독일의 예방접종피해보상제도의 운영 현황 및 시사점

신정규 ( Shin Jung-Gyu ) 제주대학교 법과정책연구원 2021 法과 政策 Vol.27 No.2

Compensation for vaccination damage in Germany, like compensation for war victims, is based on the right to claim compensation for victims, and it can be viewed as a legislative specification in the form of the Federal Epidemic Prevention Act. In addition, the contents of the vaccination damage compensation based on the right to claim compensation for victims are composed of active social security benefits due to the mutatis mutandis application of the Federal Aid Act and the Federal Social Security Act. In particular, various allowances for livelihood assistance and loss of income are paid according to the degree of disability caused by the damage caused by vaccination, so that compensation for damage from vaccination can be made from a more practical point of view. In a situation where it is rare and unlikely that damage from vaccination can be recognized, the refusal of vaccination and the reduction of the immune population due to it are not premised on sufficient and effective guarantees for the economic and physical loss of the public due to vaccination. It seems to be a reasonable and reasonable institutional design in that it cannot prevent And in terms of normative form and content, in the case of Germany, the range of assistance benefits that can achieve practical compensation in relation to the compensation for damage caused by vaccination is relatively low and maximum in the legal unit according to the Federal Infectious Disease Prevention Act and the Federal Assistance Act. that is clearly defined. This compares with the fact that Article 71 of Korea’s Infectious Disease Prevention Act does not stipulate the standard for the amount of compensation for damage from vaccination, but only the type of compensation and the type of damage from vaccination. Of course, the amount itself is not something that should be regulated by the law when it is based on the principle of reservation of the law, but it is necessary to set more specific content in the law as the victim’s burden of proof is large for it to be recognized as damage to vaccination. In addition, with regard to the scope of compensation, there is a somewhat negative evaluation of whether the level of compensation stipulated in Article 71 of the Infectious Disease Prevention Act of Korea is sufficient or adequate for victims of vaccination. It is judged that the level of compensation is not sufficient when compared with the assistance benefits under the Federal Assistance Act in Germany. Although it is inevitable to take into account the difference in economic power and national finances of Germany and Korea, even if the national responsibility for damage caused by vaccination is stipulated as no-negligence in Article 71 (2) of the Infectious Disease Prevention Act, the damage caused by the vaccination If the Commissioner of the Korea Centers for Disease Control and Prevention does not approve, compensation for the damage will not be made. Therefore, it is necessary to expand the scope and content of compensation.

违约精神损害赔偿制度的适用研究

金路伦,蔡琦 전북대학교 동북아법연구소 2020 동북아법연구 Vol.14 No.2

In China, compensation for mental damages for breach of contract is a controversial issue. The traditional civil law view holds that the liability for breach of contract does not include mental damage, and that mental damage belongs to tort liability. Cases of mental damage caused by breach of contract continue to appear, and some scholars have begun to affirm the rationality of compensation for breach of contract mental damage. In this context, this article analyzes the textual interpretation and systematic interpretation of Article 996 of the Civil Code and concludes that the legislator’s attitude towards compensation for mental damages for breach of contract is ambiguous. However, the judicial interpretations clearly oppose the system of compensation for mental damages in breach of contract. The contradiction between the two has also caused confusion in the judicial trial. The article uses big data to collect judicial cases and finds that although most judges deny compensation for mental damages for breach of contract in accordance with judicial interpretations, some judges affirm the compensation for mental damages based on the justice of individual cases. Then, the article refutes the view of negating the compensation for breach of contract mental damage, and launches a theoretical defense for constructing the compensation system for breach of contract mental damage from four perspectives, namely, to make up for the loopholes in the overlap of responsibilities, meet the requirements of predictability rules, and meet the principle of complete compensation,and judicial practice can provide experience for the amount of compensation. This article proposes that compensation for breach of contract mental damage needs to meet the conditions of general breach of contract, that is, there is a breach of contract, the injured party suffers serious mental damage, and there is a causal relationship between breach of contract and mental damage. Finally, in order to prevent the breach of contract mental damage compensation system from being abused, the subject of breach of contract mental damage should be restricted to natural persons, and at the same time, the contract type should be restricted. These two points should be used to limit the breach of contract mental damage compensation system. 在中国,违约精神损害赔偿是一个备受争议的问题。传统民法观点认为违约责任中不包括精神损害,精神损害属于侵权责任。因违约而产生精神损害的案例不断出现,部分学者开始肯定违约精神损害赔偿的合理性。在此背景下,本文通过对《民法典》第996条的文义解释和系统解释两个角度的分析,得出立法者对于违约精神损害赔偿的态度模糊不清。而司法解释却旗帜鲜明的反对违约精神损害赔偿制度。这两者的矛盾也引发了司法审判中的混乱。文章使用大数据采集司法案例,发现虽然多数法官依照司法解释否定违约精神损害赔偿,但部分法官立足于个案正义,对违约精神损害赔偿予以肯定。然后,文章对否定违约精神损害赔偿的观点予以反驳,从弥补责任竞合的漏洞、符合可预见规则的要求、符合完全赔偿原则以及司法实践可为赔偿数额提供经验四个角度为构建违约精神损害赔偿制度展开理论辩护。本文提出违约精神损害赔偿需要满足一般性违约的条件,即违约行为的存在、受损害方遭受严重的精神损害以及违约行为与精神损害之间存在因果关系这三点。最后,为了防止违约精神损害赔偿制度被滥用,应将违约精神损害的主体限制为自然人,同时对合同类型作出限制,以此从侧面规制违约精神损害赔偿制度。

