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.

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.

소나무재선충병 방제성과의 정량적 분석방법 개선 연구

김참,박범진 한국산림과학회 2024 한국산림과학회지 Vol.113 No.2

우리나라는 2013년부터 소나무재선충병 확산 저지와 피해감소를 위해 전국적으로 많은 예산과 인력을 투입하여방제를 시행하였으며, 그 결과 피해본수가 2014년 218만 본에서 2021년 31만 본까지 감소하였으나 이후 피해가 다시 증가하였다. 전반적인 피해본수 감소에도 불구하고 매년 피해면적이 증가됨에 따라, 선행연구에서는 방제성과의 판단을 위해점적요소인 본수 변화, 면적요소인 피해면적 변화 두 요소를 고려한 정량적 방제성과 분석방법을 개발하였으며 이는 피해본수량에 따른 피해등급변화만을 제시하던 방제지침보다 객관적으로 성과를 가늠할 수 있게 하였다. 그러나 방제성과 분석에는 피해범위의 확장 여부도 중요한 요소이며 선행연구는 이를 반영하지 못하는 문제가 있어 본 연구에서는 연도별 피해범위의 변화 관찰이 용이한 경상북도를 대상으로 선단지 변화거리를 산출하고 적용기준과 계수를 만들어 기존의 방제성과지수 산출식에 적용하도록 식을 개량하였다. 그 결과 피해범위의 변화까지 고려한 방제성과의 정량분석 산출이 가능해졌으며, 경상북도 26개 시·군·구를 대상으로 개선식을 적용한 바, 기존의 산출식을 이용한 방제성과지수보다 소폭 감소하거나 증가하였다. 이러한 결과로 인해 방제성과지수가 피해증가를 의미하는 양의 값(+)에서 피해감소를 의미하는 음의 값(-)으로 변하게 될 수도 있음을 확인하였다. Since 2013, Korea has allocated significant budgets and manpower nationwide to prevent the spread of pine wilt disease and to reduce damage. As a result, the number of damaged trees decreased from 2.18 million in 2014 to 310,000 in 2021. However, the damage has increased again since then. Despite the overall decrease in the number of damaged trees, the scope of the damage continues to expand every year. Previous studies have develope In order to judge the control performance, a quantitative control performance analysis method to objectively evaluate control performance. This method takes into consideration two factors-quantity change and the change in the damage area, which is an area factor. This approach provides a more comprehensive assessment than the control guidelines that only suggest changes in damage grade based on the volume of damaged trees. The expansion of the damage range is also an important factor in analyzing control performance, but previous studies have not reflected this. Therefore, this study calculates the change in the distance of the pine wilt disease boundary area for Gyeongsangbuk-do, where changes in the damage range can easily be observed from year to year. The study then creates application criteria and coefficients and uses them to improves control performance index calculation formula. As a result, it was possible to calculate a quantitative analysis of the control performance, taking into account the changes in the damage range. When the improved formula was applied to 26 cities, counties, and districts in Gyeongsangbuk-do, it slightly decreased or increased compared to the existing calculation formula. This confirmed that the control performance index can change from a positive value (+), indicating increased damage, to a negative value (-), indicating reduced damage.

