하자담보책임법 개정을 위한 논의와 방향성을 위한 소고 - 독일 개정민법의 내용을 중심으로 -

문성제 한국재산법학회 2010 재산법연구 Vol.27 No.2

Current regulations on liability for warranty against defects (hereinafter called “warranty liability”) under Article 580 of Korean Civil Law contain very abstract and ambiguous provisions, which were contrary to those regulations enforced in major countries of Continental law system that is well characterized by further and unambiguous provisions about requirements or matter of facts for justification of liability. Furthermore, most countries of Continental law system has established legal provisions on permission of justifiable claims for contractual termination and reduction in price as a part of effectiveness of warranty liability under their current civil law, so that those provisions can be effective in the actual imposition of liability for damages on certain sellers to the extent that their acts satisfy special requirements like malicious intent. Contrary to these countries,however, Korean Civil Law has no express provision on permission of claims for reduction in price due to defects of any goods, but provides that buyers may terminate their contract with sellers only when the former hardly expect any successful achievement of contractual goals, and also provides that the former may claim damages to the latter in other cases. Moreover, current Korean Civil Law stipulates that sellers shall bear any strict liability for damages due to defects of subject matter in trade, but it still exposes a question of ambiguity about which requirements and damages shall be applicable to such strict liability. Recent international discussions about warranty liability deals with liability for warranty against defects of subject matter in trade as a part of liability for any default of obligation within a framework of integrated liability laws, and also treats the defects as a category of integrated requirements under said laws. The Article 437 of Revised German Civil Law has unified provisions on liability for any damage against defects of goods and rights vested therein. Furthermore,said Article 437 stipulates that sellers have their mandatory responsibility for offering and selling indefective goods to buyers in the aspect of subject matter and rights, and also incorporates any liability for damages against defects into the Contractual Obligation Breach Act (Leistungsstörungsrecht) in force. But Korean civil law establishes provisions on warranty liability, apart from liability for non-fulfillment of obligations, without any stipulation on possible concepts of defect. That is why it has many challenges in its construction and execution. Starting from these points, this study reflects on Korean circumstances of energetic discussions on revision of current Civil Law regarding warranty liability,with a view to examine such legal composition and major considerations of the Warranty Liability Act under German Civil Law as shown in the course of modernization of obligation laws, so that it focuses investigation specially on the Warranty Liability Act among other considerations required for discussions on revision of Korean Civil Law. The content and legal composition of Warranty Liability Act under the German Civil Law becomes one of major matters required for reference in the aspect of comparative law, even if Korean legislative authorities enact legislations on warranty liability and other non-performance cases under Civil Law in near future. From the above perspectives, this study addresses composition and major considerations of provisions on liability for damages against defects under revised German Civil Law, focusing on investigating major contents and favorable orientations of the Revised Korean Civil Law.

하자담보책임법 개정을 위한 논의와 방향성을 위한 소고

문성재(Moon, Seong-Jea) 한국재산법학회 2010 재산법연구 Vol.27 No.2

Current regulations on liability for warranty against defects (hereinafter called “warranty liability”) under Article 580 of Korean Civil Law contain very abstract and ambiguous provisions, which were contrary to those regulations enforced in major countries of Continental law system that is well characterized by further and unambiguous provisions about requirements or matter of facts for justification of liability. Furthermore, most countries of Continental law system has established legal provisions on permission of justifiable claims for contractual termination and reduction in price as a part of effectiveness of warranty liability under their current civil law, so that those provisions can be effective in the actual imposition of liability for damages on certain sellers to the extent that their acts satisfy special requirements like malicious intent. Contrary to these countries, however, Korean Civil Law has no express provision on permission of claims for reduction in price due to defects of any goods, but provides that buyers may terminate their contract with sellers only when the former hardly expect any successful achievement of contractual goals, and also provides that the former may claim damages to the latter in other cases. Moreover, current Korean Civil Law stipulates that sellers shall bear any strict liability for damages due to defects of subject matter in trade, but it still exposes a question of ambiguity about which requirements and damages shall be applicable to such strict liability. Recent international discussions about warranty liability deals with liability for warranty against defects of subject matter in trade as a part of liability for any default of obligation within a framework of integrated liability laws, and also treats the defects as a category of integrated requirements under said laws. The Article 437 of Revised German Civil Law has unified provisions on liability for any damage against defects of goods and rights vested therein. Furthermore, said Article 437 stipulates that sellers have their mandatory responsibility for offering and selling indefective goods to buyers in the aspect of subject matter and rights, and also incorporates any liability for damages against defects into the Contractual Obligation Breach Act (Leistungsstörungsrecht) in force. But Korean civil law establishes provisions on warranty liability, apart from liability for non-fulfillment of obligations, without any stipulation on possible concepts of defect. That is why it has many challenges in its construction and execution. Starting from these points, this study reflects on Korean circumstances of energetic discussions on revision of current Civil Law regarding warranty liability, with a view to examine such legal composition and major considerations of the Warranty Liability Act under German Civil Law as shown in the course of modernization of obligation laws, so that it focuses investigation specially on the Warranty Liability Act among other considerations required for discussions on revision of Korean Civil Law. The content and legal composition of Warranty Liability Act under the German Civil Law becomes one of major matters required for reference in the aspect of comparative law, even if Korean legislative authorities enact legislations on warranty liability and other non-performance cases under Civil Law in near future. From the above perspectives, this study addresses composition and major considerations of provisions on liability for damages against defects under revised German Civil Law, focusing on investigating major contents and favorable orientations of the Revised Korean Civil Law.