군용비행장과 군사격장 소음피해 보상제도의 개관

권창영 ( Chang-young Kwon ),김선아 ( Sun-ah Kim ) 한국항공우주정책·법학회(구 한국항공우주법학회) 2020 한국항공우주정책·법학회지 Vol.35 No.4

우리나라는 좁은 공역에도 불구하고 국방의 필요성으로 인하여 전국적으로 수많은 군용비행장(軍用飛行場)과 군사격장(軍射擊場)이 소재하고 있다. 군용비행장 및 군사격장의 운용으로 발생하는 소음으로 인하여 그 주변지역 주민들이 정신적 신체적 재산적 피해를 입고 있음에도 불구하고, 해당 지역 주민의 피해를 완화하거나 지원하기 위한 법적 근거가 미비하였다. 이에 군용비행장 및 군사격장의 운용으로 발생하는 소음의 방지 및 그 피해에 대한 보상 등을 효율적으로 추진할 수 있도록 법적 근거를 마련함으로써 주민의 쾌적한 생활환경을 보장하고, 군사 활동의 안정된 기반을 조성하는데 기여하려는 목적에서『군용 비행장·군사격장 소음 방지 및 피해 보상에 관한 법률』을 제정하여 2020. 11. 27.부터 시행하였다. 이와 같이 종전에는 민사상 손해배상청구에 의한 소음피해구제제도만이 인정되었으나, 위 법률의 제정으로 행정법상 보상제도가 추가되는 것으로 변경되었다. 군소음보상법의 제정으로 인해 주민들은 소송을 제기하지 않아도 군용비행장ㆍ군사격장에서 발생하는 소음피해에 대한 보상금을 정기적(1년 단위)으로 지급받을 수 있어 변호사 비용을 절감할 수 있으며, 보상 처리 현황 및 결과 확인 등도 가능해졌다. 그리고 시기를 놓쳐서 또는 몰라서 소를 제기할 수 없었던 주민들도 보상금을 받을 수 있으며, 보상금액을 인정하지 못하는 경우에는 법원에 소를 제기할 수 있다. 군소음보상법은 보상신청에 대한 불복절차로 이의절차와 재심의 절차를 두고 있으나, 위와 같은 절차를 거치지 아니하면 행정소송을 제기할 수 없다는 명문의 규정을 두고 있지 아니하므로, 임의적 전치주의를 채택하고 있다. 그러므로, 신청인은 처분청의 보상금처분에 대하여 불복하는 경우에는 (i) 이의절차와 재심의절차를 모두 거친 후 행정소송을 제기하는 방법, (ii) 이의절차만 거치고 행정소송을 제기하는 방법, (iii) 이의절차도 거치지 아니하고 곧바로 행정소송을 제기하는 방법 중 하나를 선택할 수 있다. 신청인이 손해배상금을 먼저 수령한 경우에는 보상금에서 이를 공제하고, 보상금을 먼저 수령한 경우에는 손해배상금에서 이를 공제한다. 다만, 대법원은 손해의 종류를 적극적 손해, 소극적 손해, 위자료 등으로 3분하는 견해를 취하고 있고, 군소음보상법상 보상금은 성질상 위자료에 해당하므로, 공제할 수 있는 범위는 위자료에 한정된다. 따라서 군용비행장과 군사격장 소음으로 인하여 재산상 손해를 입은 주민은 군소음보상법상 보상금에 의하여 재산상 손해를 전보받을 수 없으므로, 대한민국을 상대로 민사상 손해배상을 청구할 수밖에 없다. 또한 군소음보상법은 2020. 11. 27. 시행되었으므로, 시행 이전에 발생한 소음피해에 대하여는 보상금을 지급받을 수 없다. 그러므로 주민은 2020. 11. 26. 까지 발생한 소음피해에 대하여는 여전히 대한민국을 상대로 민사상 손해배상 청구를 하여야 한다. In spite of the narrow airspace, Korea has numerous military airfields and military shooting ranges nationwide due to the need for defense. Despite the mental, physical, and property damage to the residents of the surrounding area due to noise generated by the operation of military aerodromes and military shooting ranges, legal grounds for mitigating or supporting the damages of the local residents were insufficient. Accordingly, legal grounds have been established to efficiently promote the prevention of noise generated by the operation of military airfields and military shooting ranges and compensation for damages. With the aim of ensuring a comfortable living environment for residents and contributing to creating a stable foundation for military activities, “The Act on Noise Prevention and Damage Compensation for Military Airfields and Shooting Ranges”(hiereinafter “the Act”) was enacted and implemented from November 27, 2020. As such, only the noise damage relief system under civil damages claims was previously recognized, but the enactment of the Act changed the noise damage relief system to the addition of the compensation system under the administrative law. Due to the enactment of the Act, residents can receive compensation for noise damage from military airfields and shooting ranges on a regular basis (annually) without filing a lawsuit, thereby reducing the cost of lawyers. In addition, residents who were unable to file a lawsuit because they missed the timing or did not know may also receive compensation. The Act declares an objection procedure and a reconsideration procedure as an objection procedure for an application for compensation. Therefore, if the applicant disagrees with the disposition of compensation by the disposition agency, residents can choose one of the methods of (i) filing an administrative suit after going through both the objection procedure and the reconsideration procedure, (ii) filing an administrative lawsuit only through the objection procedure, (iii) filing an administrative lawsuit immediately without going through an objection procedure. If the applicant receives damages first, it is deducted from the compensation, and if the compensation is received first, it is deducted from the damages. However, the Supreme Court has taken the opinion that the type of damage is divided into three categories: active damage, passive damage, and alimony. Because compensation under the Act is alimony in nature, the scope of deduction is limited to alimony. Therefore, residents who have suffered property damage due to noise from military airfields and military shooting ranges cannot receive property damages according to the Act. In addition, since the Act was enforced on November 27, 2020, compensation cannot be paid for noise damage that occurred before the enforcement. Therefore, residents should still claim civil damages against the Republic of Korea for noise damage that occurred until November 26, 2020.