상법상 물건운송인의 정액배상책임에 관한 이론적 기초

허덕희(Duk-Hoi Huh) 충남대학교 법학연구소 2014 法學硏究 Vol.25 No.3

본 논문은 운송인의 손해배상에 관한 정액주의를 채택하고 있는 상법 제137조의 해석에 관한 이론적 기초를 고찰하는 것을 연구목적으로 한다. 민법 제393조는 손해배상에 관한 일반원칙을 정하고 있고, 이와 별도로 상법은 제137조에서 정액배상을 규정하고 있다. 상법 제137조를 해석함에 있어 민법 제393조와는 단절되는지가 주요 쟁점이다. 민법 제393조는 영국법상 Hadley Rule을 계수하여 입법을 한 규정이고, 상법 제137조는 독일구상법 제430조를 계수한 규정이다. 독일민법은 손해배상의 일반원칙으로 완전배상주의를 제한하기 위한 법리로서 상당인과관계설을 확립하고 있는 반면에, 영국법에서는 Hadley Rule의 완전배상을 제한하기 위한 법리로서 손해의 관련성 및 보호범위론을 적용하고 있다는 점에서 다르다. 이러한 법체제의 상이에도 불구하고 운송물의 멸실 또는 훼손에 대한 운송인의 배상책임에 간전손해를 포함하지 않는다는 점에서는 동일하다. 이는 운송계약의 특성을 고려하여 계약상의 리스크의 분배를 도모하기 위함으로 평가된다. 그리하여 우리 민법 제393조와 상법 제137조의 연혁에 비추어 보았을 때 독일법 및 영국법에서와 같이 상법 제137조를 운송계약상 고유의 리스크를 분배하는 규정으로 해석할 수 있다고 본다. 이 입장에서 상법 제137조는 운송물의 멸실?훼손에 관한 표준적인 리스크분배와 손해액의 산정기준을 정형화하고 있는 규정이라 할 수 있다. 본 논문은 상법 제137조를 해석할 때에 민법 제393조의 연혁적인 법리에 입각하여 해석할 필요가 있다는 점에 주목한다. 민법 제393조는 계약에 의해 보호되는 이익을 판단하여 손해를 정하는 기준이고, 영국에서 운송계약상의 표준적인 리스크분배의 차원에서 운송물에 대한 손해배상의 범위를 통상의 손해로 한정하고 있으며, 민법 제393조 제1항은 추상적손해를 정형화하고 있는 규정이라는 점에서 상법 제137조 제1항, 제2항의 해석과 일치한다고 볼 수 있다. 보호범위론의 입장에서 상법 제137조 제1항, 제2항은 민법 제393조 제1항의 일반원칙을 일부 수정하여 구체화 내지 정형화한 규정이라 해석한다. 그리고 상법 제137조 제3항의 운송인의 고의 또는 중대한 과실은 손해배상의 범위에 관한 민법의 일반원칙을 확장하는 사유가 아니라 상법 제137조 제1항, 제2항의 책임제한의 이익을 상실하는 사유로 해석한다. 결론적으로 영국법상의 보호범위론은 상법 제137조를 해석하는 데에 적용가능한 유용한 해석기준이 될 수 있다고 본다. This Article purpose that the possibility of application to §137 in the Korean Commercial Code from the Remoteness and scope of duty principles of the contract damages on common law in the England. This article search for the researching purpose for the sake of the relation between §137 in the Commercial Code with §393 in the Civil Code in the Korea. The reason is the §137 in the Korean Commercial Code adopted the §430 on the Handelsgesetzbuch of 1897 in the Germany, and §393 in the Civil Code adopted principles of the Hadley v. Baxendale in the England. The German Commercial Law §430 (1) in whole or partial destruction of a transportation of goods are based on the same kind of the and property are had over by checkpoint in time to pay for it to the destruction of the day of he should compensate for the price of the average transaction prices or the price when there was no average. (2) In the case of damage to the checkpoints are not undermined by its purchase price and destination in damaged condition to deliver in case of time and place of normal trading price or a normal, shall compensate the margin with price. (3) The loss is a carrier of intentional misconduct or egregious negligence cause in a time when the carrier is shall be for all damages. And the costs of checkpoints, immune from the payment of costs or damage caused by other transportation would be deducted from any amount of compensation. In the Hadley v. Baxendale, Where two parties have made a contract which one of them has borken the damages which the other party ought to receive in respect of such breach of contract as may fairly and reasonably be considered as either arising naturally, ie, according to the usual course of things, from such of contract itself, or such as may reasonably be supposed to have been in the contemplation of both parties at the time they made the contract as the propable result of the breach of it. If special circumstances under which the contract was actually made were communicated by the plaintiffs to the defendants, and thus known to both parties, the damages resulting from the breach of such a contract which they would reasonably contemplate would be the amount of injury which ordinarily follow from a breach of contract under the special circumstances so known and the communicated. In this Article interpret that §137 (1), (2) in the Korean Commercial Code same as the normal measure of damages on the §393 (1) in the Korean Civil Code, and intention or gross negligence of the carrier by land transport on the §137 (3) in the Korean Commercial Code in base of the principles of Scope of Duty in the England Common Law deprive of the interests of adoption in the fixed amount compensation on the §137 (1), (2) of the liability of damage.

