미국 계약책임법리에 관한 이론적 고찰 - fault에 관한 논의를 중심으로 -

박진아 한국외국어대학교 법학연구소 2024 외법논집 Vol.48 No.1

이 글은 미국 계약책임법리를 둘러싼 최근의 이론적 동향을 탐구하기 위한 아주 기초적인 작업의일환으로서, 전통적 계약법이론의 확립 과정과 최근 미국 계약법학에서 다루고 있는 fault에 관한 논의를 고찰하는 것을 목적으로 한다. 미국 계약법에서 ‘pacta sunt servanda(계약은 지켜져야 한다)’는 승인된 격언이며, 계약책임은 전통적으로 엄격책임으로 해석하여 왔다. 일단 성립된 계약은 이행되어야 하며, 계약으로 인수한 것을 이행하지 않는 당사자는 이를 이유로 즉시 계약책임을 지게 된다. 그러나 최근 미국 계약법학에서는 계약책임을 결정짓는 귀책근거를 명시적인 의무위반에 한정하는 것이 아니라 당사자의 합의 내용으로환언되지 않는 규범적⋅외재적 요소로서 fault가 계약법에서도 일정한 역할을 할 수 있을 것으로 평가를 하고 있다. 미국 계약법에서 논의되고 있는 fault론은 손해배상책임을 긍정하는 요건으로서 채무불이행에 더하여 채무자의 과실을 요구하는 우리나라의 전통적 통설인 과실책임주의와는 다른 것이다. 이 이론에서는 계약책임의 유무를 판단함에 있어 당사자가 왜 그러한 행동을 하였는지, 어떠한 행동을하는 것이 합리적으로 기대되고 있었는지의 문제가 검토되고 있을 뿐만 아니라 계약에 위반한 채무자의 fault와 함께 채권자의 fault에 대해서도 언급이 이루어지고 있는 점에 주의가 필요하다. 최근 계약법의 동향은 계약책임의 정당화 근거를 계약의 구속력 그 자체에서 구하려는 사고가 확립되어 있다. 다만 유념할 것은 여기에서 계약의 구속력, 나아가 계약에 있어서의 합의를 중시한다는 것이 당사자의 명시적인 합의 위반 이외의 요소를 책임판단에서 완전히 배제한다는 것을 의미하는 것은아니다. 즉 계약의 해석으로 타율적 규범이 묵시적인 합의로서 포섭되는 등의 작업을 통해 계약책임의유무나 손해배상액의 결정에 영향을 줄 수 있다는 점은 향후 우리 계약책임법리를 구축함에 있어서도 시사하는 바가 크다. This article aims to explore recent theoretical trends surrounding the theory of U.S. contractual liability as part of a preliminary endeavor. It examines the establishment process of traditional contract law theories and discusses the concept of fault, which is addressed in recent U.S. contract law. In U.S. contract law, ‘pacta sunt servanda’ is an accepted maxim, and contractual liability has traditionally been interpreted as strict liability. Once a contract is formed, it must be fulfilled, and a party that fails to perform what was undertaken in the contract becomes immediately liable for breach of contract. However, in recent U.S. contract law, there is an evaluation that fault, not limited to explicit breaches of obligations, but also including normative and extrinsic factors not expressly stated in the agreement, may play a certain role in determining contractual liability. This concept of fault in U.S. contract law differs from the traditional theory of negligence liability in Korea, which requires the negligence of the obligor in addition to non-performance of the obligation as a condition for affirming liability for damages. In the theory of fault, it is important to note that the obligee’s fault is also mentioned along with the obligor’s fault for violating the contract. Recent trends in contract law have established the idea of ​​seeking justification for contractual liability from the binding force of the contract itself. However, it should be noted that emphasizing the binding force of the contract and, furthermore, the importance of agreement in the contract does not mean that elements beyond the explicit violation of parties’ agreement are completely excluded from liability determination. In other words, the fact that the interpretation of a contract can influence the determination of the existence of contract liability or the amount of damages through tasks such as incorporating heteronomous norms into an implicit agreement has significant implications in establishing our contract liability laws in the future.

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.