손해배상의 범위-영국법·CISG·유럽계약법 원칙과 한국법의 비교를 중심으로-

사동천 ( Sha Dong-cheon ) 홍익대학교 법학연구소 2017 홍익법학 Vol.18 No.1

손해배상의 범위에 관한 우리 민법은 제한배상주의를 원칙으로 한다(민법 제393조). 통상손해를 한도로 하고, 예외적으로 채무자가 채무불이행 시 예견하였거나 예견할 수 있었던 특별손해에 대해서도 책임을 진다. 통상손해는 상당인관관계에 있는 모든 손해를 대상으로 하지만, 상당인과관계에 있는 손해는 발생된 손해 중 일부일 수밖에 없다. 특별손해에 대해서는 예견가능성을 기준으로 배상의 범위를 제한한다. 여기서 채무자(또는 가해자)의 무과실, 경과실, 고의(중과실) 등의 구별 없이 손해배상의 범위는 획일적이다. 외견상 법적 안정성이 보장되고 통일적 기준이 되는 것처럼 보인다. 그러나 오늘날 다양하고 복잡하게 얽혀있는 개인의 사회생활 속에서 특별손해에 해당하는 손해는 증가하였지만, 이를 다루는 손해배상법은 제한배상주의가 탄생했던 1800년대의 시대상황에 머물러 있다. 그 결과 통상손해, 특별손해로 대별되는 손해배상법은 채권자의 실손해를 전보해 주지 못한다는 비판을 받고 있다. 더욱이 기업에 의해 자행되는 고의 또는 중과실의 채무불이행이나 불법행위를 단죄하지 못하는 것이 현실이다, 이러한 시대상황은 손해배상의 범위에 관한 법제도의 근본적인 변화를 요구하고 있다. 즉, 통상손해를 원칙으로 하고, 특별손해에 대해서는 예견하였거나 예견할 수 있었을 때에만 배상된다는 원칙을 재검토해야 한다는 것이다. 비난가능성을 고려하면 비난가능성은 대개 전적으로 채무자(가해자)에게만 있을 것이므로, 예견가능성에 의하여 손해배상의 범위를 제한하는 것은 설득력이 없다는 것이다. 침해행위 내지 채무불이행과 자연적 인과관계에 있는 모든 손해가 손해배상의 범위에 포함되어야 한다. 즉 상당인과관계는 폐기되어야 한다. 이러한 논의에 대해 가해자 내지 채무자에게 가혹하다는 비판이 제기되어왔으나, 비난가능성이 전적으로 채무자(가해자)에게 있다는 점을 고려한다면 설득력이 없다할 것이다. 가혹성의 문제는 손해배상액을 정함에 있어서 참작해야 할 사정에 불과하다. 따라서 입법론적으로 자연적 인과관계에 있는 모든 손해를 손해배상의 범위에 넣고, 다만 손해배상액을 정함에 있어서 채무자 내지 가해자의 경제상태를 고려하여 배상액을 경감하는 것이 보다 현실을 잘 반영하는 것이 아닌가 생각된다. 만일 이러한 제도가 과도하다고 한다면, 최소한 고의나 중과실에 의한 채무불이행이나 불법행위에 대해서는 예견가능성에 의한 손해배상 범위의 제한은 폐기되어야 한다. 이 경우 조차도 채무자 내지 가해자의 경제상태를 고려하여 손해배상액의 경감규정이 필요할 것이다. Our civil law about the range of damages is based on the restrictive compensation. The range of compensation is limited to the normal damage. but it also takes exceptional responsibility for the special damage that the debtor predicted or was able to predict during the non-performance. The Normal damage aims for all damages in a causal relationship, but damage in a causal relationship is just a part of the whole damage that occurred. For the special damage, it limits the range of compensation on the standard of predictability. The range of compensation, regardless of the debtor`s no-fault, light-fault, deliberate, is consolidated. It looks that it is the uniform standard and guarantees instant safety. However, in the society where each individual`s social life is diversely and complicatedly involved, the number of damage included in the special damage has increased, but the Compensation Act that manages this still stays in the 1800s when the restrictive compensation was found. As a result, the Compensation Act that could be divided into the normal damage and the special damage, is being criticized that it cannot protect the creditor`s damage. Moreover, it cannot convict the tort or the non-performance done on purpose by companies. The current situation stands for the need of the fundamental change of the law regarding the range of compensation. It means, we need to reconsider the principle that it needs to be based on the normal damage, and regarding the special damage, it only can compensate depends on predictability. Also, the possibility of being criticized will be solely on the debtor (attacker), so it is not persuasive that the range of compensation should be limited by the predictability. All damage that is in misconduct or the non-performance, and the natural causality should be included in the range of compensation. The causal relationship should be abolished. There has been some criticism that it is too harsh to the attacker or the debtor, but considering that the possibility of criticism is solely on the debtor, it is not a convincing opinion. The issue of being harsh should only be considered as reference when deciding the amount of damages. Therefore, putting all damage in the natural causality in the range of compensation, and alleviate the amount of compensation money by considering the debtor or the attacker`s financial situation might be better way to reflect the real society. If some think that this regulation is excessive, at least regarding the non-performance or the tort on purpose, the limitation of the range of compensation by its predictability should be abolished. Even in this case, there should be some alleviation of the amount of compensation money by considering debtor or the attacker`s financial situation.