산업재해보상보험법의 몇 가지 문제점과 개선방향

최윤희(崔允姬) 서울대학교 노동법연구회 2009 노동법연구 Vol.0 No.26

Since the legislation of the Industrial Accident Insurance Act of 1963, we have implemented the system of the industrial accident insurance as a social security insurance. Our industrial accident insurance system was devised to supplement the traditional damage claim system under the civil law, which requires a strict proof rules in a litigation seeking a damage indemnification. The final goal of the industrial accident insurance system is to protect an employee laborer from any possible industrial accident, which includes medical treatment, living expenses, and the protection of people handicapped from industrial accidents. In other words, one of the final goals of the system is to secure and protect the right of existence and living of an employee worker as a human being. In this thesis, I examined some issues of our current system so that they can be improved through some legislative or legally interpretative measures. Those issues can be largely divided into three groups; the scope of the industrial accident insurance coverage, some legal matters related to the current industrial accident insurance system, and the arguments on ‘the privatization of the industrial accident insurance’. More specifically speaking, the matter of the scope of the industrial accident insurance coverage includes the matter of a single employer who is in fact working just like an employee worker from the perspective of the accident risk possibility, the matter of a worker originally employed by an employer in a domestic workplace and later dispatched for a long term period to overseas by the same employer, and the matter of construction workers employed by an employer who runs a non-registered construction workplace under the relevant construction laws. I also touched the matter of causation between the accident and the work performance under the scope of the industrial accident insurance coverage. As for some legal matters related to the current industrial accident insurance system, I examined the prescription period of the right to damage-claim, and the right of damage reimbursement under the current industrial accident insurance, while trying to analyze the relationship between the industrial accident insurance system as a social security insurance and the traditional damage claim system under the civil law. In addition, beneficiary's right to choose a lump-sum or monthly-paid reimbursement, and the scope of the subject of the claim to be filed in and decided by the Accident Insurance Judgement Committee were reviewed. As for the arguments on ‘the privatization of the industrial accident insurance’, I weighed the pros and cons of the argument and presented my disagreement with the privatization at this point of social and economic situation. At the end, as a conclusion, I tried to find some better solutions to the above issues, which are mainly suggestions of further legislative measures and legally acceptable interpretation of the relevant laws and regulations.

Coring Damage Extent of Rock Cores Retrieved from High In-situ Stress Condition: A Case Study

Peng Yan,Qi He,Wenbo Lu,Yanli He,Wei Zhou,Ming Chen 대한토목학회 2017 KSCE JOURNAL OF CIVIL ENGINEERING Vol.21 No.7

The distribution of damage in deep rock cores is critical for assessing its influence on rock mechanical characteristics. This paper presents a case study on estimating the coring damage extent induced by the stress redistribution through a combined method of numerical simulation and X-ray Computed Tomography (CT) scanning. Rock cores are taken at 1900 m depth from the test tunnel at Jin-ping Second Stage Hydropower Station (JPII) in China. Firstly, the stress path experienced by the rock core during coring has been examined by the numerical simulation, and the distribution of tensile zone in the cross-section of rock core is also discussed. Then two kinds of samples, collected from the same position under different stress levels, are scanned to obtain CT images, and a special CT value analysis strategy was adopted to evaluate coring damage intensities of these samples. The result indicates that the stress state can be regarded as the principal factor for the distribution of coring damage. During coring in the Test Tunnel of JPII under the quasi-hydrostatic stress condition, high tensile stresses (over 5 MPa) are observed at the exterior edge of rock cores, which may lead to the nucleation of microcracks around the core boundary, and the coring damage then propagates to the core centre. The CT scanning also illustrates that the coring damage zone may cover approximately 70~80% of the entire cross-section from the outside inside (stress level of 50 MPa), and that the central part of the core is less damaged or eventually undisturbed. Thus, intact rock samples can be expected to be obtained by overcoring the original rock cores. However, the applicability of the overcoring method seems to be largely dependent on the state of in-situ stress at the coring site. The whole core may be damaged if the lateral stress coefficient reaches a critical value (e.g. greater than 3.0), in which case a special coring equipment should be adopted to improve the stress state during coring.

미국 불법행위법상 손해배상의 범위에 관한 일반론적 고찰

김영희 한국민사법학회 2014 民事法學 Vol.66 No.-

The US Tort Law is reluctant to formulate generalities. The author, nevertheless, makes an attempt to set a generality on the scope of liability under the US Tort Law even in the Korean way. Although this kind of work quite apparently has drawbacks including it may make the mistake of hasty generalization, she accepts risk in order to get better and accurate understanding the law. Consequently the study flows cogently from the Restatements of US Tort Law and the major US tort law textbooks to the generality like following: The basic scope of liability is 1) the damages in the legal cause, 2) the damages within the foreseeability, and 3) the general damages. The 3-prongs of the generality on the scope are independent, but partially overlapped. It means that the damage in the legal causation is usually foreseeable and frequently comes under the category of the general damages. Meanwhile, the 3-prongs give a room for exceptions. Sometimes the damages unforeseeable come in for the liability, sometimes the special damages are subjected to the liability on the burden of proof.

