dispute, even after the tort act is enacted. The present tort act has some articles about this issue, in its general part. According to them, if any person, through his own fault, infringes on other people’s civil rights and interests, he shall assume the tort liability(article 6, paragraph 1). This defines the liability with fault, which is totally same with the General Principles of the Civil Law of the people’s Republic of China(1986)(hereafter, the GPCL)(article 106, paragraph 2). If the person is presumed to be at fault according to the law, and he is unable to prove that he is not at fault, then he shall assume the tort liability(article 6, paragraph 2), which is regulated in the same article, and treats it as the presumption of fault liability and was newly added into the tort act. Third, about the non-fault based liability, if any person infringes on other people’s civil rights and interests, and any legal provision specifies that he shall assume the tort liability, such provision shall govern, whether such * Associate Professor, National Police University, Doctor in Law169) person is at fault or not at fault(article 7). It has come from the GPCL(article 106, paragraph 3). Finally, the equitable liability is defined: if both the victim and the person who commits the act are free of any fault with respect to the occurrence of damages, the two parties may share the loss in light of the actual situation(article 24). It is recognized as one of the methods of assuming liability(the latter half of chapter 2), on the other hand, another 3 are all defined as one of the constitution of liability(the former half of chapter 2). Next, we move to the specific part of the tort act, examine every special torts, what principle they take in some detail and the dispute, mainly between the liability with fault and the non-fault based liability, for example, product liability, motor vehicle accident liability, internet service provider liability, medical malpractice, environmental pollution liability, liability for ultra-hazardous activity and liability for damage caused by animals or by objects. It also recognizes the coexistence of the 2 or 3 principles of Liability Imputation in one special tort. In contrast, formerly only one principles is given in a special tort, so diversity and flexibility is also one of key features of the new act. Taken together, this study shows that the present tort act is mainly based on existing provisions, such as the general Principles of the Civil Law etc and some judicial interpretations of the supreme court. But some new principles are also created. Seen in this perspective, the tradition and new creation are simultaneously pursued. Compared to the Korean Civil Code, which defines only the fault liability the default rule of the liability(article 750) and the presumption of fault as its exception in the several provisons, not in general part, this study offers a new approach and more contents, which are very suggestive for us preparing the reform of our code civil since 2009.

