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.
이용수
초록· 키워드
오류제보하기
The primary purpose of this article is to review some details of “draft special legislation on the legal relief of asbestos victims”. the review work has been carried out in teams of two viewpoints as follows: First, how compensatory fund(hereafter referred to as “fund”) is to be established-this is equal to that who should bear the burden of a finance related to the fund. Second, how the burden of proof as to exposure to asbestos is to be dealt with-especially for the benefit of victims resulting from environmental exposure to asbestos.
On the former, I discussed who should take a legal responsibility for damages to asbestos victims and concluded that the potion of the liability can be attributed to State due to a failure to comply with a duty to keep itself informed of dangers for workers' and citizens' health. The residues of that have to be imposed upon manufacturers and distributors on the based the fact that they had manufactured and circulated products in defectiveness determined on the standard of the risk-utility test. Ultimately the costs of the product including the cost of injuries caused thereby will be borne by those who profit from it: the manufacturers and distributors who profit from its sale and the buyers who profit from is use.
As to the latter, the applicant must prove the reality of the asbestos exposure, as well as the impact on his health, which must be evidenced at the time of the application. but it is not easy for the applicant to prove that exposure, therefore unjust to impose the burden of proof wholly on the applicant so that the burden is to be diminished to the extent to which the victims could be recovered from their damages without impairment of the principle of burden of proof. In france with the aim of reducing the burden of proof of exposure for the victim, legislation provides that recognition of an occupational disease is sufficient for the victim to be deemed to have suffered asbestos exposure. the same principle applies when the applicant suffers from a disease caused by asbestos and which is included on an official government list. we can consider this way of alleviation of the burden of proof as one of available alternatives.
On the former, I discussed who should take a legal responsibility for damages to asbestos victims and concluded that the potion of the liability can be attributed to State due to a failure to comply with a duty to keep itself informed of dangers for workers' and citizens' health. The residues of that have to be imposed upon manufacturers and distributors on the based the fact that they had manufactured and circulated products in defectiveness determined on the standard of the risk-utility test. Ultimately the costs of the product including the cost of injuries caused thereby will be borne by those who profit from it: the manufacturers and distributors who profit from its sale and the buyers who profit from is use.
As to the latter, the applicant must prove the reality of the asbestos exposure, as well as the impact on his health, which must be evidenced at the time of the application. but it is not easy for the applicant to prove that exposure, therefore unjust to impose the burden of proof wholly on the applicant so that the burden is to be diminished to the extent to which the victims could be recovered from their damages without impairment of the principle of burden of proof. In france with the aim of reducing the burden of proof of exposure for the victim, legislation provides that recognition of an occupational disease is sufficient for the victim to be deemed to have suffered asbestos exposure. the same principle applies when the applicant suffers from a disease caused by asbestos and which is included on an official government list. we can consider this way of alleviation of the burden of proof as one of available alternatives.
목차
Ⅰ. 서론
Ⅱ. 석면피해구제의 책임자
Ⅲ. 피해구제입법에 있어 석면에의 노출 등 입증책임의 경감 방법의 탐구
Ⅳ. 피해구제입법에 있어 피해보상기금 재원조성방안 탐구
Ⅴ. 우리나라 석면피해구제법안의 검토
Ⅵ. 결론
참고문헌
〈Abstract〉
「우리나라 석면 피해 구제를 둘러싼 법적 쟁점의 검토」 - 피해보상기금 조성문제와 석면노출의 증명책임 경감문제를 중심으로- 에 대한 토론문
참고문헌 (0)
참고문헌 신청이 논문과 연관된 판례 (1)
-
대구지방법원 2007. 12. 4. 선고 2005가단51553 판결
자세히 보기
함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문
논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!
-
석면피해구제에 대한 법적 검토
환경법과 정책
2011 .05
-
국내외 석면피해 소송의 현황과 문제점
환경법과 정책
2009 .02
-
환경성 석면노출과 건강문제
환경법과 정책
2009 .02
-
석면노출 근로자에 대한 산재보상의 규율과 문제점
원광법학
2009 .01
-
프랑스에서의 석면피해와 국가배상책임
원광법학
2011 .01
-
외국의 석면피해에 대한 법적 구제와 시사점
환경법과 정책
2009 .02
-
지자체별 석면질환 위험도 분석 및 향후 석면관리 방안
지역정책연구
2011 .12
-
석면의 위해성과 국민건강권 확보를 위한 비교법적 검토
의료법학
2011 .01
-
석면의 법적 규제와 제조물 책임
재산법연구
2008 .01
-
환경 위험과 생물학적 시민권: 한국의 석면 피해자보상운동을 중심으로
시민사회와 NGO
2015 .01
-
농어촌지역 슬레이트지붕의 실태와 대책방향
한국농촌경제연구원 정책연구보고
2010 .06
-
효율성과 무지, 그리고 환경피해 - 석면 사용과 악성중피종 발생의 장기관계 -
자원·환경경제연구
2017 .01
-
석면위험과 석면정책변동
지방정부연구
2017 .02
-
의료과오소송 입증책임론의 전개와 발전
의료법학
2008 .01
-
ILO협약상 안전보건기준과 산업안전보건법의 비교연구 : 벤젠, 발암물질, 석면을 중심으로
노동법논총
2004 .02
-
일본경찰의 범죄피해자 지원제도
피해자학연구
2004 .01
-
독일의 제조물책임에 관한 법적 연구
한양법학
2014 .02
-
의료소비자 피해구제를 위한 입증책임부담 경감에 관한 고찰
소비자문제연구
2005 .12
-
환경 위험 커뮤니케이션의 사회적 구성 : 석면 위험에 대한 언론보도 분석을 중심으로
환경사회학연구 ECO
2015 .06
-
Burden of Proof in Safeguards' Litigations
국제경제법연구
2009 .11
이 논문의 저자 정보
이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0
UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2010-360-001993502