감염병 확산행위자에 대한 손해배상청구에 관한 고찰

백경희(Baek, Kyoung-Hee) 원광대학교 법학연구소 2021 圓光法學 Vol.37 No.3

우리나라를 비롯하여 전세계는 중국 우한시에서 시작된 코로나19 바이러스 대유행의 영향을 2020년을 지나 2021년에도 겪고 있다. 코로나19 사태는 감염병위기 단계 중 가장 높은 ‘심각’에 해당하기에 사회･경제적으로 미치는 폐해가 막대한 상황이다. 감염병은 사회재난에 해당하기 때문에 ‘감염병의 예방 및 관리에 관한 법률’에서 국가와 지방자치단체는 국민의 생명･신체･재산을 보호하기 위하여 감염병 전파차단과 예방을 위한 조치를 하여야 하며 그 비용을 부담하도록 하고 있다. 한편 감염병예방법은 감염병 전파 차단과 예방을 위한 조치를 방해하는 자에 대하여 행정형벌과 행정질서벌, 행정처분 등의 제재 규정을 두고 있지만, 야기한 피해에 대한 배상과 관련하여서는 별도의 규정을 두고 있지 않아 일반법인 민법에 의하여 규율하여 왔다. 그런데 감염병예방법은 2021. 3. 9. 일부개정을 통해 제72조의2를 신설하여 정부나 지방자치단체 등이 감염병 확산행위자에 대하여 그 비용에 대한 손해배상을 청구할 권리를 규정하였다. 코로나19 사태와 같이 대규모의 감염병위기가 유례가 없을 정도로 장기화되는 현시점에서 특별법인 감염병예방법을 통하여 국가나 지방자치단체가 감염병 확산행위자에 대하여 요건과 범위를 설정하고 직접 손해배상청구를 할 수 있는 신설규정을 둔 것은 시의적절하다. 본고에서는 감염병예방법 상 신설된 손해배상청구권이 감염병 확산행위자에 대하여, 민법의 특별법 지위에서 감염병예방법 상 어떠한 법리와 요건을 통하여 지출비용을 청구하는 것인지에 관하여 고찰하고자 한다. 특히 감염병예방법은 이 법을 위반하여 감염병을 확산시킨 자 외에 확산 위험성을 증대시킨 자까지 손해배상청구권의 상대방으로 하고 있고 행정형벌 외에 행정질서벌을 선고받은 자도 포함하고 있으며, 손해배상의 범위를 입원치료비를 비롯하여 손실보상금 등 감염병의 예방 및 관리 등을 위하여 지출된 비용으로 규정하고 있는바, 그러한 내용이 손해배상의 범위와 상당인과관계에 비추어 적정한지를 살펴보고자 한다. 특히 감염병 확산행위자가 손해를 야기하더라도 감염병예방법 상 국가나 지방자치단체가 원칙적으로 감염병의 차단과 예방에 소요되는 비용을 지급할 의무를 부담하고 구상권을 행사하는 구조라는 점을 감안할 때, 그 비용이 감염병 확산행위자 개인이 피해자에 대하여 불법행위책임에 기초하여 발생한 손해의 범위 내로 포섭되어야 함을 유념하여야 할 것이다. 더구나 감염병위기가 발생한 것 자체를 개인의 전적인 책임으로 추궁하기 어렵고 감염병위기라는 사회재난의 상황에서 개인이 이성적 대처를 하는 것이 어려운 상황이 있을 수 있다는 점에서 경비 전부를 징수하는 것이 부당한 사안도 발생할 수 있기 때문에 ‘지출된 비용의 전부 또는 일부에 대해’ 손해배상을 청구할 수 있도록 유동성을 보충하는 방향도 고려하여야 할 것이다. The world, including Korea, is experiencing the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic that started in Wuhan, China in 2020 and 2021. The Covid-19 crisis is one of the most severe stages of the infectious disease crisis, and its social and economic harm is enormous. Since an infectious disease is a social disaster, the State and local governments in the ‘Act on the Prevention and Management of Infectious Diseases’ shall take measures to block and prevent the spread of infectious diseases in order to protect the lives, bodies, and properties of the people, and pay the expenses. The Act provides sanctions such as criminal punishment and administrative disposition for those who obstruct measures to block and prevent the spread of infectious diseases. In relation to compensation for damage caused by actors who spread infectious diseases, it has been regulated by the Civil Act in the past. However, on March 9, 2021, Article 72-2 in the Act was newly established through a partial amendment, stipulating the right of the government or local governments to claim damages for the cost of those who spread the infectious disease. When a large-scale infectious disease crisis such as the Covid-19 situation is prolonging to an unprecedented level, the State or local governments can set the requirements and scope for the actors who spread the infection and directly claim damages through the Act. This paper intends to examine how the new right to claim compensation under the Infectious Disease Prevention Act through which legal principles and requirements. In particular, the Infectious Disease Prevention Act covers not only those who spread an infectious disease in violation of the Act, but also those who have increased the risk of spread as the other party to the right to claim compensation. In addition, it is defined as expenses incurred for the prevention and management of infectious diseases, such as compensation for loss, etc., and we will examine whether such contents are appropriate in light of the scope of compensation for damages and the causal relationship. In particular, given that the State or local governments are, in principle, obligated to pay the costs for the prevention and control of infectious diseases and exercise the right to indemnity under the Infectious Disease Prevention Act, even if the person who spreads the infection causes damage. It should be borne in mind that the individual actors of the spread of the infection should be included within the scope of the damage caused on the basis of tort liability to the victim. Moreover, since it is difficult for the individual to take full responsibility for the outbreak of an infectious disease crisis and there may be situations in which it may be difficult for an individual to respond rationally in the situation of a social disaster such as an infectious disease crisis, it may be unfair to collect all expenses. Therefore, it is necessary to consider the direction of supplementing liquidity so that damages can be claimed ‘for all or part of the expenses’.

