http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.
변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.
- 中文 을 입력하시려면 zhongwen을 입력하시고 space를누르시면됩니다.
- 北京 을 입력하시려면 beijing을 입력하시고 space를 누르시면 됩니다.
RISS 인기검색어
- 검색키워드
- 저자 : 임대성 (검색결과 115 건)
- 무료
- 기관 내 무료
- 유료
-
-
-
인공지능 로봇의 불법행위책임 - 인공지능 로봇 보유자의 과실과 제조판매자의 설명의무 -
임대성 연세법학회(구 연세법학연구회) 2022 연세법학 Vol.40 No.-
Interest in artificial intelligence robots has grown even more during the corona virus. This is because it was thought that the current economic development could be continued while protecting human health and life if production work, transportation work, and medical treatment were carried out through robots that do not get sick or die among the global pandemic. In addition, the commercialization of autonomous vehicles, which has been underway for the past several years, has been sufficient to attract many people's attention, although it has not yet reached full autonomous driving. However, there was an accident that caused human damage during the testing and operation of the autonomous vehicle, and with the advent of weak and strong artificial intelligence robots, the existing liability theory, damage compensation theory, and tort liability were questioned. review was conducted. The theory of holding AI robots accountable is necessary because particularly strong AI will have human-like autonomy. However, there are difficulties in acknowledging act and willful negligence. Moreover, as strong artificial intelligence has not yet appeared, it is only a theoretical discussion. In the midst of this, risk responsibilityism, compensation liabilityism, and benefit liabilityism are argued to overcome the limitations of the existing negligence responsibility. Risk responsibilityism and compensation liabilityism apply existing theories, and benefit liabilityism emerged with the background that the benefits of the invention and development of new technologies should be considered. Realistically, in the current situation, it seems necessary to take an approach with norms that can be used within the current legal system rather than the approach of imposing responsibility or granting legal personality to the AI robot. This is because the legislative solution cannot yet start, and the human and material damage caused by artificial intelligence robots (autonomous vehicles) has already begun. In this regard, it seems reasonable to place a basis for responsibility for the actions of users who initiate the operation of the artificial intelligence robot. Although this seems to impose severe liability on the user, in reality, it facilitates the proof of responsibility based on the product description obligation that the manufacturer/seller or manufacturer/seller has to fulfill to the user, and in many cases, the manufacturer/seller or manufacturer/seller, not the user, is liable. It is an approach to lead Through this, an approach that utilizes the advantages of artificial intelligence robots and protects victims in good faith is expected to be possible. In the case of Germany's autonomous vehicle law (das Gesetz zum automatisierten Fahren), it is seen that a similar approach is taken by basically stipulating the responsibility of the ‘Auto Halter’ and supporting the responsibility structure of the ‘Auto Halter’ of the autonomous vehicle through a technical supervisor. At least in the transition period before strong artificial intelligence appears, this approach seems reasonable. It is necessary to systematically improve Korea's existing liability laws and laws related to artificial intelligence robots, and also continuous research on strong artificial intelligence is required. 전 세계적인 코로나 팬데믹을 겪으면서 인공지능 로봇에 대한 관심이 더 높아졌다. 왜냐하면 사람들이 병에 걸리지도 않고 죽지도 않는 로봇을 통해 생산・운송・치료업무 등을 수행하여 인간의 건강과 생명을 보호와 지속적 경제 발전을 도모할 수 있다고 생각하였기 때문이다. 또한 지난 수년간 더 가까이 다가온 완전 자율주행 자동차 분야는 많은 이들의 관심을 끌기에 충분했고 2021년 독일, 2022년 미국이 완전 자율주행(레벨4) 관련 법규를 제정하였기 때문이다. 이미 (부분)자율 주행 자동차 운행 중에 인적 피해가 발생하는 이른바 ‘마운틴 뷰’ 사고가 일어났고, 약한 인공지능 로봇과 강한 인공지능 로봇의 등장에 대비하여 기존의 책임이론, 손해배상이론, 불법행위 책임이론을 적용해도 되는지에 대한 검토가 진행되었다. 로봇에게 책임을 지우는 이론, 이용자 내지 보유자에 책임을 지우는 이론 등이 주장되고 있다. 인공지능 로봇에게 책임을 지우자는 이론은 특히나 강한 인공지능이 등장하면 인간과 같은 자율성을 가질 것이기에 자율주행 로봇이 책임을 져야 한다고 주장한다. 그러나 행위성과 고의・과실을 인정하는데 어려움이 있다. 더군다나 아직은 일상에서 실존하는 강한 인공지능을 경험할 수 없기 때문에 시론적 논의에 그치고 있다. 그러한 가운데 기존의 과실책임주의의 한계를 극복하기 위해 위험책임주의, 보상책임주의, 편익책임주의가 주장되고 있다. 위험책임주의와 보상책임주의는 기존의 이론을 적용하는 것이고 편익책임주의는 신기술의 발명과 개발이 주는 이로움을 감안해야 한다는 이론이다. 현실적으로 지금의 상황에서는 인공지능 로봇에게 책임을 지우거나 법인격을 부여한다는 접근보다는 지금의 법체계 안에서 활용할 수 있는 규범을 가지고 접근하는 자세가 필요해 보인다. 인공지능 로봇(자율주행차량)에 의한 인적・물적 손해는 이미 시작되었지만 입법적 해결은 아직 조심스럽기 때문이다. 그런 점에서 인공지능 로봇을 작동시키는 작동개시 행위를 이용자의 행위에 책임의 근거를 지우는 것이 타당해 보인다. 이는 이용자에게 가혹한 책임을 지우는 것으로 보일 수도 있지만 현실적으로는 제조판매사나 제조판매자가 이용자에게 제공해야 하는 제품 설명의무를 근거로 책임 소재의 입증을 용이하게 하고 많은 경우에 이용자가 아닌 제조판매사나 제조판매자의 책임을 지우기 용이하게 하는 접근이다. 이를 통해 인공지능 로봇의 잇점은 활용하고 선의의 피해자를 보호하는 접근이 가능할 것으로 보인다. 독일의 자율주행차량법(das Gesetz zum automatisierten Fahren)의 경우 기본적으로 보유자의 책임을 규정하고 기술감독관을 통해 자율주행 보유자의 책임구조를 뒷받침하게 하여 유사한 방식을 취한다고 보여진다. 최소한 강한 인공지능이 등장하기 전의 과도기에는 이러한 접근이 타당해 보인다. 이를 고려하여 우리나라의 기존 책임법령 및 인공지능 로봇 등과 관련된 체계적인 법률 개선이 필요하며 강한 인공지능과 관련하여 향후 지속적인 연구가 필요할 것으로 판단된다.
