자동차사고와 과실상계 (Car Accidents and Comparative Negligence)

서지정보

· 발행기관 : 연세대학교 법학연구원
· 수록지 정보 : 법학연구 / 27권 / 4호 / 127 ~ 155페이지
· 저자명 : 김성연

초록

자동차가 증가한 만큼 자동차사고도 많이 증가하였고 자동차사고와 관련한 분쟁도 많이 발생하고 있다. 분쟁의 대부분은 과실비율과 관련한 것이다. 그런데 과실비율산정과 관련하여 불합리한 점이 지속적으로 제기되고 있다. 현행 자동차보험제도상 교통사고에서 피해자가 더 큰 손해배상을 해야 하는 경우가 종종 발생한다는 것이다. 정서상 형사상 피해자임에도 불구하고 과실비율에 따라 가해자보다 더 많은 금액을 배상해야 하는 경우가 많다.
현행 자동차사고로 인한 손해배상책임제도의 실무와 판례는 가해자에게 100% 과실이 있는 경우를 제외하고는 피해자에게 과실상계뿐만 아니라 가해자에 대한 손해배상책임을 인정하는 태도를 취하고 있다. 이에 따라 가해자와 피해자 사이에 불공평한 상황이 발생하고 있어 문제가 된다. 이러한 태도는 결국 가해자의 불법을 방조하는 결과로까지 이어질 수 있어 교통사고를 감소시키고자 하는 도로교통법 등의 이상과도 맞지 않는다.
이러한 문제가 발생하는 근본원인은 민사책임에 있어 특히 보험의 적용에 있어 가해자와 피해자를 구분하지 않는 점에서 기인한다. 교통사고가 발생한 경우 경찰조사를 받게 되면 가해자와 피해자를 확정하고 있으며, 보통 과실비율에 따른 배상을 인정하는 경우에도 가해자나 피해자라는 표현을 흔히 사용하고 있는 것과도 맞지 않는다. 따라서 먼저 자동차사고에 있어 가해자와 피해자를 구분하여야 할 것이다. 그 기준으로는 손해가 누구의 과실로부터 현저히 야기되었는지를 가지고 판단하여야 할 것으로 보인다. 손해발생에 중대하고 핵심적인 영향을 준 관여자를 가해자로 확정하여야 할 것이다.
가해자와 피해자가 확정되었다면 피해자의 과실을 고려하여 과실상계를 하여 가해자의 손해배상액을 조정하여야 할 것이다. 가해자의 손해에 대하여는 전적으로 가해자가 책임을 부담하여야 할 것이며 피해자에게 물적 손해든 인적 손해든 배상책임을 물어서는 안될 것이다. 가해자 자신의 손해는 보험제도를 통하여 해결하는 수밖에 없고, 그 위험은 가해자 자신과 가해자의 보험회사가 전적으로 부담하여야 할 것이다.
현재의 자동차사고로 인한 손해배상책임과 관련한 논의는 주로 합리적인 과실비율을 정하는 문제에만 집중되고 있다. 그러나 과실비율 논의 자체는 전제가 잘못된 것으로 민사책임 영역에서의 가해자와 피해자를 구분하는 논의가 선행되어야 할 것이며, 그 이후 과실상계로서의 합리적인 과실비율을 정하는 점에 초점을 두어야 할 것이다.

영어초록

Most of the disputes about car accidents relate to the fault rate. However, unreasonable points regarding the calculation of the ratio of negligence are constantly being raised. The current car insurance system often causes victims to make more damages in traffic accidents. Despite the emotional injury, it is often necessary to compensate more than the offender by applying a mechanical fault rate.
Except for the fact that the perpetrator has a 100% fault, the practice and the precedent of the liability system for damages caused by the current car accident are taking the attitude of acknowledging the responsibility of compensating the perpetrator as well as offsetting the fault to the injured party. As a result, there is an unfair situation between the perpetrator and the victim, which is a problem. This attitude can eventually result in aiding the illegal abuse of the perpetrator, which is not compatible with the ideal of the Road Traffic Act to reduce traffic accidents.
The root cause of these problems arises from the fact that civil liability does not distinguish between the perpetrator and the victim, especially in the application of insurance. In the event of a traffic accident, a police investigation confirms the perpetrator and the victim, and even if the injunction is granted in accordance with the usual rate of fault, it is not consistent with the common use of the expression “perpetrator” or “victim”. Therefore, it is necessary to distinguish the victim from the perpetrator in the car accident first. As a rule, it seems to be judged by whose fault the damage was caused. It is necessary to confirm the person who has a major and critical influence on the occurrence of the damage as the perpetrator.
If the perpetrator and the victim are confirmed, the damage compensation of the perpetrator should be adjusted by offsetting the fault considering the victim 's fault. The perpetrator shall be liable to the perpetrator for the damages of the perpetrator and shall not be liable to the victim for any loss of property or personal injury. The perpetrator's own damages must be solved through the insurance system, and the perpetrator and the perpetrator's insurance company shall bear the risk entirely.
The current debate on liability for damages caused by car accidents is focused solely on the issue of determining reasonable ratios of negligence. However, the discussion of the ratio of negligence itself is wrong, and it should be preceded by a discussion to distinguish between the perpetrator and the victim in the area of civil liability, and thereafter the focus should be on determining a reasonable rate of error as an offsetting of the negligence.
The root cause of these problems arises from the fact that civil liability does not distinguish between the perpetrator and the victim, especially in the application of insurance. In the event of a traffic accident, a police investigation confirms the offender and the victim. We also use the expression “abuser” and “victim” when recognizing damages based on the ratio of negligence. Practice does not match this reality. Therefore, in the case of a car accident, it is first necessary to distinguish the victim from the perpetrator. As a rule, it seems to be judged by whose fault the damage was caused. It is necessary to confirm the person who has a major and critical influence on the occurrence of the damage as the perpetrator. It may be an fault as a liability requirement that causes an accident in violation of a state's obligation, even though the accident may be foreseeable.
If the perpetrator and the victim are confirmed, the damage compensation of the perpetrator should be adjusted by offsetting the fault considering the victim's fault. The perpetrator shall be liable to the perpetrator for the damages of the perpetrator and shall not be liable to the victim for any loss of property or personal injury. The perpetrator's own damages must be solved through the insurance system, and the perpetrator and the perpetrator's insurance company shall bear the risk entirely.
The current debate on liability for damages caused by car accidents is focused solely on the issue of determining reasonable ratios of negligence. However, the discussion of the ratio of negligence itself is wrong, and it should be preceded by a discussion to distinguish between the perpetrator and the victim in the area of civil liability, and thereafter the focus should be on determining a reasonable rate of fault as an offsetting of the negligence.
If the perpetrator and the victim are confirmed, the damage compensation of the perpetrator should be adjusted by offsetting the fault considering the victim's fault. The perpetrator shall be liable to the perpetrator for the damages of the perpetrator and shall not be liable to the victim for any loss of property or personal injury. The perpetrator's own damages must be solved through the insurance system, and the perpetrator and the perpetrator's insurance company shall bear the risk entirely.
The current debate on liability for damages caused by car accidents is focused solely on the issue of determining reasonable ratios of negligence. However, the discussion of the ratio of negligence itself is wrong, and it should be preceded by a discussion to distinguish between the perpetrator and the victim in the area of ​​civil liability, and thereafter the focus should be on determining a reasonable rate of error as an offsetting of the negligence.

참고자료

· 없음