징벌적 손해배상제도에 관한 소고

이진성(Lee, Jin-Seong) 동아대학교 법학연구소 2018 東亞法學 Vol.- No.78

BC 1750년경의 함무라비법전, BC 1400년경의 히타이트법전, 모세율법의 헤브라이법전 등 고대법(古代法)에서는 일반적으로 피해자의 실손해액의 몇 배를 배상하게 하는 배수적 손해보상을 규정해왔다. 근대법에 있어서 징벌적 손해배상은 영국의 보통법에 의하여 발전되었다. 영국에서는 1275년 최초의 배 수적 손해배상을 결정한 법률을 제정하였다. 1763년 징벌적 손해배상이 보통법에 명시적으로 수용된 두 개의 판례(Huckle v. Money 사건, Wilkes v. Wood 사건)가 나왔고, 1766년에도 이를 인정하는 판례(Benson v. Frederich 사건)가 있었다. 이후 1964년 Rookes v. Barnard 사건 판결을 계기로 오늘과 같은 제도로 확립되었다. 현재 징벌적 손해배상은 영국·미국·캐나다 등 영미법을 근간으로 하는 국가에서 주로 행해지고 있다. 민·형사책임의 분화를 가장 큰 성과로 여기는 대륙법계 국가에서는 특수한 제도의 징벌적 손해배상제도의 도입을 반대해오고 있었다. 그러나 징벌적 손해배상제도는 고의성·악의성을 가진 불법행위자들을 징벌하고 억제하여, 사회질서를 유지하게 하는 순기능이 부각되면서, 제도의 도입은 피할 수 없는 시대적 흐름이 되었다. 최근에는 대륙법계 국가들에서도 개별법(식품안전, 소비자 권익보호 등)에 한해서 징벌적 손해배상제도의 성격을 띄는 배수적 손해보상제도 혹은 징벌적 손해배상을 인정하고 있는 추세를 보인다. 그러나 영미계의 특수한 제도인 징벌적 손해배상제도는 한국의 법체계를 고려하지 않은 제도이므로, 징벌적 손해배상제도의 법적 성질은 쟁점거리가 되고 있다. 현행 손해배상제도의 결점을 비롯한 많은 이유들로 우리는 징벌적 손해배상제도의 필요성을 충분히 느끼고 있다. 그러나 한국에 맞는 법체계를 정립하기 위해서 우리는 징벌적 손해배상에 대한 많은 분석과 연구로 합리적인 제도의 구축을 실현해야한다. 본문에서는 영국, 미국, 중국의 제도 경험을 고찰한 후, 해외의 경험적 사례를 통한, 구체적 한국으로의 점진적인 제도 도입에 관해 살펴본다. The Old Law, such as the HammurabI Code of around 1750, the Hitite Code of around 1400 B.C. and the Hebrey Code of Capillary Law, generally defined several times the cost of multiple losses of victims. In modern law punitive damages were developed by the Common Law of England. The United Kingdom enacted the first law in 1275 to decide the compensation of damage to the number of ships. There were two precedent cases (Huckle v. Money case, Wilkes v. Wood case) in which punitive damages were explicitly accepted in the law in 1763, and this was also confirmed in 1766. Later in 1964, upon the judgment of the Rookes v. Barnard case, the system was established as it is today. The punitive damages are currently being done mostly in countries that have a background in the English, American and Canada laws. Continental legal countries, which consider the differentiation of civil and criminal responsibility the most significant achievement, have been protesting the introduction of the punitive damages compensation system under the special system. But as the punitive damages system punished and restrained illegal actors with high intent and malice, it was inevitable to introduce the system in an era when the net function of maintaining social order was emphasized. More recently, Continental legal countries have also admitted to the punitive damages or compensation system, which is a feature of the punitive damage compensation scheme under individual laws (food safety, protection of consumer rights, etc.). However, since the punitive damages compensation system, a special system of the English and American fields, does not take into consideration the Korean legal system, the legal nature of punitive damages is becoming an issue. For many reasons, including the flaws in the current damage compensation system, we feel the necessity of a punitive damage compensation system. But to establish a proper legal system for Korea, we should realize the establishment of a reasonable system with many analyses and studies on punitive damages. The text discusses the institutional experiences of Britain, the United States, and China, and then the gradual introduction of the system into Korea via experience cases abroad.

