지원사업
학술연구/단체지원/교육 등 연구자 활동을 지속하도록 DBpia가 지원하고 있어요.
커뮤니티
연구자들이 자신의 연구와 전문성을 널리 알리고, 새로운 협력의 기회를 만들 수 있는 네트워킹 공간이에요.
논문 기본 정보
- 자료유형
- 학술저널
- 저자정보
- 발행연도
- 2002.12
- 수록면
- 169 - 193 (25page)
이용수
초록· 키워드
오류제보하기
According to the article 29① of Constitution of the Republic Of Korea, it provides that the public official concerned shall not be immune from liabilities. And this constitutional article was concreted by the article 2② of State Compensation Act. Therefore, the public official who committed tort in official act is responsible to the State etc. when the State etc. compensated to the citizen who is injured by unlawful act committed by a public official in the excercise of public office by the Constitution and the Act.
And the article of State Compensation Act which provides the right of the State etc. for compensation to a public official is an institutional system to secure legality of administration and serious official action.
But it should be never forgotten that the tight of the State etc. for compensation must be exercised in the limit. And the limit means that the tight should be not to offend active exercise and efficiency of official duty. That is why legislators stipulated a phrase of ‘intention or gross negligence’ in the article 2② of State Compensation Act.
At first, what the meaning and the character of the tight of the State etc. are is studied by theories and cases concerning institution of the State compensation in this paper. Especially, this paper aims to find out what the duty of care is in a public official's issuance of certificate of seal.
Though recent cases concerned with that consent to the meaning of the tight, it may be thought that those cases are rigorous to a public official in judging a public official’s liability. In case of issuing certificate of seal, a public official’ gross negligence should be judged restrictedly, Especially, if a public official issued the certificate of seal by the third party’s unlawful act, it could be said that there is no gross negligence to the public official. Therefore, in that case, the court should have judged a public official no gross negligence.
Also, This paper involve the problems caused by the discretionary character of the tight in the Act, and examine the rationality in dividing liability between the State etc. and a public official who committed tort.
And the article of State Compensation Act which provides the right of the State etc. for compensation to a public official is an institutional system to secure legality of administration and serious official action.
But it should be never forgotten that the tight of the State etc. for compensation must be exercised in the limit. And the limit means that the tight should be not to offend active exercise and efficiency of official duty. That is why legislators stipulated a phrase of ‘intention or gross negligence’ in the article 2② of State Compensation Act.
At first, what the meaning and the character of the tight of the State etc. are is studied by theories and cases concerning institution of the State compensation in this paper. Especially, this paper aims to find out what the duty of care is in a public official's issuance of certificate of seal.
Though recent cases concerned with that consent to the meaning of the tight, it may be thought that those cases are rigorous to a public official in judging a public official’s liability. In case of issuing certificate of seal, a public official’ gross negligence should be judged restrictedly, Especially, if a public official issued the certificate of seal by the third party’s unlawful act, it could be said that there is no gross negligence to the public official. Therefore, in that case, the court should have judged a public official no gross negligence.
Also, This paper involve the problems caused by the discretionary character of the tight in the Act, and examine the rationality in dividing liability between the State etc. and a public official who committed tort.
목차
Ⅰ. 서론
Ⅱ. 인감증명발급에 있어서의 국가 등의 구상권
Ⅲ. 결론
참고문헌
Abstract
참고문헌 (0)
참고문헌 신청함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문
논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!
-
공무원노동조합에 관한 비교법적 연구 -노동3권의 인정범위를 중심으로-
법학논총
2019 .10
-
법관의 재판에 대한 국가배상책임
원광법학
2010 .01
-
공무원직장협의회의 발전과제 : 입법방향을 중심으로
노동법연구
2002 .06
-
작성권자를 보조하는 공무원에 대한 허위공문서작성죄의 간접정범 성립 여부와 관련문제
인권과 정의
2019 .01
-
국가공무원법과 직위분류제(職位分類制)
공법학연구
2007 .05
-
공무원범죄의 추이에 관한 연구(Ⅱ)
형사정책연구원 연구총서
2006 .12
-
공무원 노사관계와 급여결정제도 : 일본의 사례를 중심으로
노동법연구
2007 .06
-
공무원노동기본권의 허용범위에 관한 경험적 연구 : 조직대상과 노동3권 인정범위를 중심으로
한국사회와 행정연구
2002 .02
-
공무원노조 조직활동 범위에 관한 실증적 연구 : 노동기본권과 조직형태를 중심으로
노동법연구
2004 .12
-
공무원직장협의회제도에 관한 연구
노동연구
2015 .10
-
공무원범죄에 대한 규범적 통제 - 공무원범죄의 개념과 통제방안을 중심으로 -
비교형사법연구
2011 .01
-
중앙공무원과 지방공무원의 공직가치 영향요인 연구
지방정부연구
2019 .05
-
국가배상법상의 가해공무원에 대한 구상권의 행사
원광법학
2007 .01
-
공무원의 정치적 중립과 정치참여
입법과 정책
2018 .01
-
國家賠償法 제2조 제1항의 立法論上 問題點 : 公務受託私人을 중심으로
행정법연구
2010 .04
-
국가배상책임제도의 비교법적 고찰
법학연구
2007 .02
-
공무원의 불법행위로 인한 국가배상책임의 본질 및 요건에 대한 재검토 : 대법원 판례들의 분석과 평석을 중심으로
강원법학
2016 .02
-
공무원의 근무조건과 단체협약
노동법학
2015 .06
-
공무원직장협의회제도의 운영실태와 개선방안
산업관계연구
2001 .06
이 논문의 저자 정보
이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0
UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2009-360-019483969