自動車事故에 있어서 原因競合에 관한 硏究 = (The) Study of Cause Concurrent a Traffic Accident

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

Today, traffic accidents were grew larger in the proportion to increasing in number of automobile in such freguent traffic accidents, which is caused by the plural number in ite aspects, and They should have the joint liability for such a traffic accident. The joint fort as a peculiar fort of all general fort is specified on the Arficle 760 of the current civil code.
Thus, In the previous cases, The defendent to cause a traffic accident should have the liability of all, But in our actual cases which a plaintiff in a fault. There is tendency that both sides share with thies liabilites for The accident, in this thesis, which tate emphasis on upper raw, and it is researched on the controversial point and procese which is applied to the theory and practice.
So, it explains several exampes for cause concurrent from traffic accients.
First, cause conucrrent between a car and the other for example, in case of crash into between a car and the other,
Second, cause concurrent between a fault of driver and a road defect, for example, a road defect is concurried a traffic accident,
Third, cause concurrent from a traffic accident and a medical fault, for example, the first in accidents is the secont in medical fault,
Fourth, cause concurrent from a basic cause of plaintiff in case of, its compensation of liability.
From the previons Laws.
Conclusively, it is great important task in the but are, which we should apply to decide the problem of the compensation for damage in the cause concurrent between defendent and plaintiff.

목차 (Table of Contents)

• 目次 = 1
• Ⅰ. 序論 = 5
• 1. 硏究의 目的 = 5
• 2. 硏究의 方法과 範圍 = 7
• Ⅱ. 車輛間事故의 原因競合 = 9
• 1. 序說 = 9
• 2. 車輛間事故의 類型的 考察과 成立範圍 = 9
• 가. 類型的 考察 = 9
• 나. 成立範圍 = 11
• 3. 車輛間事故에 있어서 共同不法行爲 責任 = 13
• 4. 車輛間事故에 있어서 責任分擔 = 18
• 가. 一部連帶責任說 = 19
• 나. 分割的·比率的 責任說 = 20
• 5. 結語 = 24
• Ⅲ. 道路瑕疵와의 競合 = 26
• 1. 序說 = 26
• 2. 共同不法行爲와 責任競合 = 29
• 가. 共同不法行爲에 나타난 原因競合 = 29
• 나. 責任競合關係 = 31
• (1) 責任主體單數型 = 32
• (2) 賣任主體複數型 = 33
• 다. 共同不法行爲에서 責任競合관계 = 34
• 3. 原因競合의 觀点에서 = 36
• 가. 序 = 36
• 나. 事故發生의 過程·要因 = 36
• 다. 事故原因과 責任區分 = 37
• 라. 責任의 性質論과 責任競合 = 39
• 마. 結 = 40
• 4. 責任共同 = 42
• 가. 序 = 42
• 나. 第3者가 關聯한 交通障害와의 競合 = 43
• 다. 自然現象과의 競合 = 44
• 라. 運轉者側과의 競合 = 46
• 5. 結語 = 47
• Ⅳ. 醫療過誤와의 競合 = 48
• 1. 序說 = 48
• 2. 兩事故에 있어서 行爲의 本質과 共同性 = 49
• 가. 行爲의 本質 = 49
• 나. 共同性 = 50
• 3. 交通事故訴訟과 醫療過誤訴訟의 差異 = 53
• 가. 兩事故訴訟의 法律的 特質 = 53
• 나. 兩訴訟의 社會學的 特質 = 53
• 다. 一般的 成立要件에 있어서 主要한 差異 = 54
• 4. 交通事故와 醫療事故의 競合 = 55
• 가. 醫療事故와의 競合이 明確한 경우 = 55
• 나. 交通事故와 醫療行爲에 있어서 原因이 不明確한 경우 = 56
• 다. 醫療中에 생긴 事由가 直接的因이 되어서 死亡했으나 그 事由가 醫療擔當者의 過失이 없는 경우 = 57
• 5. 結語 = 58
• Ⅴ. 被害者의 素因과의 競合 = 60
• 1. 序說 =60
• 2. 被害者의 素園과 因果關係 = 61
• 3. 寄與度理論 = 63
• 가. 序 = 63
• 나. 寄與度理論의 根據 = 64
• 다. 參酌素因說에 대한 批判論 = 65
• (1) 比率的 因果關係論 = 65
• (2) 金錢的 評價說 = 65
• (3) 公平說 = 65
• (4) 過失相計 類推適用說 = 68
• (5) 保護範圍說 = 68
• 4. 判例의 態度 = 69
• 가. □往症 및 持病 = 69
• 나. 病的 素因 = 70
• 5. 結語 = 72
• Ⅶ. 結論 = 74
• <參考文默> = 76
• SUMMARY = 81