회계법인의 손해배상준비금과 감사품질 간의 관련성

김현진(Hyun Jin Kim) 한국공인회계사회 2016 회계·세무와 감사 연구 Vol.58 No.2

감사실패가 발생한 경우 감사인은 기업의 이해관계자가 입은 손실을 배상해야 할 책임이 있다. 그러나 감사인의 손해배상재원이 충분하지 않은 경우 손해배상책임을 이행할 수 없으므로 감사인의 손해배상책임에 대한 재원을 확보하기 위하여 손해배상준비금 적립과 손해배상기금 전입(적립) 또는 손해배상보험 가입을 법률로서 의무화하고 있다. 이와 관련하여 본 연구는 회계법인의 잠재적 소송위험에 대한 인지정도를 손해배상준비금 당기 적립액으로 대용하여 감사품질에 미치는 영향을 분석하였다. 분석결과, 당기 감사품질과 당기 손해배상준비금 적립액 사이에 양(+)의 관련성이 존재하였으나 손해배상준비금 당기 적립액과 차기 감사품질 사이에는 유의한 관련성을 분석할 수 없었다. 그러나 손해배상책임보험 가입여부에 따라 집단을 구분하여 재분석한 결과, 손해배상책임보험에 가입하지 않은 집단에서 손해배상준비금 당기 적립액과 차기 감사품질 사이에 양(+)의 관련성이 존재함을 발견하였다. 그리고 시장점유율에 따라 4개의 집단을 구분하여 분석한 결과, 시장점유율이 가장 낮은 집단에서 손해배상준비금 당기 적립액과 차기 감사품질 사이에 양(+)의 관련성이 존재함을 발견하였다. 본 연구는 선행연구와 달리 소송위험의 인지정도를 회계법인의 손해배상준비금의 적립비율을 이용함으로써 회계법인 차원에서 직접적으로 측정하였다. 그리고 선행연구는 동일기간에 인지한 소송위험에 대한 감사인의 대응으로 감사노력이나 보수적 성향을 증가시키는지를 검증하였다. 그러나 본 연구는 회계감사의 산출물인 재무제표의 질(감사품질)에 기인한 잠재적 소송위험을 손해배상준비금을 전입을 통해 사후적으로 인지하는지를 분석한 다음 인지한 소송위험을 대리하는 손해배상준비금을 통해 차기 감사품질에 미치는 영향을 검증하였다. When audit failures have occurred, auditors are required to compensate firm s stakeholders for their loss. If there are not sufficient compensation for damage, the auditors cannot carry out their duty. Thus the law requires that accounting firms should have compensation reserve fund for damage and compensation joint fund or obtain compensation insurance for damage. There are two types of mandatory regulations for preparing compensation for damage for accounting firms. First, every year the accounting firm should reserve at minimum of 2% of total sales, within the firm. Second, the accounting firm should accumulate a joint fund, at minimum of 4% of audit serviced profits, within the Association of Korean Institute of Certified Public Accountant or purchase accountants professional liability insurance. According to Choi et al.(2014), their collected data from 2005 to 2010, only 45% of accounting firms accumulate at minimum of 2% of total profits for the reservefund within the firm, and 15% of accounting firms accumulate at minimum of 4% of audit serviced profits as joint funds within Association of KICPA. FSS requires to prepare the litigation costs to accounting firms for reducing the damage of accounting firms clients and to increase the responsibility of accounting firms. However, most accounting firms do not reserve or accumulate joint funds as much as the mandatory ratio. In this perspective, this paper examines the association between compensation reserve for damage and audit quality of accounting firm. If accounting firms recognize that potential litigation risk is higher, they will increase compensation reserve fund for damage. Due to this, the accounting firms with lower audit quality are more likely to increase compensation reserve fund for damage in the current year. And then they are motivated to improve audit quality in the following year. To measure recognition of potential litigation risk, this paper proxy for litigation risk as the amount transferred to compensation reserve fund for damage. And audit quality is measured as the average of client firms s discretionary accruals. Our empirical findings are as follow. First, accounting firms which has bad audit quality in the current year are more likely to increase compensation reserve fund this year. Second, the amount transferred to compensation reserve fund for damage is not associated with audit quality in the following year. Third, in accounting firms without compensation insurance for damage, the amount transferred to compensation reserve fund for damage is positively related to audit quality in the following year. Fourth, in accounting firms with lower market share, there is a positive association between the amount of compensation reserve fund and audit quality in the following year. Unlike prior studies, this paper measures the level of recognized potential litigation risk directly, using the amount transferred to compensation reserve fund for damage in an accounting-firm level. Unlike previous studies which examine the effect of recognizing litigation risk on audit endeavour or conservatism during same period, this paper explores the effect of audit quality on recognized litigation risk measured as the amount transferred to compensation reserve fund for damage. This paper also investigates the effect of recognized litigation risk in the current year on audit quality in the following year.