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

김성수 한중법학회 2010 中國法硏究 Vol.14 No.-

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

프랑스 국가배상책임제도에서 위법성과 과실의 관계

박현정 ( Hyun Jung Park ) 한양대학교 법학연구소 2012 법학논총 Vol.29 No.2

State liability in France is very unique from the comparative perspective. The originality can be summed up in three sentences. Firstly, it is governed by autonomous rules different from that of civil law and made by the Conseil d`Etat. Secondly, in order for the public body to be held responsible, there must be a faute de service. Lastly, if an administrative decision is illegal, this illegality automatically constitutes a faute de service. There are a faute personnelle and a faute de service. The former is a personal fault which gives rise to the liability of the individual servant, whereas the latter makes the public body directly responsible. As long as the faute personnelle maintains some link to the service, it can also be acknowledged as faute de service. Rule out those fautes de service, there remains the faute de service in a strict sense. The faute de service proprement dite is understood as a malfunctioning of an administrative machinery or a defect in the organization of the administrative service. This notion of fautes de service proprement dites makes possible the rule that "illegality entails fault." The Driancourt decision issued in 1973 was a turning point for this rule to be formally accepted as jurisprudence of the Conseil d`Etat. It removed the last remaining barrier by declaring that the illegality of an administrative act, even if it is attributable to a mere error of assessment, constitutes a fault which can make the public body responsible for the act. However, even though the illegality constitutes fault, it does not necessarily mean that every illegality systemically gives rise to state liability. Other elements such as prejudice and causal link should also be satisfied. Illegality entails only simple faults. In areas of state liability where the faute lourde is required, mere illegality is not enough to condemn the administration. When there is a third party contributing to the occurrence or expansion of damages, the administration is not liable jointly and severally. It is liable only for a portion of the total loss. These all play a role of limiting the scope of liability for fault. On the other hand, state liability in Korea is governed by the State compensation act. According to this Act, it is required that there should be an intention or negligence(fault) of public officials in performing their public service and that this performance is illegal. Further research is needed if the notion of faute de service, and the rule of the illegality-fault parity can be adopted in the Korean state liability system. Meanwhile it would be safe to comment on two things. Firstly, if an administrative decision is quashed as illegal by the appeal litigation, by the authorite de la chose jugee, this act must be regarded as proven illegal in the liability action. Courts can limit excessive grant of liability by grading implicitly the degree of fault in the individual cases. Secondly, in spite of the provisions of the Civil Act, there may be a possibility for the administrative bodies to be granted several liability by the Supreme Court.

醫療組織 過失에 관한 硏究

박주현 한국민사법학회 2008 民事法學 Vol.41 No.-

Medical practices are becoming increasingly complex owing to rapid developments in medicine and technologies. The importance of medical facilities and work environments are now recognized by medical persons. Hospitals must organize highly professional teams in order to provide patients with the best medical services possible. In the past, medical doctors had the power to select team members and supervise them, but their authority has become more and more circumscribed in recent times. Medical accidents that have generally occurred due to the errors of medical personnel such as doctors and nurses, have occasionally been prompted by poor organization at hospitals. In legal cases of the latter type, Article 35 or 756 of the Korean Civil Code concerning vicarious liability or corporate liability has been applied. If medical personnel were not deemed to be at fault, then hospitals were not charged with any liability. Hence, it is necessary to develop a new concept concerning fault that can incorporate fault on the part of organizations to solve these problems. However, it is not a simple matter to recognize an organizational fault. The concent of fault could be objectified excessively, making malpractice more strict, which is not in correspondence with the "liability with fault" principle. It is difficult for plaintiffs to prove the causations between an organizational fault and patients’ damages using the concept of factual causation. The presumption of causation may be required to recognize the causation of organizational fault. It might be argued that organizational fault would make hospitals’ liabilities unduly burdensome. I also think that an organizational liabilities should be limited to an appropriate level. Hospitals should have duties associated with their organization, which is not best but least on the level of normative medical custom or lege artis. I suggest organizational fault as a new concept of fault is a useful tool for medical liability. It represents not only a means to protect patients’ rights, but also for providing hospitals with an incentive to organize effectively and to do their best to prevent medical accidents.