-
-
-
-
미성년자 스포츠선수의 초상권 보호 - 독일에서의 논의를 중심으로 -
임대성 한국스포츠엔터테인먼트법학회 2022 스포츠와 법 Vol.25 No.4
On January 3rd, 2022, the Fair Trade Commission reviewed the player contracts of Korean professional football clubs and corrected unfair terms and conditions, significantly strengthening the player's portrait rights. The Korea Professional Football Federation regulation, which attributed the player's portrait rights to the club, was corrected by acquiring only the right to use. In this regard, people’s interest in portrait rights of athletes and minor athletes has grown. The right of portrait is the right to take a picture of oneself and exhibit or distribute it, and to file an objection and to claim compensation for damages if another person takes a picture and displays or distributes it without the consent of the person who is taken in the picture and who is the subject. This also happens to athletes who are minors that is under 18 years old in Korea.. However, in the portrait right, exceptions are recognized in certain cases to the principle that others should not infringe on the portrait or portrait-photo of the subject without the consent of the person who is the subject of photo. A representative case is the case of becoming a subject of social interest. For example, when a spectator who saw Yuna Kim who won the gold medal at the Winter Olympics on the ice rink and took a picture of the medal ceremony, and later posted the video on his/her Facebook page, or when a media company writes an article and shows the photos of Yuna Kim in the news. An example is proceeding without the consent of the individual player. Comparatively, looking at the example of Germany, in recognizing such an exception of the consent of the person who is the subject of photo, Germany had a judgment theory based on the concept of a suggestive person and a judgment based on the concept of a topical event. Judgment according to the conventional concept of suggestive person ‘was’ majority theory and precedent. Then, under the influence of the Caroline decision of the European Court of Human Rights(ECHR), the concept of topical event was adopted by the German Federal Court, and judgment based on the existing concept of topical person was discarded. To this end, 'information value for the public' was presented as a criterion for legal interests based on the differentiated protection principle. Accordingly, in the existing judgment standard, if an athlete became a famous athlete, an exception to be reported without consent was granted in the right of his portrait, but now the athlete's consent only if the photo is related to a topical event that has informational value for the public. Exceptions related to the player's portrait rights have been recognized even without the consent of the person who is the subject of player's portrait. In the portrait rights of minors, it is particularly problematic whether the athlete, who is the subject, can give his or her own consent. This is because, in the case of minors, the legal representative, such as a person with parental authority, is recognized. Accordingly, in the case of a disagreement between the minor and the parental authority, it is a problem whose intention is determined based on the consent of the photographing, exhibition and distribution of the photograph. As a pure portrait right without personality, it is analyzed by dividing it into cases with only personality. This is because when examining portrait rights, the provisions of the Civil Act that restrict minors' right to consent are applied on the premise of property rights. Accordingly, in Germany in the case of pure portrait rights, the minor's right to consent is emphasized and recognized, and the age of exercise for this is also lowered to about 14 years old. In addition, in the case of portrait photos with property rights, the right of parental consent is recognized based on the provisions of the Civil Act(BGB). However, in cases which is covered by German data protection law, minors can give consent only from the age of 16. In ...
-
-
-
연관 검색어 추천
이 검색어로 많이 본 자료
활용도 높은 자료