賣渡人의 擔保責任에 관한 민법규정의 改正을 위한 一提言

김대정 한국민사법학회 2010 民事法學 Vol.49 No.1

This paper has focused on my personal opinion that aims to investigate problems in the provisions of liability for breach of warranty of the Seller in Korean Civil Code now in force(hereafter "current Civil Code") and to propose a way of revising and a definite plan for amendment of the current Civil Code for the purpose of modernisation of our Law of Warranty of the seller with a view to come up the current Civil Code to the global standard. The summary of conclusions of this paper is as follows. (1) The current Civil Code provides liability for breach of warranty(ensurence that the goods conform to the contract) of the seller seperating from liability for non-performance of obligation of the seller to transfer perfect ownership to the buyer. But judging from the point of view of the theory of Liability for non-performance, the cause of separation of this two liabilities in current Civil Code is not logical but is merely historical. In my opinion, it is not only possible to consolidate two types of liabilities(a liability for breach of warranty of the seller and a liability for non-performance of obligation of the seller to transfer perfect ownership to the buyer) into one consolidated liability but also it is desirable. So I has proposed a Draft(the 1st Draft) that follows the model of German Civil Code(BGB) that consolidate two types of liabilities into one unified liability. But with regard to feeling of refusal for the unifying system and the convenience in practical jurisprudence, I has proposed another Draft(the 2nd Draft) that adhere to the system of the current Civil Code that provides dual liability for breach of warranty and non-performance. (2) It is necessary to revise the provision of the Section 568 of the current Civil Code to in-sert a provision for the obligation of the seller to transfer the perfect ownership of the goods and the obligation of the seller to deliver the non-defected goods that conform to the contract. The purpose of codifying the obligation to transfer the perfect ownership of the goods and the obligation to deliver the non-defected goods of the seller is to unify the system of the law of obligations by subsumption the law of liability for breach of warranty in the law of obligations by making clear that the nature of liability for breach of warranty is a kind of liability for non-performance. It means that the theory of "a specific thing dogma" is denied, and it means that the liability for breach of warranty in a specific thing that has a original and incurable defect is also a kind of liability for non-performance. Hence it is necessary to delete the Section 535 of the current Civil Code that prescribes liability for breach of pre-contractual duty that premise the theory of Impossibilium nulla obligatio and to delete the Section 462 of the current Civil Code that prescribes the obligation of a debtor to deliver the specific thing as existing condition. (3) In this paper I has proposed two types of Drafts(the 1st Draft is a draft that consolidate two types of liabilities into one unified liability and the 2nd Draft is a draft that provides dual liability for breach of warranty and non-performance) for the liability for breach of warranty of the seller to transfer perfect ownership to the buyer, the core contens of the 1st Draft is the establishment the new unific Article(Section 569) that provides condition and effect(remedy) of the liability for defective right(ownership etc.) and liability for defective goods deleting most part of provisions of the liability for defective right in the current Civil Code. (4) In the 2nd Draft I has proposed that it is necessary to codify clearly that it needs intention or carelessness for remedy the effect of the liability for defective right. (5) It is necessary for resolving difficulty of interpretation caused from structural defect in the current Civil Code, for rebuilding legal system of liability for defective right and goods system, and for comin...