프랑스법상 신체손해에 대한 책임 – 불법행위책임에 관한 프랑스 민법개정안을 중심으로 –

정윤아 서강대학교 법학연구소 2024 서강법률논총 Vol.13 No.2

프랑스의 불법행위책임법은 프랑스민법전 제3권 제3편 제2부속편(계약외책임) 제1 장(일반 계약외책임)의 5개 조항(제1240조 내지 제1244조)을 그 근거로 하고 있다. 위규정들은 1804년 제정 이후 큰 변화가 없었으나, 그동안 판례는 피해자에 대한 배상을더욱 확대하는 방향으로 불법행위책임제도를 변화시켰고, 점차 성문법이 불법행위책임의 현실을 반영하지 못하게 되자 불법행위책임법 개정에 대한 요구가 대두되었다. 2005년에는 채권법 개정안인 카딸라안(avant-projet Catala)이, 2008년에는 떼레안(avant-projet Terré)이, 2010년에는 로랑 베떼이으(Laurent Béteille) 교수의 개정안이각 제출되었으나, 법무부는 2016년 계약법 개정을 끝낸 후인 2017년 3월 17일에서야불법행위책임에 대한 개정안을 제출하였고, 드디어 상원안이 2020. 7. 29. 제출되었다. 카딸라안은 비계약적 불법행위책임에 대한 3개의 일반조항을 유지하면서 계약책임과불법행위책임을 통일하고자 하였으나, 떼레안은 계약책임과 불법행위책임을 구별하고, 신체손해를 비계약적 책임으로 규정하며, 주요한 특수 불법행위(délits spéciaux)의 목록을 작성하였다. 위 2017년 법무부 개정안은 카딸라안과 떼레안에서 영감을 받은 것이다. 이러한 개정안들에서 가장 중요한 위치를 차지하는 주제가 신체손해이다. 신체완전성에 대한 보호는 문명사회에서 근본 윤리이다. 21세기에 들어 과학과 기술의 발달로인간의 신체완전성에 대한 위협이 더욱 커지면서 신체손해에 대한 권리의 중요성이 더욱 부각되었다. 프랑스민법전 제1240조는 “타인에게 손해를 야기하는 인간의 모든 행위는 어떠한 행위이든 과책으로 손해를 발생시킨 자에게 그 손해를 배상할 의무를 부과한다.”고 규정함으로써 피해자에게 가해자의 과책(faute)에 대한 입증책임을 부담시키고 있으나, 실무는 점차 피해자들의 입증책임을 감경시키고 피해자들에게 신체손해에 대한 권리를 넓게 인정해 주는 방향으로 발전해왔다. 2017년 법무부 개정안은 신체손해에 대한 배상 규정들을 명확히 하고 있다. 이전까지 신체손해 배상을 위한 특별한 수단이었던 안전의무를 없애고, 계약외책임에 대한규정들이 신체손해에 적용되도록 하였다. 또한 신체손해의 경우에는 피해자 등의 중과실로 인해서만 책임의 일부를 면제할 수 있도록 하여 신체손해의 배상을 용이하게 하고자 하였다. 2020년 상원안은 위 2017년 법무부 개정안에 비해 혁신적인 면에서는 약간 후퇴한면이 있지만, 여전히 신체손해를 넓게 인정하고 피해자를 보호하며 일률적인 신체손해의 평가기준은 마련하려는 의지를 표현하고 있다. 2020년 상원안은 신체손해의 개념을직접 정의하고, 피해자 사이의 평등을 강화하며, 배상과 관련한 개선을 규정했다는 점에서 큰 진전을 보여주었다. French tort liability law is based on five articles (Articles 1240 to 1244) of Chapter 1 (General Extra-Contractual Liability) of Part Ⅱ (Extra-Contractual Liability) of Title Ⅲ of Book Ⅲ of the French Civil Code. While these provisions have remained largely unchanged since their enactment in 1804, case law has changed the tort liability system in favor of greater compensation for victims, and as the codification gradually ceased to reflect the realities of tort liability, calls for revisions to the Tort Liability Act have emerged. In 2005, the avant-projet Catala was submitted, in 2008, the avant-projet Terré was submitted, and in 2010, Professor Laurent Béteille's amendment was submitted, but the Ministry of Justice did not submit an amendment to the Law of Tort Liability until March 17, 2017, after completing the revision of the Contract law in 2016, and the Senate bill was finally submitted on July 29, 2020. While the Catala projet sought to unify contractual and tort liability while retaining the three general provisions on non-contractual tort liability, the Terré projet distinguished between contractual and tort liability, defined bodily injury as a non-contractual liability, and created a list of major special torts. The above 2017 Ministry of Justice amendments were inspired by Catala projet and Terré projet. The subject of body injury occupies the most prominent place in these amendments. The protection of body integrity is a fundamental ethic in a civilized society. In the 21st century, the development of science and technology has increased the threats to human body integrity, making the right to body injury even more relevant. Contrary to the main principles of tort liability law stipulated by the French Civil Code, a practice has gradually been established that broadly recognizes the right to body injury in favor of victims. The 2017 Ministry of Justice amendments clarify the rules for compensation for body injury. It eliminates the duty of care, which was previously a special means of compensating for body injury. The rules on extra-contractual liability were made applicable to body injury. In addition, the bill seeks to facilitate compensation for body injury by making it possible to exempt a portion of liability for body injury only due to gross negligence of the victim. While the 2020 Senate bill is a step backward in terms of innovation compared to the 2017 amendment above, it still expresses a desire to broadly recognize body injury, protect victims, and establish a uniform standard for assessing body injury. The 2020 Senate bill represents a significant step forward in that it directly defines the concept of body injury, strengthens equality among victims, and provides for improvements in restitution.