환경오염피해구제법상 환경오염피해에 대한 사업자의 손해배상책임에서 인과관계의 추정과 무과실책임에 관한 소고

이근영,임학상 민사법의 이론과 실무학회 2018 民事法理論과 實務 Vol.21 No.3

환경오염피해구제법은 환경오염피해에 대한 손해배상책임과 구제를 주된 내용으로 하면서, 특히 인과관계의 추정과 사업자의 위험책임을 인정하여 피해자 보호에 진일보한 기여를 하게 되었다. 피해자가 시설사업자에게 손해배상책임을 묻기 위한 요건으로, ① 일정한 시설의 설치·운영과 관련하여 오염물질 등이 발생하고, ② 이 오염물질 등으로 말미암아 환경오염이 발생하여야하며, ③ 그로 인해 피해가 발생해야 한다. 그리고 인과관계는 추정이 되고, 시설사업자의 무과실책임을 규정하고 있다. 본고는 특히 인과관계 추정과 시설사업자의 무과실책임 규정과 관련한 논의를 정리하였다. 환경오염피해의 사법적 구제과정에서 가장 큰 난점은 가해행위와 손해발생 사이의 인과관계의 증명이다. 이러한 증명의 곤란함을 해소하기 위하여 제9조에서는 인과관계의 추정을 규정하고 있다. 그런데 제9조의 추정이 법률상 추정이 아니므로 사실상 추정에 해당한다는 주장이 있는데 이는 의문이다. 증명책임이론에 따라 제9조의 증명책임을 검토해 보면, 환경오염피해자는 일반불법행위에서와 같이 인과관계를 증명하거나 제9조 제1항에 의해 ‘시설이 환경오염피해 발생원인을 제공한 것을 볼 만한 상당한 개연성이 있다는 사실’(전제사실)을 증명하면 그 시설로 인하여 환경오염피해가 발생한 것이라는 인과관계는 추정된다(추정사실). 반면 가해자인 시설의 소유자 등은 그 시설로 인하여 환경오염피해가 발생한 것이 아니라는 것을 증명함으로써 추정을 번복할 수 있는데, 가해자가 추정사실의 부존재에 대하여 증명책임을 진다는 의미에서 증명책임이 전환된다. 또한 법률상 추정은 상대방에게 증명책임의 전환시키는 효과가 있으며, 이러한 법률상 추정을 깨뜨리기 위해서는 반증으로는 부족하고 본증으로 그 반대사실을 증명하여야 한다. 따라서 가해자의 추정사실의 부존재의 증명은 ‘본증’이라고 보아야 한다. 환경관련 소송에서 인과관계의 추정과 관련하여 판례가 개연성이론을 채택하고 있다. 판례에 의할지라도 개연성의 판단은 개별 사건에 따라 차이가 있을 수밖에 없다. 이런 점 때문에 제9조 제1항에서 환경오염피해에 대한 인과관계의 추정의 전제사실과 관련하여, 판례와 같이 ‘개연성’이라고 하지 않고 ‘상당한 개연성’이라고 규정하고 있다. 또한 제9조 제2항에서 상당한 개연성의 판단기준을 구체적으로 제시하고 있는데, 이 규정은 기존의 판례가 인정하고 있는 개연성설에 따라 인과관계를 인정하기 위한 요건인 3단계보다 더 상세하기 때문이다. 따라서 제9조 제1항에 규정되어 있는 상당한 개연성은 제9조 제2항의 상당한 개연성 판단기준과 함께 검토할 때, 기존의 판례가 취해온 개연성설을 그대로 입법화하였다고 보기에는 무리가 있다. 그런 면에서 제9조 제1항의 ‘상당한 개연성’이라는 불명확한 용어를 사용하기 보다는 독일 환경책임법 제6조와 같이 ‘시설적합성’이라는 용어를 사용하는 것이 입법적으로 바람직하다고 생각한다. 국내에선 위험책임은 무과실책임과 동일한 것으로 파악하기도 하지만, 의문이다. 무과실책임과 위험책임은 일치하는 개념이 아니므로, 개념적으로는 양자는 명확하게 구별되된다. 또한 위험책임과 무과실책임은 개념상 명확히 구별된다. 위험책임과 무과실책임 모두가 과실을 요구하지 않음은 공통적인 것이지만, 위험책임은 불법책임이 아니고 허용된 위험에 대한 책임으로서 위법성을 요구하지 아니하지만, 무과실책임은 위법한 행위를 전제로 과실이 없는 경우에도 책임을 지우는 것이다. 따라서 위험책임은 무과실책임의 별개의 것이라고 보아야 할 것이다. The Act on Liability for Environmental Damage and Relief Thereof has contributed to improve the way of protecting victims of environmental damage by specially recognizing the presumption of casual relationship and risk liability of a business owner while mainly focusing on liability for compensation on environmental damages. As a requirement for asking liability for compensation to a business owner who operates a facility, ① pollutants are occurred in relation with installation and operation of a certain facility, ② these pollutants cause environmental degradation, and ③ all these bring damages. And, the casual relationship is presumed and No-fault liability of the business owner is specified. In particular, this study reasoned discussions on regulations regarding presumption of casual relationship and no-faulty liability of the business owner who takes the responsibility for facility operation. The paramount challenge during the process of legal relief of environmental damages is how to prove the casual relationship between harmful acts and damage occurrence. To resolve the difficulties of proof, the Article 9 prescribes the presumption of casual relationship. However, there is an argument that the presumption in the Article 9 is not de-jure, but de-facto. It is asked to check. Reviewing the burden of proof in the Article 9 in line with the burden of proof theory, if a victim of environmental damage could prove the casual relationship like general illegal activities or ‘It is highly probable to believe that a facility has caused environmental damage exists’ (prerequisite), the casual relationship that the facility causes environmental damage is presumed (presumed fact). Meanwhile, the presumption could be reversed when the business owner of the facility which is the attacker is not a cause of the environmental damages: the burden of proof could be converted in terms of the meaning that the attacker takes the burden of proof for the non-existence of presumed fact. In addition, presumption by law has an effect of converting the burden of proof to the other party. To broke the de jure presumption, disproof is not enough. The counterexample should be proved so the process by the attacker to clarify the non-existence of the presumed fact could be ‘Proof’ Lawsuit on environment has adopted contingency theory for the precedent regarding the presumption of the cause and effect relationship. However among precedents, the decision on the probability could have difference in line with the individual cases. Due to this fact, in accordance with Article 9, Paragraph 1, in regards to the prerequisite of the presumption of the casual relationship on environmental damages, it specifies ‘sufficient probability’, not ‘probability’ like precedent. Moreover, the Article 9, Paragraph 2 suggests detailed standards on the sufficient probability. It is that this act has more detailed requirement than that of three stage requirement to recognize the case and effect relationship in line with the probability theory acknowledged by existing precedents. Accordingly, it is hard to translate that the sufficient probability specified in Article 9, Paragraph 1 is literally legalize the probability theory recognized by the existing precedent when reviewing this with the standard of sufficient probability prescribed in Article 9, Paragraph 2. In this respect, it will be desirable to use the term ‘Facility Suitability’ like German Environment Liability Act, Article 6 rather than using uncertain term, Sufficient Probability in Article 9, Paragraph 1. In Korea, danger liability is understood as the same one with no-fault liability. However, this study doubt it. No-fault liability and danger liability is not the same concept and the both terms are clearly differentiated conceptually. Furthermore, the notion of danger liability and no-fault liability is clearly distinguished. It is common that danger liability and no-fault liability do not require damages. danger liability is not illegal liability but faults on the allowed risky factors so not requiring illegality but no-fault liability imposes liabilities even without fault on the premise of illegal activities. Accordingly, it is fare to understand that danger liability and no-fault liability are toally different concept.