중국 불법행위법의 공평책임

김성수 경희대학교 법학연구소 2015 경희법학 Vol.50 No.3

Tort Liability Act of China(2009)(article 24) provides equitable liability as follows :  Where neither the victim nor the actor is at fault for the occurrence of a damage and there are no special provisions admitting the no-fault liability, both of them may share the damage based on the actual situations, according to the idea of equitable liability. In particular, the existing provision of the Tort Liability Act being almost literally brought from the provisions of General Principles of the Civil Law of China(1986)(article 132), is provided as the form of general rule of the equitable liability principle. The opinions are divided about whether the provisions relating to these equity liability is an independent principle, which is distinguished from the fault-based liability and the no fault liability, whether it can be acknowledges as a general provision and what relationship between the principles of equity as being recognized as one of basic principles of the General Principles of the Civil Law. This provision relating to the principle of equitable liability of China is accepted from the second draft of the German Civil Code(1895) and Russian Civil Code(1922). According to current legislation, Germain Civil Code does not recognize it as a general rule, but only recognizes separately in the case of liability of supervisor over incompetent person(article 829). On the other hand, the Swiss Code of Obligations and the Taiwan Civil Code recognize the coexistence of the general rule and separate provision relating to mitigating the liability. Chinese doctrine try to set the scope limit of the equity liability with the legal provisions to prevent abuse of the principle of equitable liability and to divide it into different types, as follows : a type of mitigating/aggravating tort liability, a type of beneficiary’s compensation, a type of no-fault compensation of both parties. According to the Korean Civil Act(article 765) concerning application for reduction in compensation amount, the person liable to make compensation in accordance with the provisions of this chapter may petition the court for a reduction in the amount of compensation, if the damages were caused neither intentionally nor by gross negligence, and such payments of compensation shall be a severe hardship to his livelihood(paragraph 1). The court may, if the petition mentioned in paragraph 1 has been filed, reduce the amount of compensation after a study of the claimants and obligors respective financial situations and the cause giving rise to the damages(paragraph 2). In addition, korean doctrine and jurisprudence recognize several institution reflected the idea of equity. The comparative study of equitable liability is needed, especially of the case of tort liability law in china, for the revision of Korean Civil Code, including the activation of this article 765. The legal provision as the general rule and the theoretical discussion about the equitable liability in China, will also give you useful suggestions in Korean civil Code. Above all, we will need more comprehensive study the application for reduction in compensation amount, the liability of supervisor over incompetent person and etc. and the interrelation between them. The study of Swiss, Taiwan and China will give some suggestions. 중국의 불법행위책임법(2009년)(제24조)에서는 당사자 쌍방이 손해의 발생에 모두 과실이 없고 법률에도 무과실책임을 인정하는 특별규정이 없는 경우에 법원이 공평의 관념에 의하여 피해자의 손해, 당사자 쌍방의 재산적 사정과 기타의 관련 사정을 고려하여 가해자에게 피해자의 손해에 대하여 상당한 배상을 명할 수 있는 것으로 하는데 이를 공평책임이라고 한다. 특히 현행 불법행위책임법의 규정은 이전의 민법통칙(제132조)을 받아들여 이러한 공평책임에 대한 일반규정을 두고 있다. 이러한 공평책임에 관한 규정이 과실책임과 무과실책임과 구별되는 독립한 책임귀속원칙의 하나인가, 일반규정으로 이를 인정해야 하는가, 민법의 기본원칙으로서 인정되는 총칙의 공평의 원칙의 관계에 대하여는 학설은 대립하고 있다. 이러한 중국의 공평책임의 원칙에 관한 규정은 독일민법 제2초안과 1922년 러시아민법전에서 인정되던 것을 받아들인 것이다. 현행 입법례로는 공평의 원칙은 일반규정으로 이를 인정하지 않고 책임무능력자에서 개별적으로 인정하는 독일민법전(제829조)과 배상액의 감경에 관한 일반규정과 개별규정을 병존하여 인정하는 스위스채무법과 대만민법전의 입법례가 있다. 중국의 학설은 공평책임의 원칙의 남용을 막기 위하여 명문규정으로 공평책임의 적용범위를 정하여야 하고 이러한 원칙이 구체적으로 인정되는 경우를 유형화하여 불법행위책임의 감경유형, 가중유형, 수익자 배상유형, 쌍방 무과실 배상유형으로 나누기도 한다. 우리 민법도 고의 또는 중대한 과실에 의한 것이 아닌 불법행위로 인한 손해배상으로 채무자의 생계에 중대한 영향을 미치게 될 경우에 배상의무자의 청구로 그 손해를 감경할 수 있는 것으로 한다(제765조). 또한 이러한 공평의 관념이 반영된 여러 제도를 학설과 판례는 인정하고 있다. 이 조문은 활성화를 위하여는 우리 법의 개정을 위하여 비교법적으로 공평책임을 일반규정으로 할 것인가, 개별규정에서 공평책임을 인정할 것인가의 비교법적 연구가 필요하고 특히 공평책임의 일반규정을 위해서는 중국의 현행규정과 개별적 유형화 등은 우리민법에도 유용한 시사점을 줄 것이다. 무엇보다도 우리 법에서는 공평책임의 일반규정과 현행법의 배상액 감경의 관계와 개별적 유형으로 책임무능력자의 감독자의 책임에 이를 명문으로 인정할 것인가가 향후 연구가 필요하다.

