RISS 학술연구정보서비스

검색

인기 검색어

    다국어 입력

    http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.

    변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.

    예시)
    • 中文 을 입력하시려면 zhongwen을 입력하시고 space를누르시면됩니다.
    • 北京 을 입력하시려면 beijing을 입력하시고 space를 누르시면 됩니다.
    닫기
    KCI등재

    동물점유자 책임의 해석상 쟁점 = Interpretational issues concerning animal occupier responsibility

    한글로보기

    https://www.riss.kr/link?id=A107804383

    • 0

      상세조회
    • 0

      다운로드
    서지정보 열기
    • 내보내기
    • 내책장담기
    • 공유하기
    • 오류접수

    부가정보

    다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract) kakao i 다국어 번역

    Animals themselves combine special risks and benefits. Article 759 of the Korean Civil Code recognizes the occupier s responsibility for the wrongdoing of animals that can be controlled by humans. While the number of animals used for production or transportation has decreased, the number of households with pets is rapidly increasing due to various factors such as advances in nuclear families. As the bond between humans and animals has expanded, the opportunity for humans to encounter animal risks will inevitably increase. In fact, there are frequent cases of physical or health infringement due to animal accidents. Nevertheless, since most of the disputes between the parties have been resolved by reconciliation, it is hard to find a related case in Korea. This article examines legislative and interpretative issues concerning animal occupier responsibility. The interpretation theory and practical examples of Article 718 of the Japanese Civil Code, which were counted by the Korean Civil Law, give useful implications at this point. This is because while shifting the burden of proof to the occupant, the government strictly restricts the verification and realizes the fair sharing of damages through the legal principles of comparative negligence. Some scholars in Korea suggest that luxury animals and livestock animals should be divided into strict responsibilities in the former and fruit responsibilities in the latter, as in Article 833 of the German Civil Code. However, there is something hard to readily understand because the argument is not sufficient. In modern society, I think there needs to be a deeper discussion on whether it is appropriate to over-expand dangerous materials lacking risk distribution functions, whether animal risks can be equated with unspecified risks created by modern society, and whether there is any fear of damaging human-animal relationships. I hope this article will serve as a small opportunity for the establishment of interpretation of animal occupier responsibility and the progress of legislation.
    번역하기

    Animals themselves combine special risks and benefits. Article 759 of the Korean Civil Code recognizes the occupier s responsibility for the wrongdoing of animals that can be controlled by humans. While the number of animals used for production or tra...

    Animals themselves combine special risks and benefits. Article 759 of the Korean Civil Code recognizes the occupier s responsibility for the wrongdoing of animals that can be controlled by humans. While the number of animals used for production or transportation has decreased, the number of households with pets is rapidly increasing due to various factors such as advances in nuclear families. As the bond between humans and animals has expanded, the opportunity for humans to encounter animal risks will inevitably increase. In fact, there are frequent cases of physical or health infringement due to animal accidents. Nevertheless, since most of the disputes between the parties have been resolved by reconciliation, it is hard to find a related case in Korea. This article examines legislative and interpretative issues concerning animal occupier responsibility. The interpretation theory and practical examples of Article 718 of the Japanese Civil Code, which were counted by the Korean Civil Law, give useful implications at this point. This is because while shifting the burden of proof to the occupant, the government strictly restricts the verification and realizes the fair sharing of damages through the legal principles of comparative negligence. Some scholars in Korea suggest that luxury animals and livestock animals should be divided into strict responsibilities in the former and fruit responsibilities in the latter, as in Article 833 of the German Civil Code. However, there is something hard to readily understand because the argument is not sufficient. In modern society, I think there needs to be a deeper discussion on whether it is appropriate to over-expand dangerous materials lacking risk distribution functions, whether animal risks can be equated with unspecified risks created by modern society, and whether there is any fear of damaging human-animal relationships. I hope this article will serve as a small opportunity for the establishment of interpretation of animal occupier responsibility and the progress of legislation.

    더보기

    목차 (Table of Contents)

    • Ⅰ. 서론 Ⅱ. 연혁 및 입법례 Ⅲ. 책임의 성립요건 Ⅳ. 책임의 주체 및 효과 Ⅴ. 결론
    • Ⅰ. 서론 Ⅱ. 연혁 및 입법례 Ⅲ. 책임의 성립요건 Ⅳ. 책임의 주체 및 효과 Ⅴ. 결론
    더보기

    동일학술지(권/호) 다른 논문

    동일학술지 더보기

    더보기

    분석정보

    View

    상세정보조회

    0

    Usage

    원문다운로드

    0

    대출신청

    0

    복사신청

    0

    EDDS신청

    0

    동일 주제 내 활용도 TOP

    더보기

    주제

    연도별 연구동향

    연도별 활용동향

    연관논문

    연구자 네트워크맵

    공동연구자 (7)

    유사연구자 (20) 활용도상위20명

    이 자료와 함께 이용한 RISS 자료

    나만을 위한 추천자료

    해외이동버튼