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.

행정책임의 사회화에 대한 연구 - 프랑스를 중심으로 -

이광윤 성균관대학교 법학연구원 2015 성균관법학 Vol.27 No.1

The development of objective responsibility marks the decline of the fault and the transition to a modernized accountability, risk-based and mainly oriented towards satisfying the interests of victims. The Civil Code of 1804, and in particular in Article 1382 Civil Liability closely links the concept of fault. Indeed, what is striking in our time is the importance of the rules on civil and tort. Much more than in the past, man today is looking liable where the injury was caused. Each of us would be obliged if he has wronged his neighbor, to put things in order, to repair all the damage done by his fault. But the damage can only entraîner a private law liability. These damages are more numerous and varied and are sometimes caused by accidents "anonymous", but that any fault can be established. This is the concept of risk that appears. More than "responsibility", we speak of "compensation". From an objective point of view, the concept of risk will supplant that of fault; it is the victim that you look rather than on the wrongdoer. This will highlight the will increasingly enhanced to provide compensation to the victim. If the fault is in positive law introducer element of tort, it is nevertheless a decline, a priori fault liability in favor of objectification of responsibility. The expression of the socialization of risk comes from the EC public report of 2005. This development was added other compensation schemes, where the liability actions are insufficient or inappropriate, compensation fund systems set up in the name of national solidarity (eg victims of personal injury due to a criminal offense, acts of terrorism, contamination by blood products, diseases due to asbestos). It therefore creates funds, compensate the victims and have recourse against the person or persons responsible. The financial limits. The paradox, according to the report of the CE is that enhancing security often leads to an increase in demand for prevention and coverage. Out very quickly one encounters financial difficulties, and ultimately to the refusal of individuals to finance risk they are not always responsible or do not affect them. So it is in the office of the judge and legislator, to achieve a balance between responsibility and socialization of risk. Maintaining fault liability. The 2005 CE Report is very explicit: the fault is not disappearing, it is instead increasingly invoked and accepted with repair potential or increased integral. One wonders indeed increasingly repair individual damage at the expense of strict liability. These applications are supported by the decline in gross negligence, which marks a trivialization of the offense of public service. Finally, although the establishment of compensation funds involved in the socialization of risks, but the recourse actions made available to these funds are based on fault liability. Today we are in an even brutal situation in Korea. Thus the French model will benefit for us to derive lesson. 행정책임의 법리는 공공서비스(행정) 작용 중에 발생한 책임에 대하여는 민법상의 책임을 지는 것이 아니라, 행정사건으로 행정이 공공서비스 운영에 고유한 독자적인 법리에 따라 책임을 진다는 1873년의 블랑꼬 판결에 의해 확립되었다. 이러한 행정책임의 법리는 그 후 객관화의 길을 걷게 되며 무과실책임의 대폭적인 수용을 거쳐 위험책임이라는 사회화의 길을 가게 되어 국가의 국민에 대한 보호역할이 대폭 증대되는 결과를 가져왔다. 국가의 사회화된 행정책임은 오늘날 다양하고 새로운 형태의 위험책임들로 나타나고 있다. 테러, 자연재해, 백신접종 등등에 의해 야기된 손해에 대하여 사회적 유대감에 의하여 행정(공공서비스)이 손해를 보전해 주어야겠다는 필요성이 제기되고 있으나 인도네시아의 화산 폭발에 의한 동남아지역의 쓰나미나 일본 동북부지방의 쓰나미, 후쿠시마 원전 사고, 9.11. 테러와 같은 예기치 못한 대형사태에 대하여도 국가가 상당부분 책임지지 아니할 수 없는 상황에 이르렀다. 즉 행정책임의 현실은 이미 무과실 책임 단계를 넘어 부분적으로는 결과책임을 지는 데까지 이르렀다. 그러나 행정책임의 사회화는 프랑스의 2005년도 꽁세이데따의 보고서에서 보는 바와 같이 1. 재정적 한계, 2. 국가역할의 한계, 3. 탈 책임화(déresponsabilisation)의 한계에 부딪친 것도 사실이다. 점증하는 위험에 대한 양질의 보호에 대한 요구와 비용의 증가에 대하여 개개인의 예견, 보험의 전통적 시장, 그리고 위험의 사회화로 해석되는 유대 사이의 균형을 어떻게 유지하여 사회화의 합리화를 기하느냐는 것이 관건이다. 우리나라의 경우 압축 성장의 부작용으로 인해 그 물음에 대한 답은 한층 더 난해하다. 즉 제도적 정비도 되어 있지 않은 상태에서 위험에 대한 국가책임의 사회화에 대한 욕구는 이미 팽배해 있으면서, 동시에 재정적 부담의 문제와 국가의 역할 문제, 탈 책임화의 윤리적 문제에 급격히 봉착해 있다. 따라서 합리적인 사회화를 위해서는 보험기관과 국가의 역할, 손해전보 제도의 재검토, 사회화, 책임 및 예방의 조화에 주목하면서 우리 실정에 맞는 책임의 사회화 정도에 대한 진지한 연구가 필요하다.