일본 개정민법상의 계약부적합 개념과 책임에 관한 고찰

송영민 민사법의 이론과 실무학회 2019 民事法理論과 實務 Vol.22 No.3

This treatise examines contractual incongruity concept and the right to enforce conforming performance of contractual incongruity liability in trade of Japanese revised civil law effective April 2020. Japanese revised civil law basically amended the regulation about defect warranty liability of seller including establishment of regulation about contractual incongruity liability of seller in trade contract. The rough comparison on the relation with Korean civil law(property law) revision draft is as follows. ① Legal characteristic of defect warranty liability is equal to Japanese revised civil law regarding default liability theory. ② Japanese revised civil law introduced new concept called 「contractual incongruity」, deleting 「defect」 concept in defect warranty liability. The liability of seller on contractual incongruity unified as default liability irrespective of default type(default liability of incongruity benefit). In addition, defect warranty liability regulation of subcontract was deleted, and simultaneously trade regulation was completely applied to subcontract. These are different points from Korean civil law revision draft. ③ The opinions between two countries are basically same in legislation and legal characteristic of the right to enforce conforming performance. ④ Korean civil law revision draft prescribes the position of right to enforce conforming performance as one of the general relief measures of default, on the other hand, Japanese revised civil law prescribes it in trade part. ⑤ Japanese revised civil law admitted the superiority of subsequent completion in relationship between the right to enforce conforming performance and the claim for damages, on the other hand, there is no regulation about it in Korean civil law revision draft. In conclusion, there is certain gap between two countries in basic direction of revision. Korean civil law revision draft reflects theories and precedents maintaining the phenomenon, but Japanese revised civil law reflects theories and precedents through the revision. In this regard, the systematic comparative review should be needed in Korean civil law and Japanese civil law. 본 논문은 2020년 4월 시행되는 일본개정민법상의 매매에서의 계약부적합 개념과 계약부적합 책임 중 추완청구권에 관한 부분을 검토한 것이다. 일본개정민법은 매매계약에서 매도인의 계약부적합 책임에 관한 규정을 신설하는 등 종래 매도인의 하자담보책임에 관한 규정을 근본적으로 개정한 것이다. 2014년에 확정발표된 우리민법(재산법)개정시안과의 관계를 개략적으로 비교검토하면 아래와 같다. ① 하자담보책임의 법적 성질에 관해서는 채무불이행책임설로 본 일본개정민법과 동일하다. ② 일본개정민법은 하자담보책임법상의 「하자」개념을 삭제하고 그 대신 「계약부적합」이라는 새로운 개념을 도입하였다. 계약부적합에 대한 매도인의 책임은 불이행의 유형을 불문하고 채무불이행책임으로 일원화하였다(부적합급부의 채무불이행 책임화). 그리고 도급계약 고유의 하자담보책임 규정을 삭제함과 동시에 매매규정을 도급에 전면적 적용하였다. 이들은 우리민법개정시안과의 상이점이다. ③ 추완청구권의 입법화와 법적 성질론에서는 기본적으로 양 국가의 견해가 일치하고 있다. ④ 추완청구권 규정 위치에 대하여 우리민법개정시안은 채무불이행의 일반적 구제수단의 하나로 규정하고 있는 반면에, 일본개정민법은 매매 편에서 규정하고 있는 점에서 차이가 있다. ⑤ 추완청구권과 손해배상청구권과의 관계에 대하여 일본개정민법은 추완의 우월성은 인정하고 있다. 반면에 우리민법개정시안에는 이에 대한 규정이 없다. 결론적으로 위의 비교검토에서도 개략적으로 나타나듯이, 양 국가는 개정의 기본적 방향성에서 일정한 차이가 있다. 우리민법개정시안은 큰 틀에서는 현상을 유지하면서 학설과 판례를 반영한 개정이지만, 일본개정민법은 큰 틀에서의 개정을 통하여 학설과 판례를 반영한 입장이라 할 것이다. 앞으로 우리민법과 일본민법의 체계적인 비교법적 검토가 필요할 것으로 보인다.

계약체결상의 과실책임에 관한 연구

김상찬(Kim, Sang-chan),이충은(Lee, Choong-eun) 호남대학교 인문사회과학연구소 2009 人文社會科學硏究 Vol.24 No.-