우주법상 손해배상책임과 분쟁해결제도

이강빈 한국중재학회 2010 중재연구 Vol.20 No.2

The purpose of this paper is to research on the liability for the space damage and the settlement of the dispute with reference to the space activity under the international space treaty and national space law of Korea. The United Nations has adopted five treaties relating to the space activity as ollows: The Outer Space Treaty of 1967, the Rescue and Return Agreement of 1968, the Liability Convention of 1972, the Regis潴渀 tion Convention of 1974, and the Moon Treaty of 1979. All five treaties have come into force. Korea has ratified above four treaties except the Moon Treaty. Korea has enacted three national legislations relating to space development as follows: Aerospace Industry Development Promotion Act of 1987, Outer Space Development Promotion Act of 2005, Outer Space Damage Compensation Act of 2008. The Outer Space Treaty of 1967 regulates the international responsibility for national activities in outer space, the national tort liability for damage by space launching object,the national measures for dispute prevention and international consultation in the exploration and use of outer space, the joint resolution of practical questions by international inter-governmental organizations in the exploration and use of outer space. The Liability Convention of 1972 regulates the absolute liability by a launching state, the faulty liability by a launching state, the joint and several liability by a launching state, the person claiming for compensation, the claim method for compensation, the claim period of compensation, the claim for compensation and local remedy, the compensation amount for damage by a launching state, the establishment of the Claims Commission. The Outer Space Damage Compensation Act of 2008 in Korea regulates the definition of space damage, the relation of the Outer Space Damage Compensation Act and the international treaty, the non-faulty liability for damage by a launching person, the concentration of liability and recourse by a launching person, the exclusion of application of the Product Liability Act, the limit amount of the liability for damage by a launching person, the cover of the liability insurance by a launching person, the measures and assistance by the government in case of occurring the space damage, the exercise period of the claim right of compensation for damage. The Liability Convention of 1972 should be improved as follows: the problem in respect of the claimer of compensation for damage, the problem in respect of the efficiency of decision by the Claims Commission. The Outer Space Damage Compensation Act of 2008 in Korea should be improved as follows: the inclusion of indirect damage into the definition of space damage, the change of currency unit of the limit amount of liability for damage, the establishment of joint and several liability and recourse right for damage by space joint launching person, the establishment of the Space Damage Compensation Review Commission. The 1998 Final Draft Convention on the Settlement of Disputes Related to Space Activities of 1998 by ILA regulates the binding procedure and non-binding settlement procedure for the disputes in respect of space activity. The non-binding procedure regulates the negotiation or the peaceful means and compromise for dispute settlement. The binding procedure regulates the choice of a means among the following means: International Space Law Court if it will be established, International Court of Justice, and Arbitration Court. The above final Draft Convention by ILA will be a model for the innovative development in respect of the peaceful settlement of disputes with reference to space activity and will be useful for establishing the frame of practicable dispute settlement. Korea has built the space center at Oinarodo, Goheung Province in June 2009. Korea has launched the first small launch vehicle KSLV-1 at the Naro Space Center in August 2009 and June 2010. In Korea, it will be the possibility to be occurred the problems relating to the international responsibility and dispute settlement, and the liability for space damage in the course of space activity. Accordingly the Korean government and launching organization should make the legal and systematic policy to cope with such problems.