제조물책임보험에 있어서 몇 가지 문제에 관한 소고

김명준(Kim Myong Jun) 한국보험법학회 2009 보험법연구 Vol.3 No.2

현대 과학기술의 발달로 수많은 제품들이 제조ㆍ판매ㆍ유통 및 소비되고 있다. '위험이 없으면 보험도 없다.'는 말이 있듯이 우리가 편리하고 안락한 경제활동을 함에 있어서는 반드시 뒤에는 위험이 따르기 마련이고, 이러한 동일한 위험을 가진 사람들 간에 단체를 구성하여 그 위험을 대비하고 분담하기 위한 것이 보험이다. 각종 산업의 발달로 경제생활이 점차적으로 복잡다양화 되어가고 있는 오늘날 보험의 중요성과 필요성은 누구나 인식하고 있다. 고도의 기술집약적 상품이 대량생산, 대량소비 시대를 맞이하게 되면서 기업자들은 제품의 안전성 보다는 제품의 양적인 면이나 제품의 성능 및 기능에 더 비중을 두게 되었다. 그 결과 제품에 대한 설계상ㆍ제조상ㆍ표시 및 경고상의 결함으로 인하여 소비자나 사용자에게 예상하지 못한 신체적ㆍ재산적 확대손해가 발생하게 되어, 그 손해발생에 대한 책임문제를 논의되게 된 것이 '제조물책임'이다. 제조물책임은 기업자에게는 새로운 경영과제로 출현하게 되어 소비자에게는 확실한 피해구제체계를 확립하고, 제조업자에게는 제조물책임의 무거운 리스크를 보험회사에 전가함으로서 제조물결함으로 인한 손해배상의 이행자력확보의 수단으로써 제조물책임보험의 중요성을 인식하게 되었다. 제조물책임보험에 있어서 피보험자의 책임을 묻기 위한 근거로써는 과학기술의 발달과 경제구조의 변화로 전통적인 계약법적 법리와 과실책임주의는 피해자인 소비자로서는 제조물의 결함과 결함에 의한 손해발생 사실을 입증한다는 것은 무척 어려운 실정이었다. 따라서 계약책임에 있어서 채무불이행책임론과 하자담보책임론은 그 한계가 있어 제조물책임에는 적용여부에 동의하지 않으나, 채권자대위책임의 문제(민법제404조)는 제조자와 최종소비자 간의 직접계약관계가 없더라도 소비자의 손해를 구제할 수 있는 수단이 될 것이다. 불법행위책임론에 있어서는 특수불법행위책임에 있어서 사용자배상책임의 규정은 제조물책임에 적용과는 별개로 보며, 다만 공동불법행위책임에 관한 규정은 제조물의 제조 및 판매자가 수인이거나 의약품과 같은 손해발생 사실은 분명하나 가해자가 불분명한 경우에는 시장점유율에 따라 손해배상책임을 져야 한다고 보고 그 적용을 배제할 수 없을 것이다. 그리고 제조물의 결함을 판단함에 있어서 지시ㆍ경고상의 결함에 있어서도 합리적 인간의 행동관점에서 사용자에게 제품에 대한 사용방법이나 위험성의 존재를 표시ㆍ경고의무를 위반한 경우에 결함을 인정하고, 여기서 지시ㆍ경고는 제품의 안전성에 대하여 기대하는 기준에 부응하는가 여부에 따라 결함판단을 하여야 하는 기대기준설을 적용하여 결함여부를 판단하여야 한다고 본다. 또한 제조물책임에 있어서 미가공 농ㆍ수ㆍ축산물은 자연력에 의하여 자생하는 동식물로서 제조물로 볼 수 없다고 생각한다. 다만 인공적인 기술이 가미된 유전자변형(Genetically Modified Organism)이 된 농산물로 인한 인체의 질병인 경우에는 문제가 될 수 있다고 본다. 제조물 책임의 주체에 대해서 당해 제품에 대하여 직접 제조, 가공에 관여하지 않은 자인 도ㆍ소매업자나 임대 및 리스업자도 책임의 주체로 보고 제조물책임 법리인 엄격책임 내지 무과실책임을 적용하는 것은 불합리적이라고 보고, 계약책임 내지 과실책임을 지우는 것이 타당하다고 본다. 보험의 목적이 물건이 아닌 제조물책임보험에 있어서 보험가액이 존재하지 않는 경우에는 현행 상법 제672조의 초과중복보험의 문제와 관련하여 보험계약자와 피보험자가 보험자에게 통지 및 고지의무를 위반한 사실이 사기에 의한 계약으로 추정되지도 않으며, 보험자에게 중요한 사항이 아니라고 본다. 또한 제조물책임보험은 피보험자나 보험계약자가 그 물건의 손해에 대한 보상을 받기 위한 것이 아니므로 부당이득이나 도덕적 위험을 유발할 확률이 낮고 보험자에게는 손해보상의 분담을 결과를 가져오므로 보험자에게 유리하게 작용할 수 있다고 본다. 수개의 보험계약 체결 사실을 고지 및 통지의무를 위반한 경우에는 보험계약을 해지된다는 규정과 손해보험에서의 초과중복보험인 경우에는 보험사고발생시 각 보험자의 연대비례보상 한다는 내용을 상법전에만 규정할 것이 아니라, 보험계약 체결 시 보험계약자가 직접 그 내용을 이해하고 계약을 체결할 수 있도록 약관에 명시와 설명을 충분히 하는 것이 사전에 부당이득을 취하려는 의사와 도덕적 위험을 방지할 수 있고, 또한 보험자에게는 보험계약에 대한 위험율을 측정하여 보험요율 및 계약조건을 정함에 기여할 수 있다고 본다. Around the world, attempts were made by governments and citizens to resolve these serious damages resulting from manufacturing defects through the application of contract law, a fault liability theory of illegal act law. However, it was difficult for consumers, who generally had insufficient knowledge about the capacity and structure of the product concerned, to demonstrate defect, fault and the interactions of cause and effect, due to the complex nature of product distribution and the process of product design and manufacture. As a result, a new legal principle was required to redress the consumer damages. This is a strict liability as a new principle of law that for consumers need not to demonstrate a fault presumption of