「중화인민공화국 민법전 불법행위책임편」(제7편)(2020년) ― 中华人民共和国民法典侵权责任编의 일반론과 조문내용을 중심으로 ―

김성수 전남대학교 법학연구소 2020 법학논총 Vol.40 No.3

This paper examines the legal system and the provisions of the Part on Tort Liability(Part 7) of the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China(2020)(hereafter the Civil Code). The Code was adopted on May 28, 2020, and will take effect on January 1, 2021. Since the General Part Law of China in 2017 as the first step, each part of the Civil Code was discussed as the second step and passed in May 2020. The Civil Code composes seven parts with 1,260 articles in total, as follows: general rules(Part I),property rights(Part II),contracts(Part III), rights of personality (Part IV)), marriage and family(Part V), succession(Part VI), tort liability(Part VII), and supplementary provisions. Instead of repealing the existing civil laws(acts) and regulations, the Civil Code is based on them and adds and changes it with more cohesive and more detailed provisions. Among them, the Part on Tort Liabiliy(hereafter the Part) is the last of the Civil Code(Part 7) and is established as a general remedy for rights violations in each Part of the Civil Code. The Part composes 10 Chapters as follows: general provisions (Chapter 1), compensation for damage(Chapter 2), special provisions on the subject of tort liability(Chapter 3), product liability(Chapter 4), liability for motor vehicle traffic accident(Chapter 5), liability for medical malpractice(Chapter 6), liability for environmental pollution and ecological harm (Chapter 7), liability for ultrahazardous activity(Chapter 8), liability for harm caudse by domestic animals(Chapter 9) and liability for harm caused by object(Chapter 10). The Part is also basically based on the current Tort Law of the People’s Republic of China(2010) and also includes some new provisions. Some Chapter titles are also added or changed. For example, on added in Chapter VII as follows: Environmental Pollution and Ecological Destruction Liability from the current title(Environmental Pollution Liability). It emphasizes the modern trends in the Ecological Society. In particular, we focus on the contents of the provisions by translating it all in Korean, for future research of each part and its particular systems. As a recent legislative work and for a comparative study, it will give good implications to the legislative work of the Korean civil law in the sphere of Tort. 이 글은 최근 제정된 중화인민공화국 민법전의 불법행위책임편(제7편)(2020년)의 편별체계와 조문내용을 살펴본 것이다. 중화인민공화국 민법전은 2020년 5월 28일 통과되어 2021년 1월 1일부터 시행될 예정이다. 이 민법전은 제정과정을 2단계로 하여 그 1단계로 2017년 민법총칙 제정 이후에 제2단계로 민법전의 각 편의 심의가 진행되어 최종 통과되었다. 이 민법전은 7개 편과 부칙으로 모두 1,260개의 조문으로 되어 있다. 각각의 편은 제1편 총칙(제1편), 물권(제2편), 계약(제3편), 인격권(제4편), 혼인가정(제5편), 상속(제6편)과 불법행위책임(제7편)이다. 최종 마련된 중화인민공화국 민법전은 그 편별체계나 조문내용에서 기본적으로 전면혁신보다는 현행법을 기본적으로 답습하면서 필요한 부분을 수정보완하는 형태를 취하고 있다. 이중에서 불법행위책임편은 민법전의 마지막 편(제7편)으로 특히 각칙편의 권리침해가 있을 경우의 일반적 권리구제방법으로서 위치하고 있다. 불법행위책임편의 각각의 장은 일반규정(제1장), 손해배상(제2장), 책임주체에 관한 특별규정(제3장), 제조물책임(제4장), 자동차교통사고책임(제5장), 의료손해책임(제6장), 환경오염과 생태환경 손해책임(제7장), 고위험책임(제8장), 사육하는 동물 손해책임(제9장)과 건물과 물건손해책임(제10장)이다. 불법행위편도 기본적으로 현행 불법행위책임법(2010년)의 규정을 기초로하면서도 약간의 규정을 신설하였고 몇몇 장의 제목이 추가되거나 변경되었다. 예를 들면 제7장은 ‘환경오염책임’에서 ‘환경오염과 생태환경 손해책임’으로 변경되었다. 이는 현대사회의 생태사회의 경향을 반영한 것이다. 특히 이 글은 향후 연구를 위하여 우리말로 조문을 모두 번역하는 것을 통하여 그 조문내용의 소개를 중점으로 한 것이다. 최신 입법례로서 우리 민법의 불법행위법의 입법론에도 좋은 시사점을 줄 것이다.