계약체결상의 과실책임이라 함은 계약체결을 위한 당사자간의 접촉개시 시부터 계약체결 시까지 계약을 성립하기 위한 협의과정에서 계약당사자 일방의 과실로 인하여 상대방이 손해를 입게 된 경우 그 손해의 배상을 인정하는 것을 말한다. 우리 민법은 제535조에서 계약체결상의 과실이라는 표제를 사용함으로써 계약체결상의 과실책임을 명문으로 규정하고 있다. 계약체결상의 과실책임은 독일 민법에서 인정되어 온 제도로써, 독일 민법은 우리 민법과 달리 계약책임과 불법행위 책임에 관한 일반규정이 없어 계약체결상의 과실책임을 인정할 실익이 있었다. 반면 우리 민법은 계약책임과 불법행위 책임에 관한 일반규정이 있어 계약체결상의 과실책임을 인정할 실이 없는데도 불구하고 독일 민법을 그대로 받아들임으로써 많은 비판을 받고 있다. 이처럼 민법 제535조는 제정 당시부터 인정실익에 관한 논란이 있었고, 최근에는 계약체결상의 과실책임을 독자적인 책임유형으로 인정할 수 있는지에 관한 문제가 제기되기도 한다. 특히 독일에서는 우리나라와 달리 학설과 판례에서 ①계약체결의 준비단계에서의 계약체결상의 과실책임, ②계약이 유효한 경우의 계약체결상의 과실책임, ③계약이 체결되었으나 그 계약이 무효이거나 또는 취소된 경우의 계약체결상의 과실책임에 대해서까지 인정하고 있다. 이에 독일의 민법을 그대로 받아들이 우리 민법의 경우에도 위의 유형에 대해 확대해석하여 유추 적용할 수 있는지가 문제된다. 그러나 우리 민법 제535조는 위의 유형에 대해 계약체결상의 과실책임 법리가 아닌 채무불이행 책임 내지 불법행위책임으로 채결하고 있다. 따라서 민법 제535조는 존재의 의미를 잃은 규정으로 삭제되어야 함이 마땅할 것이다. Liability based on fault in a contract means to admit compensation for damages in the case of suffering losses to the other party as a result of the contracting party's fault during the contract negotiation process between two parties. The civil law expressly stipulates liability based on fault in a contract by using section 535 of the law Liability based on fault in a contract is the system used in German civil law, which, unlike our civil law, has the practical advantage of admitting liability based on fault in a contract with no general regulations about contractual obligations and tort liability. On the other hand, although the civil law doesn't have the practical advantage of admitting liability based on fault in a contract because of general regulation about contractual obligations and tort liability, it is criticized for accepting German civil law Section 535 of the civil law was controversial concerning practical advantage at the time of enactment recently, questions were raised about admitting liability based on fault in a contract as a type of independent responsibility. Precedence and theory in German admit ① liability based on fault in a contract in the run-up to the conclusion of a contract, ② liability based on fault in a contract in the case of a valid contract, ③ liability based on fault in a contract in the case of a void or cancelled contract. So, the civil law recognizes that German law has a problem about making a broad interpretation of these types of liability based on fault or applies them analogously. However, section 535 of the civil law solves these types of cases not as a principle of law but as a default on an obligation or a tort liability. Therefore, section 535 of the civil law should be deleted because the regulation is losing its reason to exist.