manufacturer, a presence of defect, the relation of damage with defect. A simple 'no-fault liability' is appled, whereby the manufacturer and distributor must take re-sponsibility when a consumer demonstrates damage resulting from a product. However, if the manufacturer, distributor have no compensation security even though they admit a no-fault liability as a strict liability so as to redress the damage of product defects, this new principle of law goes down the drain. Despite the fact that the product liability law was enforced six years ago, manufacturers, distributors and even consumers are still not aware of its significance and its practical effects. The aim of this study is to investigate the problems and to find the solution to the problems with product liability insurance that protects and recompenses the sufferer (consumers) for physical damage and property loss resulting from manufacturing defects, secure the offender(manufacturing people & distributors) for compensation funds. The problems with product liability insurance are as follows. we have to examine the interpretation of lapse prescription in claims of insurance money for the insured and in claims of compensation for damage for the sufferer in the product liability law. product liability insurance must provide the basis for an increased interest in product safety, encourage new technology development and increase com-petitive power in international dealings, as manufacturers and distributors still tend to prioritize the quantity and capability of products over their safety and tend to minimize the importance of the product liability. product liability insurance must provide for a quick and impartial resolution of issues by researching procedures & methods for solving the product-related accidents and considering a countermeasures to protect against incidents of damage resulting from manufacturing defects. we must examine the problems of operation and the reason for the low join rate despite the enforcement of the product liability law and then contribute to activating the product liability insurance that protects consumers by ensuring sufficient compensation for damage, protects the manufacturers by securing the compensation funds, and increases exports by ensuring product reliability for consumers & importers on an international basis. It is not assumed that the contract is agreed by fraud and it is not important issue to the insurer because the insurance contractor and the insurer just violate their duty to notify or inform it to the insurer associated with the problem of exceed overlapping insurance in case there isn't insurable value in product liability insurance that does not protect things. Also it is assumed that the insurer has the advantage of share the damages as well as low probability of moral hazard or unfair profits because product liability insurance doesn't protect the insurer and the insurance contractor by ensuring compensation for damages of things.