영미 불법행위법상의 예견가능성 법리

이우영 ( Woo Young Rhee ) 서울대학교 법학연구소 2008 서울대학교 法學 Vol.49 No.3

Liability for consequential losses is not to be entirely open-ended, and some means to limit such liability is found in every system of law. There are a number of possible means, and the courts and the academia in the U.K. and the U.S. have experimented with several of them, in contract and tort, respectively. In the law of tort, the courts in the U.K. and the U.S. once focused on the concept of causation, and, on other occasions, regarded the matter as turning on the content of the duty itself. Eventually, a test of foreseeability was adopted and applied to solve the problem of over-extended liability for consequential losses. In the law of contract, a foreseeability test to limit liability for damages was notably established in Hadley v. Baxendale, in 1854. The Hadley rule is deemed to have affected the concept of foreseeability as a damages-limiting principle in the Japanese civil law, and also that of the Korean counterpart through the Japanese civil code. From a comparative law perspective, considering especially the respective provisions pertaining to the liability for consequential losses in contract and in tort in the Korean civil code, it is thus worth analyzing the doctrine of foreseeability in Anglo-American law established under Hadley v. Baxendale as applicable in contractual liability and possibly and arguably in tort liability. The Hadley rule was established as and has widely been regarded as part of contract law, and under the current orthodox Anglo-American law, it is generally stated that a more generous rule of remoteness applies in tort than the foreseeability rule in contract. At the same time, however, a respectable line of authority both inside and outside the court in the U.K. and the U.S. has continued to reason that all consequential claims should be subject to a single remoteness rule, whatever their basis, or that the rule with regard to remoteness of damage is precisely the same whether the damages are claimed in actions of contract or of tort. Thus, there exist contending positions and arguments for limiting Hadley to contract on one hand, and, in favor of a common standard in contract and tort in limiting liability for consequential losses, on the other hand, with valuable insight and ramifications to Korea, as the courts and the academia in Korea are challenged to develop clearer and further detailed rules and standards on this issue in contract and tort, respectively. The reasonable foreseeability criterion in Hadley v. Baxendale was, at least in its origin, established as a fairly general rule of limiting damages. Its primary function was to prevent liability for consequential losses from getting out of control, and it was only later that the idea of differentiating tort and contract in this regard was introduced and fortified. Despite the current orthodox view in Anglo-American law of damages, especially from the comparative law perspective for better and further understanding the concept of foreseeability and remoteness in the Korean civil law in an effort to design more specific and coherent rules of limiting liability for consequential losses in the law of contract and tort, it is perhaps more conducive to regard Hadley in a wider context as a general rule applying to all forms of compensation for non-deliberate damage, regardless of the formal or claimed source of the defendant`s liability.