일본의 후쿠시마 원전사고와 원전손해배상지원기구

윤부찬 ( Yoon Bu Chan ) 한남대학교 과학기술법연구원 2015 한남법학연구 Vol.3 No.-

2011년의 후쿠시마 원자력 사고는 전례를 찾아보기 어려울 정도로 가혹사고이었음에 틀림이 없고, 그 배상액 또한 대단히 크다. 배상이 진행되고 있는 현재, 배상예상액이 5조엔을 상회하고 있다. 이러한 다대한 손해배상에 있어서 배상금을 어떻게 마련할 것인가 하는 점은 매우 어려운 문제가 아닐 수 없다. 또, 그 책임을 누구에게 돌릴 것인가 하는 점도 매우 중요한 문제이다. 우선 2011년 후쿠시마 원전사고에서 일본에서는 원자력손해배상법에서는 동경전력의 배상책임을 형식적으로는 면책을 시킬 수 있음에도 불구하고, 동경전력에 완전한 책임을 묻고 있다. 원자력사고가 발생한 경우 원자력사업자의 책임을 면책시키게 되면, 국가가 피해자를 구조하게 되는데, 이때 국가의 구조는 손해배상의무자로서의 구조가 아니다. 그러한 점에서 일본이 동경전력의 책임을 면책시키지 않은 조치는 정당하다고 보인다. 하지만, 2011년의 후쿠시마 원자력 사고의 피해액은 5조엔을 넘는데, 이러한 배상액은 단일 원자력사업자가 부담하기에는 너무 큰 것이며, 그 능력의 범위를 넘어선 것이다. 이러한 경우 일본의 원자력손해배상법은 원자력사업자가 손해를 배상하기 위하여 필요한 원조를 한다(원배법 제10조 제1항)고 규정하고 있으면서도 이번 사고에서는 원자력사업자를 직접 지원하기 보다는 원자력사업자들로 하여금 일종의 조합을 만들게 하고, 이 조합에 일정한 자금을 지원하여 손해배상문제를 해결하게 하고 있다. 이러한 원자력사업자간의 사후부조적 해결은 미국이나 프랑스 등 다른 나라에서도 마찬가지로 취하는 형식이다. 그러나, 우리 나라에서는 발전용 원자력사업자는 하나뿐이므로 이러한 조치를 취하기 어렵다. It may be clear that the atomic accident of Hukusima in Japan 2011 was one of the most serious one in history. Now it is on the process of compensation, the amounts of compensation from that accident are expected over 5 trillions ￥. How dose Japan raise the funds for the compensation, was difficult problem. And the matters that, who should take liability of the accident, was critical one. The Act of Japanese on Compensation for Nuclear Damage provides that the nuclear business operator thereof shall not be liable such damage caused from the act of armed conflict or hostility among nations or unusual tremendous natural disaster. Even though this clause, Tokyo Electric Power Company was not exempted the responsibility for the damage. Under this clause, if nuclear business operator were immune from obligation, the Government provided necessary assistance to victims of nuclear accidents. The legal nature of Governments assistant to victims is not compensation for the damage or torts. This paper appreciates this attitude of Japan, no immune of nuclear business operator. 5 trillions ￥, the amounts of compensation for the accident, exceed the capacity of Tokyo Electric Power Company to pay the claims for nuclear damage. The Act of Japanese on Compensation for Nuclear Damage provides as follows; When the amount of compensation for damage to be assumed by a nuclear business operator exceeds the amount of measures of compensation in the event of nuclear damage, - 120 billions ￥ -, the Government shall provide necessary assistance to such nuclear business operator. Even though this clause, Japanese Government did not give direct assistance to Tokyo Electric Power Company but to the Nuclear Damage Compensation Facilitation Corporation. This Corporation is a union being organized with nuclear operators for mutual co-operation. This paper takes a positive view on this method for government`s assistance on compensation of nuclear damage.

손해배상범위에 관한 입법적 분석

임윤수(Yim Yoon Soo),최현숙(Choi Hyun Sook) 한국법이론실무학회 2014 법률실무연구 Vol.2 No.1

우리 민법은 채무불이행에 의한 손해배상의 범위를 결정하는 기준으로 제393조를 두고 있고, 동조의 해석을 통하여 배상범위를 결정하고 있다. 또한, 동조는 불법행위로 인한 손해배상에도 준용하고 있으므로 불법행위의 손해배상범위도 동조에 의해 결정되고 있다. 민법 제393조의 해석에 관련하여 종래의 통설과 판례는 인과관계의 존부에 의하여 배상범위를 결정하는 상당인과관계설을 취하여 왔다. 그러나 최근에 기존의 통설인 상당인과관계설에 대한 비판 및 새로운 손해배상범위기준을 제시하는 새로운 이론들이 소개되면서, 상당인과관계설이 배상범위의 결정 문제를 처음부터 끝까지 인과관계의 존부문제로서 다루고 있는 점을 비판하고, 손해배상의 결과 과정은 배상책임의 성립요건으로서의 사실적 인과관계, 배상범위의 결정, 배상액의 산정이라는 3단계의 독립된 문제로 나누어서 취급되어야 한다고 주장 한다. 우리 민법 제393조의 손해배상범위를 이론적으로 설명함에 있어 그 이론이 실정법과 조화를 이루어 실정법에 맞는 이론을 전개하기 위해서는 우선 우리의 입법태도를 정확하게 파악하여야 할 것이다. 따라서 본 논문에서는 우리 민법의 손해배상범위에 영향을 미치고 있는 독일?프랑스?일본법과 최근 손해배상의 원칙인 예견가능성 법리에 그 근거를 두고 있다는 영미법을 비교 검토한 후, 학설과 판례의 분석을 통하여 우리 민법 제393조에 대한 올바른 해석 및 적용의 방향을 모색하고 손해배상의 범위를 결정하기 위한 논리를 보다 체계적으로 구성하도록 한다. Article 393 of the Civil Code of Korea is set as the standard of determining the scope of damage compensation based on defaults and the scope of damage compensation is determined through interpretations of the same Article. Moreover, the same Article applies to damage compensation based on damage in tort, thus, the scope of damage compensation based on damage in tort is also determined by the same Article. Case law and the conventional view relating to the interpretation of Article 393 of the Civil Code have applied the proximate causation theory, which determines the scope of compensation based on the existence of causal relationship. However, new theories that criticize the proximate causation theory, the existing conventional view, and suggest new standards for the scope of damage compensation have been introduced recently. Such new theories criticize that the proximate causation theory only deals with determining the scope of compensation as an issue on the existence of a causal relationship from beginning to end, and allege that the process and result of damage compensation should be treated as an independent issue over three phases, which are the factual causal relationship as an establishment element of compensation responsibility, determination of the scope of compensation, and calculation of the amount of compensation. The legislative attitude should be correctly understood when theoretically explaining the scope of damage compensation of Article 393 of the Civil Code in order to proceed with a theory suitable to the positive law, so that such theory may comply with the positive law. Thus, this Article will review and compare the English and American law that recently has set its basis in the foreknowledge possibility legal principle, which is one principle of damage compensation, and the German, French, and Japanese law that is affecting the scope of damage compensation of the Civil Code of Korea, seek the proper interpretation and application direction of Article 393 of the Civil Code, and compose a more systematic logic to determine the scope of damage compensation.

