재산권의 침해와 위자료청구권 = 일본에서의 논의와 비교하여

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

The Korean Supreme Court has been negative in recognizing compensation for infringement of property. Because judges have thought that damage for infringement of property could be made up by damages for property. There are lots of decisions on the infringement of property in Japan, and judges of the Japanese Supreme Court and scholars have recognized Consolation Money in the case of a strong attachment to the infringed interest, and in the case of a vicious harmful act. The drafter of Japanese Civil Law had an intention recognized compensation widely for the immaterial interest, and the consolation money which is apt to stiffen, have given detailed validity to the legal solution, and played very important role for the purpose of coping flexibly with many cases of tort. But there are no principles whether judges are to admit the consolation money or not, and how much money they decide where they admit the compensation. Therefore, it is necessary to make sure what we expect the consolation money to do.
Because there are some cases recognized consolation money almost upon construction work in Korea, we will have to wait until more cases are accumulated by the supreme court before discussing the mental damages. However, where we infer from discussing the mental damages in Japan, the more our society industrialized, the more cases with mental damages for infringement of property accumulated. So we could reach a conclusion that we have not to compensate only the material interest for the mental damage, but to recognize damages along the same lines as Japanese court classified several types of mental damages for infringement of property.