中国产品责任赔偿范围研究 - 以侵权责任法与判例为研究視角 -

서세걸,박규용 홍익대학교 법학연구소 2014 홍익법학 Vol.15 No.4

Chinese Tort Liability Law, which was enacted in 2010, has a great influence to the Chinese tort liability system, including the products liability. Before Tort Liability Law, the adjustments of product liability laws are General Principles of the Civil Act, Consumer Protection Law, Product Quality Law and so on. These laws have a positive effect on protecting the rights of victims, but still not enough. The execution of Tort Liability Law became an important role as a complementary product liability legal system. After the Tort Liability Law, Consumer Rights Protection Law was amended; Food and Drug Judicial interpretation of the Supreme People’s Court has also been announced to take effect in March 15, 2014. It is necessary to study on the impact of these laws and judicial interpretation on the Tort Liability Law and Product Liability legal system, the relationship between these regulations and Product Quality Law, other judicial interpretation, the scope of compensation for damages of product liability and calculation of damages. The scope of tort liability damages includes physical damage, property damage and mental damage. But there is special damage in product liability damages, which is punitive damage. Firstly, with the price of product increasing, whether the victims can receive the compensation for the defect product in the tort litigation becomes more and more important. Secondly, Tort Liability Law determined the scope of the physical damage, but there still remains some conflicts with other regulations. Finally, punitive damage is the characteristic in product liability legal system. This paper will study on the above matters and some related cases, and be used to the previous reference for comparative study of China and Korea product liability legal system. 중국은 권리침해책임(불법행위책임)에 관한 법체계에 중대한 영향을 끼치는 권리침해책임법을 2010년 7월 1일부터 시행하고 있는데, 이 법은 제조물책임 분야에도 적지 않은 영향을 미치게 되었다. 권리침해책임법이 시행되기 전에는 제조물책임을 규율하는 법률로서 민법통칙, 소비자권리보호법, 제조물품질법 등이 피해자인 소비자의 권익을 보호하는 데 일정한 역할을 담당하고 있었으나, 여기의 규정들만으로는 피해자를 충분히 보호하기 어렵다는 한계에 직면하였다. 권리침해책임법의 시행은 제조물책임에 관한 법체계를 보완하는 데 중요한 작용을 하였는데, 이 법이 시행 된 후 새로 개정된 소비자권익보호법이 2014년 3월 15일 시행되기 시작하였고, 최고인민법원의 ‘식품약품사법해석’도 공포되어 효력을 갖게되었다. 따라서 이러한 법률들이 권리침해책임법에 어떠한 영향을 미치게 되고 제조물책임에 따른 손해배상체계에 어떠한 작용을 일으킬 것인가, 그리고 배상범위의 확정 및 배상금액의 계산에 있어서 어떠한 역할을 맡고 있는 것인가에 대한 연구가 필요할 것이다. 권리침해로 인해 발생하는 손해의 유형은 재산손해, 신체손해 및 정신적 손해로 분류할 수 있는데, 제조물책임에는 특수한 손해배상으로서 징벌적 손해배상이 포함되어 있다. 권리침해로 인한 소송에서는 기계설비 등과 같이 제조물의 가격이 높아짐에 따라 결함제조물 자체의 손해를 배상받을 수 있는가의 여부가 우선적 관심사가 될 것이고, 이와 관련하여 권리침해책임법 제41조의 손해가 결함제조물 자체의 손해를 포함하고 있는가의 여부를 우선 검토해야 한다. 한편 중국 제조물책임규정의 가장 큰 특징은 바로 징벌적 손해배상이 인정되고 있다는 점이다. 징벌적 손해배상에 관한 의견의 대립은 치열하지만, 중국 제조물 책임의 발전, 그리고 피해자의 보호를 강화하는 역할을 맡고 있다. 제조물책임에서의 징벌적 손해배상은 전보배상의 보충적인 역할에서 벗어나, 손해배상체계에서의 중요한 구성부분으로 되고 있으며 급속히 발전하고 있는 영역이다. 구 소비자권익보호법에서도 징벌적 손해배상이 규정되어 있었으나, 그 성질에 관한 논의가 끊이지 않으면서 실제 적용에 문제점들이 많이 들어났다. 새로 제정된 권리침해책임법 제47조는 권리침해책임체계에서의 징벌적 손해배상을 확립하고 구성요건도 명확히 하였으나, 적용을 위한 생산자의 주관적인 요건을 엄격히 정하였고, 징벌적 배상으로서 그 금액이 중요함에도 불구하고 배상액의 산정방식을 규정하지않아, 징벌적 손해배상규정이 적용될 가능성은 낮을 수밖에 없었다. 이와는 달리 2014년 3월 15일 새로 시행된 소비자권익보호법은 제55조에 2개의 항목을 두어 징벌적 손해배상의 산정방식을 구체화하였고, 식품약품사법해석은 생산자의 주관적인 요건을 완화함으로서 피해자의 보호를 한층 강화하였다. 본 논문에서는 우선 결함제조물 자체의 손해로서 재산손해 및 신체손해와 정신적 손해의 배상범위를 기술하고, 중국 제조물책임의 특징이라 할수 있는 징벌적 손해배상에 관한 내용을 정리한다. 또한 제조물책임에 따른 손해배상에 있어서 중국 법원의 판결을 소개하여 중국 입법기관이 구체화해야 할 내용을 살펴본다.

中國産品責任賠償範圍硏究 -以侵權責任法與判例爲硏究視角-

( Shi Jie Xu ),( Kyu Yong Park ) 홍익대학교 법학연구소 2014 홍익법학 Vol.15 No.4

Chinese Tort Liability Law, which was enacted in 2010, has a great influence to the Chinese tort liability system, including the products liability. Before Tort Liability Law, the adjustments of product liability laws are General Principles of the Civil Act, Consumer Protection Law, Product Quality Law and so on. These laws have a positive effect on protecting the rights of victims, but still not enough. The execution of Tort Liability Law became an important role as a complementary product liability legal system. After the Tort Liability Law, Consumer Rights Protection Law was amended; Food and Drug Judicial interpretation of the Supreme People`s Court has also been announced to take effect in March 15, 2014. It is necessary to study on the impact of these laws and judicial interpretation on the Tort Liability Law and Product Liability legal system, the relationship between these regulations and Product Quality Law, other judicial interpretation, the scope of compensation for damages of product liability and calculation of damages. The scope of tort liability damages includes physical damage, property damage and mental damage. But there is special damage in product liability damages, which is punitive damage. Firstly, with the price of product increasing, whether the victims can receive the compensation for the defect product in the tort litigation becomes more and more important. Secondly, Tort Liability Law determined the scope of the physical damage, but there still remains some conflicts with other regulations. Finally, punitive damage is the characteristic in product liability legal system. This paper will study on the above matters and some related cases, and be used to the previous reference for comparative study of China and Korea product liability legal system.