「중화인민공화국 민법전」(2020년)의 제정과 동아시아에서의 그 의의 - 민법전 일반, 주요내용과 그 비교법적 시사점 -

김성수 한중법학회 2022 中國法硏究 Vol.48 No.-

이 글은 2020년 제정되어 2021년 1월 1일부터 시행되고 있는 중화인민공화 국 민법전의 제정과정, 민법전의 체계 및 각 편의 주요한 조문내용과 신설내용 을 살펴보고 우리 민법에 대한 시사점을 제시한 것이다. 중화인민공화국 민법전은 7개 편과 부칙으로 모두 1,260개조로 되어 있다. 각각의 편은 총칙(제1편), 물권(제2편), 계약(제3편), 인격권(제4편), 혼인가족 (제5편), 상속(제6편)과 불법행위책임(제7편)이다. 중국에는 종래 민법전이 없 었고 「민법통칙」(1986년), 「계약법」(1999년), 「혼인법」(1980년, 2001년), 「입 양법」(1991년), 「상속법」(1985년), 「담보법」(1995년), 「물권법」(2007년), 「불 법행위책임법」(2009년)과 「민법총칙」이 각각 민사 단행법(법률)로 제정되어 시행되고 있었다. 또한 이러한 단행법에 대하여는 최고인민법원이 사법해석을 제정하기도 하였다. 이러한 민사 단행법을 하나의 통일된 민법전으로 제정하 기 위한 작업이 이전에도 4차에 걸쳐 있었으나 모두 실패로 돌아갔다. 2020년 민법전 제정은 법치행정의 일환으로 2014년 시작되어 2020년 최종 민법전으로 제정된 것이다. 민법전 제정작업은 2단계로 하였고 그 1단계는 민법총칙을 제 정하는 것이었고 이는 2017년 완료되었고 제2단계는 민법의 각칙편을 제정하 는 것으로 하여 2019년 완료되었고 그 후 이를 통합하여 민법전으로 제정된 것이다. 이 글에서는 민법전 일반론에 대한 설명과 함께 각 편의 내용을 차례로 살펴 보았다. 중화인민공화국 민법전은 인격권편의 신설 이외에는 현행 민사단행법 의 체계와 내용을 거의 그대로 기초로 하였다. 구체적인 편에서 우선 총칙편(제1편)은 민법총칙(2017년)의 체계와 내용을 잣구수정과 함께 그대로 편입하였고 이것도 민법통칙(1986년)의 것을 기초로 한 것이다. 특히 법인에 관한 규정이 재편성되었고 민사책임에서의 계약책임 과 불법행위책임편에 관한 규정의 배제와 기타의 내용도 수정되었다. 다음으로 물권편(제2편)은 물권법(2007년)을 기초로 이는 다시 담보법(1995 년)으로 소급될 수 있다. 체계상 특히 용익물권(제3분편)에 거주권(제14장)을 신설하였다. 이어서 계약편(제3편)에서는 채권편을 두자는 학설의 대립이 있었 으나 최종적으로는 현행 계약법(1999년)을 그대로 따랐다. 특히 전형계약에서 파이낸스 리스(제15장), 팩토링(제16장), 집합건물관리계약(제24장) 등을 신설 하였고, 준계약(제3분편)을 두고 사무관리(제28장)와 부당이득(제29장)을 여기 에 규정하였다. 다음으로 인격편(제4편)은 민법전의 체계와 내용에서 새로 신설된 것으로 인격권 일반(제1장)과 개별적 인격권을 규정한다. 개별적 인격권으로는 생명 권, 신체권과 건강권(제2장), 성명권과 명칭권(제3장), 초상권(제4장), 명예권과 영예권(제5장) 및 사생활권과 개인정보보호(제6장)을 규정한다. 혼인가족편(제 5편)은 현행 혼인법(1980년 제정,2001년 개정)에 입양법(1998년)을 통합하고 필요한 개정을 하였다. 상속편(제6편)은 현행 상속법(1985년)의 체계와 내용을 편입한 것이다. 마지막으로 불법행위책임편(제7편)은 종래의 불법행위책임법 (2009년)의 체계와 조문내용을 기초로 필요한 수정을 한 것이다. 중화인민공화국 민법전의 각 편은 이처럼 종래의 민사단행법의 체계와 내용 을 충실하게 편입한 후에 필요한 수정을 하거나 신설하여 마련된 것이다. 특히 민법통칙(1986년)의 것이 민법전의 총칙편 뿐만 아니라 각칙편의 체계를 마련 하는데 기초가 되었다. 또한 이 글에서는 각편의 기본내용을 소개하면서 우리 법에 필요한 시사점을 제시하였다. 특히 인격권의 신설이나 인격권의 내용이 나 계약법의 신형계약, 불법행위책임편의 독립된 편 구성이나 민사책임의 내용 의 재편-손해배상과 부작위청구권 등의 민사책임부담방법의 다양화- 등은 향후 우리 법에도 입법론으로서 좋은 시사점을 줄 수 있을 것이다. This study surveys the new Civil Code of China(2020), focusing on its system and contents. It also covers the process of enacting of the Civil Code of China, which was passed in 2020 and went into effect on January 1, 2021, as well as the primary contents in general and newly regulated provisions of each Book of the Civil Code, as well as the implications to Korean civil law. The Civil Code of China is divided into 7 books with a total of 1,260 articles. Each Book is separated as follows : General Part(Book 1), Real Rights(Book 2), Contracts(Book 3), Personality Rights(Book 4), Marriage and Family(Book 5), Sucession(Book 6), and Tort Liability(Book 7). Before 2020, China had no civil code so several Acts(Laws) were enacted and implemented in each relevant area, respectively as follows : General Provisions of Civil Law(1986), Contract Law(1999), Marriage Law(1980, 2001), Adoption Law(1991), Succession Law(1985), Security Law(1995), Real Rights Law(2007), Tort Liability Law(2009) and General Provisions of Civil Law(2017). The Supreme People’s Court issued judicial interpretations of these Acts as well. There have been four previous attempts to incorporate these civil acts into a unified civil code, all of which failed. The work to enact the Civil Code began newly as a sort of rule of law in 2014,and it was finally enacted in 2020. The legislation of the Civil Code was taken into 2 steps, the first of which enacts the General Provisions of Civil Law and the second of which enacts every Books on other special provisions of civil law. In this study, we will examine the main contents of each Book in turn,as well as the Civil Code in general. Except for the new establishment of the Part on personality rights, the Civil Code of China was based almost entirely on the system and contents of the current civil laws(acts), First and foremost, the General Part(Book 1) incorporates the system and contents of the General Provisions of the Civil Law (2017), as well as some phrasing corrections, which are also primarily based on the General Rules of Civil Law(1986). In particular, the provisions on corporations were reorganized and the provisions on contract liability and tort liability in the Chapter on civil liability were excluded. among other changes. Following that, the Book on Real Rights(Book 2) is based on the Real Rights Law(2007),which can be found retrospectively in the Security Law(1995). The Right of Habitation(Chapter 14) was newly added to the Rights of Usufruct(Part 3). Following that, although there were a conflict of doctrines about setting the separate Book of Obligations, in the end, the current Contract Law(1999) was followed in the Book of Contract(Book 3). Contracts for financing lease(Chapter 15), factoring contracts(Chapter 16), brokerage contracts(Chapter 25), and so on were newly established as the typical contract, and negotiorum gestio(Chapter 28) and unjust enrichment (Chapter 29) were added as quasi-contracts(Part 3). The Book on Personality Rights(Book 4) is a new addition to the system and contents of the Civil Code, defining personality rights in general (Chapter 1) and several special personality rights, as follows: rights to life, rights to corporeal integrity, and rights to health(Chapter 2),rights to name and rights to entity name(Chapter 3), rights to likeness(Chapter 4), rights to reputation and rights to honor(Chapter 5), rights to privacy and protection of personal information(Chapter 6). The adoption law(1998) is incorpprated into the current marriage law(1980, 2001 as revised) in the Book on Marriage and Family(Book 5) and some necessary revisions are made. The Book on Succession(Book 6) incorporates the system and contents of the current the Succession Law(1985). Finally, the Book on Tort Liability(Book 7) is a necessary amendment based on the system and contents of the current Tort Liability Law(2009). As a result, each Book of the Civil Code of China were prepared by faithfully incorporating the system and contents of the existing civil law(acts), and then making necessary amendments or adding new provisions. The General provisions of the Civil Law(1986), in particular, became the foundation for developing a system for not only the general part of the Civil Code, but also the other parts. Furthermore, in this study, we introduce the basic contents of each Part of the Civil Code of China,as well as the useful implications for Korean civil law. In particular, the new establishment of personality rights and its contents, the introduction of new contracts as the contract type, the independent composition of the Book on tort liability, or reorganization of main forms of civil liability-compensation for damages and cessation of the infringement,removal of the nuisance, and so on-will have positive implications as a legislative theory for Korean law in the future. The new Civil Code of China will be useful sources to consider as a lege ferende for a future study on the Korean Civil Code.