원자력손해배상 자금의 확충 방안에 관한 연구 - 후쿠시마 원전사고로부터의 교훈 -

정상기 ( Chung Sang Ki ),이윤나 ( Lee Yoon Na ) 한남대학교 과학기술법연구원 2017 과학기술법연구 Vol.23 No.1

일본의 후쿠시마 원자력발전소 사고 이후 동경전력의 피해자에 대한 손해배상을 위한 자금공급 관련 법제도와 실무현황의 검토를 통하여 우리나라 원자력손해배상 관련 법제도에 대한 시사점을 도출하였다. 일본 원자력손해배상법 제16조 제1항은 손해배상액이 배상조치액을 넘고, 원자력손해배상에 관한 법률의 목적을 달성하기 위하여 필요하다고 인정하는 때에는 원자력사업자에 대하여 정부가 손해배상에 필요한 자금을 지원할 수 있도록 하고 있다. 후쿠시마 원전사고의 사고조사위원회는 천재지변이 아닌 동경전력의 과실에 기하여 발생된 사고라고 판단함에 따라, 사기업인 동경전력의 과실에 따른 불법행위에 기한 손해배상 책임을 위해 국가가 자금을 투입하는 것은 불합리하다는 비판이 있다. 그러므로 일본 정부는 직접 원자력사업자에게 손해배상자금을 공급하는 것이 아니라, 원자력사업자로 구성된 일종의 조합체인 원자력손해배상· 폐로지원기구에 자금을 공급하여 손해배상을 하게하고 그 자금은 원자력사업자들이 매년 납부하는 부담금과 손해배상자금을 공급받은 원자력사업자가 부담하는 특별부담금으로 회수하는 체제를 취하고 있다. 우리나라의 원자력손해배상법 규정은 일본의 원자력손해배상에 관한 법률규정과 거의 동일하다. 우리 원자력손해배상법 제5조 제1항에서 원자력사업자에게 손해배상조치의 의무를 부과하고 있는 한편, 제14조 제1항에서 손해배상액이 배상조치액을 초과하는 경우 정부는 원자력사업자에게 필요한 원조를 한다고 규정하고 있다. 우리나라에서 원전사고가 발생할 경우 원자력손해배상법 제14조에 따라 국가가 사업자게에 직접 원조를 한다면 일본에서와 같은 비난을 면하기 어려울 것이므로, 일본의 원자력손해배상·폐로지원기구와 같은 단체를 만들어 간접적인 지원을 해야 할 것이다. 우리나라는 단일 발전용원자로사업자로 일본과 같은 원자력사업자 간 상호부조적 조합체를 결성하기 어려운 측면이 있지만, 원자로의 수, 사이트의 수, 발전용량 등을 고려하여 원자력사업자를 사이트별로 분리하는 방안도 검토할 필요가 있을 것으로 사료된다. After Fukushima Nuclear accident in Japan, we reviewed the legal system and the current status of the supply of funds for damages to victims of Tokyo Electric Power Company, and suggested implications for the legal system related to nuclear damage compensation in Korea. Article 16 (1) of the Japan`s Act on Compensation for Nuclear Damage provides that if the amount of damages exceeds the amount of compensation and it is deemed necessary to achieve the purpose of the Act on Compensation for Nuclear Damage, the government will provide the necessary funds for damages. As the Investigation Committee on the Accident at the Fukushima Nuclear Power Stations decided that it was an accident caused by the negligence of Tokyo Electric Power Company, not the natural disaster, there is criticism that the government`s investment of funds for liability for damages due to illegal acts by Tokyo Electric Power Company as a private company is unreasonable. Therefore, the Japanese government does not provide damages to direct nuclear operators, but rather to provide funds to the Nuclear Damage Compensation and Decommissioning Facilitation Corporation, which is a sort of union composed of nuclear power operators, to compensate for damages. And the funds are collected through a special burden to be paid by the nuclear operators who receive the compensation fund, and a general burden to be paid by the other nuclear operators. The provisions of the Nuclear Damage Compensation Act in Korea are almost the same as those of the Japan`s Act on Compensation for Nuclear Damage. The Nuclear Damage Compensation Act is stipulated that Article 5 (1) imposes an obligation to compensate nuclear operators for damages, while in Article 14 (1), if the amount of damages exceeds the amount of compensation, the government will provide the necessary support the nuclear power operator. If nuclear accident occurs in Korea, if the state directly supports the operators in accordance with Article 14, it will be difficult to avoid the same criticism as in Japan. Therefore, it is necessary to establish an organization such as Japan`s Nuclear Damage Compensation and Decommissioning Facilitation Corporation and provide indirect support. Since Korea is a single electricity generating reactor operator, it is difficult to form a mutually cooperative association between nuclear power companies such as Japan. However, considering the number of nuclear reactors, the number of sites, and the power generation capacity, it is necessary to consider how to separate the nuclear power companies by site.

