海上保險에 있어서의 因果關係理論의 檢討 = A Review of the Causation in the Marine Insurance

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

There are two kinds of views where the loss has been caused by a combination of several different perils : one is that the only one of these perils considered dominant should be deemed to be the cause of the loss and the other perils less dominant should be ignored and so the only diminant peril has to bear the whole loss : the other is that several different perils should be deemed to be the causes of the loss and so each of them has to bear its proportional part of the loss. The former can be called singular causation theory and the latter, plural causation theory.
So far, in the marine insurance contract, it has been taken for granted that the loss was caused by the only one dominant peril and that it was the intention of the contracting parties. But I don't think it is fair for both the insurer and the insured because it is thought to have come from the convenient idea of deciding the causation. On the contrary, it will lead to an irrational result because the loss is, in most cases, caused by a combination of several different perils.
As a result, I propose two principles that are supposed to be more rational and agree with the intention of the contracting parties. One is that, like Article 20 in Norwegian Marine Insurance Plan of 1964, where the loss has been caused by a combination of several different perils, the loss shall be apportioned proportionally over several perils according to the influence which each of them must be assumed to have had on the occurrence and extent of the loss. The other is that, like Article 21 of the above, where it is impossible to apportion the influence over the perils, each peril shall be deemed to have had equal influence on the occurrence and extent of the loss and the loss shall be apportioned equally over each peril.

목차 (Table of Contents)

• Ⅰ. 序 論
• Ⅱ. 因果關係의 意義
• Ⅲ. 因果關係論에 관한 諸學說
• Ⅳ. 原因單數說과 原因複數說
• Ⅴ. 結 論