실화책임과 공작물책임 - 개정 실화책임에 관한 법률의 적용범위 및 직접화재부분과 연소부분의 구별기준을 중심으로 -

이상우 민사판례연구회 2012 民事判例硏究 Vol.- No.34

By the "Inconsistent with the Constitution" decision of the Constitutional Court of Korea, the Act on Civil Liability for Fire Caused by Negligence (the “Act”) was amended. The amendment is aimed to enable the reduction of the amount of compensation for damages caused by combustion while the Act before the amendment (the “Pre-amended Act”) provided for the requirements for establishing the civil liability. However, under the amended Act, it is still unclear whether Article 750 of Civil Act shall only be applicable for the liability in respect of parts damaged by combustion resulting from the defect in the construction or maintenance of structure or Article 758(1) of Civil Act shall be applicable. Further, the applicability of the amended Act will be debatable as the amend Act does not provide for a clear standard to distinct ‘part damaged by the combustion,’ the term used in the amended Act, from "part damaged by direct fire."Analyzing the relevant court ruling and history of the precedent cases, the theory on the distinction between the ‘part damaged by direct fire’ and the ‘part damaged by combustion’ with respect to relationship of the Pre-amended Act and Article 758(1) of Civil Act seemed to have been the standard to define the scope of the applicability of the Pre-amended Act and the scope of direct fire were tend to gradually extend. The trend is based on full considerations for social developments such as change in building environment and installation and maintenance of fire protection system as well as fair apportion of the responsibility based on the principles of responsible risk and such trend, in my opinion, is in the right direction. Based on the above analysis, I agreed that the Article 758(1) of Civil Act shall be applicable to the establishment of legal liability for damages caused by fire by negligence as the general provisions of Civil Act shall be applied generally to establishment of legal liability for damages caused by fire by negligence. Moreover, I plan to propose a standard for distinction between the part damaged by direct fire and the part damaged by combustion with respect to the issue of reduction of the amount of damages. 헌법재판소의 헌법불합치결정에 의하여 실화책임에 관한 법률이 개정되었다. 손해배상책임의 성립요건을 규정하였던 구 실화책임에 관한 법률과 달리 연소로 인한 부분에 대한 손해배상액의 경감이 가능하도록 하는 내용으로 개정이 이루어졌다. 개정 법률 하에서 공작물의 설치보존상의 하자에 의하여 발생한 화재로부터 연소된 부분의 손해배상책임에 관하여 민법 제750조만을 적용할 지, 아니면 연소부분에 관하여도 민법 제758조 제1항을 적용할 지가 문제된다. 또한 개정 법률에서 규정한 “연소로 인한 부분”과 “직접화재로 인한 부분”의 구분기준 역시 문제된다. 대상판결을 비롯한 판례의 흐름을 분석하여 보면, 개정전 법률과 민법 제758조 제1항의 관계에 관한 직접 화재․연소부분 구별설을 개정전 법률의 적용여부에 관한 일반적 기준으로 채택하고 있는 것으로 보이며, 직접 화재의 범위를 점차적으로 넓혀 가는 경향성을 가지고 있다고 할 수 있다. 이는 건축환경의 변화, 소방제도의 정비, 위험책임 원리에 기초한 손해의 적정한 분담 등을 고려한 타당한 방향이다. 이 글에서는 위와 같은 분석을 기반으로 하여, 실화로 인한 손해배상책임의 성립에 관하여는 민법의 일반적인 규정들이 제한 없이 적용되어야 하므로, 민법 제758조 제1항의 적용가능성을 긍정하였다. 또한 손해배상액의 경감 여부와 관련하여, 직접화재로 인한 부분과 연소로 인한 부분의 구분 기준을 구체화하고자 하였다.

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.