우주법,정책 : 우주활동에 의하여 발생한 손해배상책임에 관한 연구 -관련 사례를 중심으로-

이강빈 ( Kang Bin Lee ) 한국항공우주법학회 2011 한국항공우주정책·법학회지 Vol.26 No.1

현재 우주활동에 의하여 발생된 손해에 대한 배상책임과 관련된 국제조약으로 1967년 우주조약과 1972년 우주손해배상책임조약이 있으며, 또한 우리나라 국내법으로 2008년 우주손해배상법이 있다. 우주조약은 우주활동에 대한 국가의 국제적 책임과 우주물체에 의한 손해에 대한 국가의 불법행위 책임에 관하여 규정하고 있다. 우주손해책임조약은 발사국의 절대적 책임, 과실책임, 연대책임, 배상청구권자, 배상청구방법, 배상청구기한, 배상청구와 국내적 구제, 손해배상액, 청구위원회 설치 등에 관하여 규정하고 있다. 우리나라 우주손해배상법은 우주손해의 정의, 우주손해책임조약과의 관계, 발사자의 무과실책임 및 책임의 집중, 발사자의 손해배상책임한도액, 발사자의 책임보험 가입, 정부의 피해자 구조 및 발사자 지원 등에 관하여 규정하고 있다. 우주사고로 인한 손해배상책임 관련 사례들로 Iridium33과 Cosmos 2251 위성충돌 사건, Cosmos 954 위성추락 사건, Martin Marietta의 위성발사 실패 사건, Westar VI 위성 작동불량 사고 등이 있으며, 이러한 우주사건에 관한 분쟁 또는 소송에 있어서 위성의 발사국, 발사자 및 제조자의 손해배상책임 부담문제에 관련하여 절대책임(엄격책임)원칙 또는 과실책임원칙이 적용되어 해결되고 있다. 우주손해책임조약의 개선방안으로 손해배상청구권자의 명확한 규정, 청구위원회의 결정의 구속력 확보 등을 들 수 있고, 우리나라 우주손해배상법의 개선방안으로 손해배상범위에 간접손해 포함, 손해배상책임 한도액의 통화단위 변경, 공동발사자의 연대책임 및 구상권 신설, 우주손해배상심의위원회의 설치 등을 들 수 있다. 우리나라는 2009년 6월 전남 고흥군 외나로도에 우주센터가 준공되어 동년 8월 및 2010년 6월 우리나라 최초 소형 우주발사체 나로호(KSLV-1)를 두차례 발사하였다. 향후 우리나라는 우주활동 과정에서 우주관련 국제조약 및 국내법상의 국제적 책임 및 우주손해에 대한 배상책임 등 문제들이 발생할 가능성이 있으므로 우리정부 및 우주물체 발사기관은 이러한 문제들에 대한 법적·제도적 대응책을 마련해야 할 것이다. The purpose of this paper is to research on the liability and cases for space damage with reference to the space activity under the international space treaty and national space law of major countries. The United Nations has adopted two treaties relating to the liability for space damage as follows: the Outer Space Treaty of 1967 and the Liability Convention of 1972. Korea has enacted the Outer Space Damage Compensation Act of 2008 relating to the liability for space damages. The Outer Space Treaty of 1967 regulates the international responsibility for national activities in outer space, and the national tort liability for damage by space launching object. The Liability Convention of 1972 regulates the absolute liability by a launching state, the faulty liability by a launching state, the joint and several liability by a launching state, the person claiming for compensation, the claim method for compensation, the claim period of compensation, the claim for compensation and local remedy, the compensation amount for damage by a launching state, and the establishment of the Claims Commission. The Outer Space Damage Compensation Act of 2008 in Korea regulates the definition of space damage, the relation of the Outer Space Damage Compensation Act and the international treaty, the non-faulty liability for damage by a launching person, the concentration of liability and recourse by a launching person, the exclusion of application of the Product Liability Act, the limit amount of the liability for damage by a launching person, the cover of the liability insurance by a launching person, the measures and assistance by the government in case of occurring the space damage, and the exercise period of the claim right of compensation for damage. There are several cases with reference to the liability for damage caused by space accidents as follows: the Collision between Iridium 33 and Cosmos 2251, the Disintegration of Cosmos 954 over Canadian Territory, the Failure of Satellite Launching by Martin Marietta, and the Malfunctioning of Westar VI Satellite. In the disputes and lawsuits due to such space accidents, the problems relating to the liability for space damage have been settled by the application of absolute(strict) liability principle or faulty liability principle. The Liability Convention of 1972 should be improved as follows: the clear definition in respect of the claimer of compensation for damage, the measure in respect of the enforcement of decision by the Claims Commission. The Outer Space Damage Compensation Act of 2008 in Korea should be improved as follows: the inclusion of indirect damage into the definition of space damage, the change of the currency unit of the limit amount of liability for damage, the establishment of joint and several liability and recourse right for damage by space joint launching person, and the establishment of the Space Damage Compensation Review Commission. Korea has built the space center at Oinarodo, Goheung Province in June 2009. Korea has launched the first small launch vehicle KSLV-1 at the Naro Space Center in August 2009 and June 2010. In Korea, it will be the possibility to be occurred the problems relating to the international responsibility and the liability for space damage in the course of space activity. Accordingly the Korean government and launching organization should make the legal and systematic policy to cope with such problems.