자동차손해배상보장법상의 운행자책임 = A liability of a driver on the automobile liability security law

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

It is extremely difficult to find definite proof of the origin of an automobile accident. This is because automobile accidents are mostly caused by complex factors including the driver's and third parties's faults, structural defects in the car, traffic conditions at the time of the accident and the state of the road. In addition, as it is not easy to judge how the perpetrator and injured party share the responsibility, the degree of social criticism against the person who caused the automobile accident is relatively low compared with that of other criminals. For this reason, in legal action for damages as a result of an automobile accident, compensation of the losses of the victim, rather than punishment for the offender, is the core issue in the legal proceedings. Thus, in 1963, the automobile liability security law was established and promulgated as a new legal system ensuring speedy and fair compensation.
A summary of this analysis of civil compensation of automobile accidents is set out below.

The first focus in this study of automobile accident is to identify who should indemnify the victim for his injuries. But, there are many occasions in which the driver is not the owner of the automobile and it is important to judge whether the automibile owner who was not driving should bear any responsibility for the damage. The reason for this is that often it is more favorable for victims to be compensated by an automobile owner who has more resources than the driver. Finally, the scope of the person who should indemnify for damages is a main point to be considered. The criteria for judgement should include all circumstances, for example, who usually has charge of the car and the keys, how the driver came to be driving, the relationship between the driver and the automobile owner, whether the driver intended to return the automobile to its owner, the distance of the journey, whether the owner has benefited from the driver running his automobile, etc.
Secondly, in order for the automobile liability security law to apply, the damage should result from an accident caused by driving an automobile. As accident which occurs while an automobile is moving is without a doubt an automobile accident, however whether an accident caused when parking or getting out of a car is automobile accident depends on the circumstances of the accident. In the 1999 amendment to the law, the notion of driving was enlarged to include "use or care of an automobile". As a result of this amendment, it because an issue to define what the meaning of use and care if automobile is. Recently the Prime Court rendered a decision that an accident involving a motorcycle, which had been unused for 10 days, and one which occurred whilst moving a bed installed is an ambulance, come under the definition of automobile accident. Considering these decisions of the Prime Court, the notion of driving may be extended. However, if the meaning of driving becomes excessively enlarged, it may cause excessive burdens for those that cause accidents. Moderate extension of the concept of driving is necessary so that offender and injured party can receive equal-protection under law.
Thirdly, if a person wishes to call the injured party to account under the automobile liability security law, he should be a third party. Under the automobile liability security law, only a third party is entitled tp claim compensation from an injured party under this Act, Whilst the offender - the person concerned with the accident - is not protected by this Act. Today more than one person often owns a car. Where one of the joint owners was a passenger in the car, it is an issue whether he may be considered as a third party. This problem will be judged according to how the driver came to be driving, who is considered to drive in a strict sense and the relationship between the driver and the automobile owner.
Consequently, we should find out a way to help victims through the establishment or development of the system to ensure the indemnity rather than an unreasonable way that force to sacrifice one party.

목차 (Table of Contents)

• 제1장 서론 1
• 제1절 연구의 목적 1
• 제2절 연구의 범위 및 방법 2
• 제2장 자동차손해배상책임제도 일반론 4
• 제1절 서론 4
• 제2절 자동차손해배상책임제도의 특질 4
• Ⅰ. 자동차사고의 특수성에 따른 특별법제정 4
• 1. 일반불법행위 책임과의 관계 5
• 2. 특별법의 제정 6
• Ⅱ. 자동차손해배상보장법의 특성 7
• 1. 운행자개념의 도입 7
• 2. 입증책임의 전환과 조건부무과실책임의 도입 8
• 3. 자동차손해배상책임보험의 도입 9
• 제3절 우리나라 자동차손해배상제도의 성립과 발전 10
• Ⅰ. 서설 10
• Ⅱ. 자동차손해배상보장법의 제정 10
• 1. 자동차손해배상보장법의 입법목적 11
• 2. 자동차손해배상보장법의 입법근거 11
• Ⅲ. 자동차손해배상보장법의 개정 12
• 1. 자동차손해배상보장법의 주요개정내용 12
• 2. 현행 자동차손해배상보장법의 주요내용 16
• 제4절 자동차손해배상보장법과 타법과의 관계 19
• Ⅰ. 자배법과 민법과의 관계 19
• Ⅱ. 자배법과 상법과의 관계 21
• Ⅲ. 자배법과 국가배상법과의 관계 21
• 제3장 운행자책임의 동향 23
• 제1절 자동차손해배상보장법상의 운행 23
• Ⅰ. 서설 23
• Ⅱ. 자배법상 자동차의 개념 24
• Ⅲ. 자배법 상 운행의 개념 24
• 1. 구 자배법상의 당해장치의 용법 25
• 2. 현행 자배법상의 그 용법 29
• 3. 사용 또는 관리 32
• Ⅳ. 운행기인성 35
• 1. 계기설(契機設) 36
• 2. 사실상의 인과관계설 36
• 3. 상당인과관계설 37
• 4. 운행기인성에 관한 우리 대법원의 입장 38
• Ⅴ. 소결 38
• 제2절 운행자성 39
• Ⅰ. 서설 39
• Ⅱ. 운행자책임의 주체 40
• 1. 운행자의 개념 41
• 2. 운행자인정의 요소 46
• 3. 운행자의 인정기준에 관한 학설 45
• Ⅲ. 운행자성에 대한 입증책임 52
• 1. 학설의 검토 53
• 2. 판례의 동향 54
• 3. 검토 55
• Ⅳ. 유형별 운행자성 분석 55
• 1. 무단운전 56
• 2. 절취운전 57
• 3. 명의대여 및 명의잔존 59
• 4. 차량의 임대차와 사용대차 62
• 5. 자동차의 세차․수리․보관 62
• 6. 대리운전 64
• Ⅴ. 소결 65
• 제3절 공동운행자간의 운행자책임 66
• Ⅰ. 서설 66
• Ⅱ. 공동운행자의 타인성 67
• 1. 문제의 제기 67
• 2. 학설의 검토 68
• 3. 판례의 태도 71
• Ⅲ. 소결 72
• 제4절 면책사유 73
• Ⅰ. 자동차손해배상보장법상의 면책사유 73
• 1. 서설 73
• 2. 승객이 사상한 경우 73
• 3. 승객 이외의 자가 사상한 경우 75
• Ⅱ. 그밖에 면책사유 76
• 제4장 현행 운행자책임의 문제점과 개선방안 78
• 제1절 서론 78
• 제2절 현행 운행자책임의 문제점 78
• Ⅰ. 자배법 제정취지에 대한 오해 78
• Ⅱ. 운행범위의 과도한 확장 79
• Ⅲ. 불명확한 운행자 판단기준 80
• Ⅳ. 공동운행자에 대한 운행자책임의 발생 81
• 제3절 개선방안 82
• Ⅰ. 자배법 제정취지에 부합한 피해자보호 82
• Ⅱ. 운행범위의 적정성 유지 83
• Ⅲ. 운행자 판단의 새로운 기준 도입 84
• Ⅳ. 공동운행자간 타인성 불인 84
• 제5장 결론 86
• 참고 또는 인용문헌 89