일본 개정민법상의 도급의 계약부적합 책임에 관한 고찰

송영민 동아대학교 법학연구소 2019 國際去來와 法 Vol.- No.27

일본 개정민법은 매매의 담보책임의 법적 성질을 계약책임설을 채택하고, 「하자」개념을 「계약부적합」개념으로 전환하였다. 그리고 매매의 계약부적합 책임으로 추완청구권, 보수감액청구권, 손해배상청구권, 계약해제권을 매수인에게 인정하였다(개정민법 제562조~제564조). 그리고 도급은 계약부적합에 대한 매수인의 권리를 정한 개정민법 제562조에서 제564조까지의 규정을 제559조를 매개로 준용하게 되었다. 그러므로 이번 개정으로 인하여 일본 개정민법상 담보책임규정에서는 매매계약과 도급계약 사이의 형식상 차이는 없어졌다. 그러나 전통적으로 도급은 타인의 노무를 이용하는 계약이며, 매매와 달리 일의 완성이라는 행위의 측면이 강조되고 있다. 매매와 도급 모두 결과채무라는 점에서는 동일하지만, 도급은 도급인의 행위의 측면이나 신뢰관계가 전제가 된다는 점에서 차이가 있다. 이러한 전통적인 차이에도 불구하고 개정민법 제559조는 매매의 계약부적합책임 규정을 도급계약에도 그대로 준용하고 있다. 도급과 매매의 전통적인 규율의 차이로 인하여 개정민법에는 아래와 같은 문제가 있다. 첫째, 목적물의 하자에 대하여, 매매는 「매도인의 추완청구권=목적물의 補修, 대체물의 인도 또는 부족분의 인도」의 모습이며, 도급은 「도급인의 추완청구권=보수청구권」이라는 특징이 있다. 그럼에도 불구하고 도급에서의 종전의 담보책임 규정을 삭제하면서까지 준용이라는 형태로 매매와 동일하게 규정하는 것은 검토의 여지가 있다. 둘째, 하자보수청구권의 법적 성질에 대한 문제로서, 개정민법에서는 하자보수청구권의 성질을 이행청구권의 변형으로 해석하고 있다. 즉 먼저 補修청구권을 행사하고, 補修가 이행불능 또는 일정기간 내에 이행되지 않은 경우에 비로소 손해배상청구가 가능하다는 논리를 취하고 있다. 이는 일본민법상의 하자보수청구권의 성질에 관한 종래의 견해에 대한 일정한 변화를 예고하는 것이다. 셋째, 개정민법상의 해제제도는 최고 해제와 무최고 해제의 요건 상의 불균형 문제와 도급인에게 귀책사유가 있는 경우 해제가 가능한가 등의 문제가 해결되어야 한다. 기타 현행민법 제634조 제1항 단서를 삭제함으로써 발생하는 문제점 등 다양한 문제가 내재되어 있다. 최근 우리 민법도 개정작업이 진행 중이다. 일본 개정민법과의 체계적인 비교검토가 필요하다고 본다. Revised Japanese Civil Law adopted the legal character of warranty liability of trade as contractual liability theory, and changed the 「defect」 concept into 「contractual incongruity liability」 concept, and also it was admitted that the buyer has the rights to cure, compensation reduction claim, damage claim and contract cancellation as contractual incongruity liability of trade(Revised Civil Law Article 562~564). In addition, the subcontract has been applied to revised Civil Law article from 562 to 564 which established the buyer’s right on the contractual incongruity through the article 559, therefore there is no formality gap between trade contract and subcontract in warrant liability regulation of Japanese revised Civil Law by current revision. However, traditionally the subcontract is the contract that use other’s labor, and emphasizes the behavior of work completion. Trade and subcontract are both result debt, but subcontract needs precondition of behavior and trust relationship. In spite of traditional gap, contractual incongruity liability regulation of trade in revised Civil Law article 559 has been applied to subcontract. Revised Civil Law has problems as follows because of the traditional rule gap between subcontract and trade. First, in terms of the object defect, trade is 「seller’s the right to cure = repairing the object, delivering the substitute or delivering the shortage」, and subcontract has the character of 「subcontractor’s the right to cure = compensation claim」. Nevertheless, there needs to be examined that the former warranty liability regulation was deleted and regulated the trade equally in the form of equivalence. Second, in terms of the legal character of right of defect repair claim, the character of the right of defect repair claim is interpreted as transformation of the right to claim performance in revised Civil Law. That is to say, compensation claim should be exercised first, and then damage claim could be exercised if the repair would be impossible or not carried out within a certain period. It means to foretell some change on the former opinion about the character of defect repair claim in Japanese Civil Law. Third, in terms of cancellation system, imbalance problem between ‘notified cancellation’ and ‘not notified cancellation’ should be solved, and also the problem that the cancellation could be possible if the subcontractor has the attributable reason should be solved. There are various inherent issues including the problem through deleting the provision of existing Civil Law article 634, these are the tasks ahead to be settled.