第三者의 過失과 過失相計 (A Study on the Third Party’s Negligence and Culpa Compensatio)

서지정보

· 발행기관 : 단국대학교 법학연구소
· 수록지 정보 : 법학논총 / 35권 / 1호 / 397 ~ 425페이지
· 저자명 : 권용우

초록

This article reviews existing theories on whether we can equate the third party’s negligence with the injured party’s negligence in calculating wrongdoer’s amount of damages, explores the scope of the third party related to the injured principal in considering culpa compensatio and, ultimately, concludes as follows.
First, in the case of culpa compensatio, we should consider the third party’s negligence in calculating the amount of damages mainly because, for example, a person’s negligence who has same social status or similar living relationship with injured party, or is under injured party’s direction can be equated with the negligence of the injured party. Thus, extending the definition of injured party in order to include the third party’s negligence who can be identified with the injured party accords with the idea of fair attribution in the theory of compensation liability.
Second, although there are some arguments on the theoretical basis of whether we can equate the third party’s negligence with the injured party’s negligence in calculating wrongdoer’s amount of damages, we should consider the third party’s negligence who are somewhat related with the injured party as culpa compensatio because the idea of fairness which means that the damage should be properly and fairly attributed is the basis of the theory of culpa compensatio.
Although there also are some viewpoints in this context such as the theory of family group, theory of family association, theory of joint torts, theory of application mutais mutandis of employer‘s liability, and theory of fairness, the theory of fairness seems the most persuasive and the Korean Supreme Court supports this perspective.
Third and lastly, the unity with the injured party should be the standard in deciding the scope of the third party. In relation to this issue, the Japanese case law and academia supports the theory identical devolvement although the Korean Supreme Court does not present a specific standard.

영어초록

This article reviews existing theories on whether we can equate the third party’s negligence with the injured party’s negligence in calculating wrongdoer’s amount of damages, explores the scope of the third party related to the injured principal in considering culpa compensatio and, ultimately, concludes as follows.
First, in the case of culpa compensatio, we should consider the third party’s negligence in calculating the amount of damages mainly because, for example, a person’s negligence who has same social status or similar living relationship with injured party, or is under injured party’s direction can be equated with the negligence of the injured party. Thus, extending the definition of injured party in order to include the third party’s negligence who can be identified with the injured party accords with the idea of fair attribution in the theory of compensation liability.
Second, although there are some arguments on the theoretical basis of whether we can equate the third party’s negligence with the injured party’s negligence in calculating wrongdoer’s amount of damages, we should consider the third party’s negligence who are somewhat related with the injured party as culpa compensatio because the idea of fairness which means that the damage should be properly and fairly attributed is the basis of the theory of culpa compensatio.
Although there also are some viewpoints in this context such as the theory of family group, theory of family association, theory of joint torts, theory of application mutais mutandis of employer‘s liability, and theory of fairness, the theory of fairness seems the most persuasive and the Korean Supreme Court supports this perspective.
Third and lastly, the unity with the injured party should be the standard in deciding the scope of the third party. In relation to this issue, the Japanese case law and academia supports the theory identical devolvement although the Korean Supreme Court does not present a specific standard.

참고자료

· 없음