임상시험 단계의 의료행위에 대한 설명의무 위반과 손해배상의 범위 ― 대법원 2015. 10. 29. 선고 2014다22871 판결을 중심으로 ―

고은섭 ( Eunsub Ko ) 연세대학교 법학연구원 의료·과학기술과 법센터 2017 연세 의료·과학기술과 법 Vol.8 No.2

With advancements in medical treatment techniques, countless new health technologies are beginning to surface. It has become conventional to see medical treatment advertisements that boast its new surgical techniques in plasticㆍcosmetic surgery that have absolutely no side effects and ensures safety. Courts have declared such medical practices without basis on any clinical experience that proves its safety and its effectiveness to be considered `medical practices in the clinical trial stage` and make decisions on the scope of compensation for damages differently from those of ordinary practices in cases of violation of the explanation duty. Therefore, this dissertation examines rulings that focus on the scope of compensation for damages for violating the explanation duty of medical practices in the clinical trial stage and suggests standards to determine the scope of compensation for damages. The scope of compensation for damages that occur due to violation of the explanation duty should be limited to solatium in principle but full-damage compensation should also be recognized in exception in order to guarantee specific validity. It should not be decided uniformly but rather be decided according to specific matters. This is likewise for rulings on the cases of medical practices in the clinical trial stage. Thus, even if one violates the explanation duty that the medical practice is in its clinical trial stage, it should not be considered to be at a level of violating the explanation duty in cases of malpractice and proximate causal relations with key results, and the degree of validation required should not be expected to be at a lower level. Rather, it must be determined, in consideration of the factual grounds, whether full-damage compensation should be acknowledged. If we distinguish the ordinary explanation duty from the explanation duty for medical practices in clinical trial stage and consider the lack of explanation in both cases, the degree of violation of the explanation duty is regarded serious and as a result, it will be easier from the patient`s perspective to prove whether the violation can also be regarded as malpractice and to confirm the proximate causal relation with the result. However, in case one has fulfilled the general explanation duty but has failed to explain that the medical practice is in its clinical trial stage, the standard of proof cannot be lowered by the fact that the medical practice is in its clinical trial stage and if one fails to provide any solid grounds, the form of compensation will return to normalcy and simply be in that of solatium. The reason as to why one takes a passive stance in acknowledging full-damage compensation is because as the explanation duty, in theory, is based on protecting the self determination, or rather the personal rights of the patient, it is only fair in principle that the scope of compensation for violation of explanation duty be limited accordingly. However, as today`s society continues to become more complex and diverse and thereby changes the framework of medical litigations, the necessity to make judgments that are sometimes contrary to principle remain in existence. In conclusion, there must be a balance maintained between considering the good of the patient, which is the weaker party due to the asymmetry of information, and making sure that advances in medical practices are not hindered.