범죄발생공간의 소유·관리자의 법적책임에 관한 고찰

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

Our society suffers a lack of understanding about public nature of spaces and is overflowing with a sense of absolute ownership about private assets. For this reason, owners or managers of spaces where crimes are committed find it difficult to accept their civil liability in an appropriate way. In this regard, the study is focused on classifying the physical spaces in order to suggest logical grounds for taking responsibility for compensation for damage caused by crimes that are committed in spaces without crime prevention facilities.
First, it pertains to business space involved in profit-making. In that case, if a crime is committed against a customer, an owner or a manager of a space should take responsibility for violating his or her obligations to protect his or her customer as specified in a contract in accordance with Article 390 of the Civil Act.
Second, it pertains to a space with mandatory crime prevention facilities in accordance with laws and regulations. In that case, if crime prevention facilities were failed to be equipped in violation of related laws and regulations despite the fact that it was highly likely that a crime could be committed in consideration of related laws and regulations, and if the crime caused losses, the owner or the manager should take liability for torts in accordance with Article 750 of the Civil Act.
Third, it pertains to closed spaces with high probability of occurrence of crimes. In that case, the owner or the manager should take responsibility for failure in installing crime prevention facilities with regard to defects of structures or public structures in accordance with Article 758 Liability of Possessor, Owner of Structure of the Civil Act or Article 5 of State Compensation Act.
It is expected to provide an opportunity to give a deep thought into the minimum crime prevention factors that a physical space needs to ensure in order to create a safe society by raising public awareness about the public nature of spaces in consideration of judicial precedents in Korea.

참고문헌 (Reference)

1 김성돈, "형법총론" 성균관대학교 출판부 2013

2 송덕수, "신민법강의" 박영사 2013

3 양삼승, "불법행위로 인한 손해배상의 범위론" 법조협회 527 : 2000

4 대검찰청, "법무연감" 2014

5 김규완, "민법학강의(14판)" 신조사 2015

6 김준호, "민법강의" 법문사 2015

7 지원림, "민법강의" 홍문사 2015

8 배종근, "공중접객업자의 구내 범죄사고에 대한 손해배상책임의 요건" 대한변호사협회 (353) : 67-92, 2006

9 표창원, "건축과 범죄피해에 대한 책임" 대한건축학회 55 (55): 2011

10 Kaye, T. L, "Urban Law Annual 7" 1974

11 ODPM, "Planning Policy Statement 1: Delivering Sustainable Development" Office of the Deputy Prime Minister(ODPM) 2005

12 Reuschel, T. A, "Here's Your Burrito and Watch Your Back: Does Missouri Really Want to Hold Businesses Liable for Attacks on Patrons" 65 : 2000

13 Schneider, R. H, "Crime Prevention ane the Built Environment" Routledge 2007

14 Martin, Sean W, "Are You as Guilty as the Criminal? Liability for Criminal Acts of Third Parties and Employees" Federation of Defense & Corporate Counsel, Inc 62 (62): 2015

15 Cohen, L. E, "American Sociological Review 44" American Sociological Association 1979