THE CONCEPT OF NO-FAULT LIABILITY IN CONTRACTS FOR THE SALE OF GOODS

( Soumyadipta Chanda ),( Rohit Tiwari ) 고려대학교 법학연구원 2011 Korea University Law Review Vol.9 No.-

The concept of no-fault liability has its roots in the law of torts. However, this concept has been intricately associated with the modern laws of contracts and sale of goods. It basically means that a party can be held liable irrespective of whether it was at fault or not when it fails to perform its obligations under the contract. The UN Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods, 1980 (CISG) considers no-fault liability as an inherent principle under Article 79 which deals with exemption of a party. Similarly the Indian Contract Act, 1872 under Sections 56 and 65 lays down in express terms that a party need not be at fault for it to be held liable for non-performance of its obligations under the contract. Essentially having its origin in common law, no-fault liability is considered to be a vital part of compensation systems concerning sales contracts and is designed to overcome alleged deficiencies of fault based compensation systems prevalent in civil law systems. The purpose of this paper is to analyze the fairness and the rationale of no-fault liability in the context of sale of goods both in India as well as in the international context and its relevance as regards determining appropriate remedies during an event of force majeure or a frustration of the contract. Apart from presenting a picture of the common law and civil law systems on the question of fault analysis, this paper will also present an in depth analysis of the relevant provisions in the CISG and the Indian laws on the concept of no-fault liability.