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.
초록· 키워드
오류제보하기
According to the present State Compensation Act Article 2(1), the definition of 'private persons entrusted with public duties' falls within the 'public officials'.
Thus the 'private persons entrusted with public duties' take no civil responsibilities against both the government's and the victims' side as far as without purpose or gross negligence by the above Act Article 2(3).
But the 'private persons entrusted with public duties' which has independence on organization and operation should take the civil responsibilities for their prvious deeds. Just the principle of liability with fault should be adapted for their deeds.
If not so, it means the violation of equity, and it leads to the government's financial overload, and the reduction of carefulness to prevent accidents.
For the above reasons, the principle of liability with fault should be adapted widely even in the area of 'private persons entrusted with public duties'.
Firstly, the 'private persons entrusted with public duties' in the above 2(1) means the ones which has independence of low degree below average in relevance with the government. The ones which has independence of high degree doesn't go into it on the above 2(1).
The ones which has independence of comparatively high degree from the government should be ruled by the principle of joint-malfeasance liabilities if possible.
And in the cases as against the highly independed ones the principle of joint-malfeasance liabilities should be applied as far as it goes.
Even though in the above cases the clauses of 'State Compensation Act' should be applied, it could be interpreted that the 'private persons entrusted with public duties' should answer for what they had done regardless of gross negligence or not.
Secondly, for the intention of legistlation according to the legal view which the court and academic circles went after, the expression of 'private persons entrusted with public duties' is inadequate. The expression of 'the private persons who could be measured as entered into administrative organs, in concrete cases, entrusted with public duties' would have been better for that meaning.
Thirdly, However if the 'private persons entrusted with public duties' had no assets to pay for their liabilities to the errors, the victims couldn't be saved. Thus it is recommended that the legal steps making up the shortage of their paying abilities should be taken.
In contracting of trusting public services, the way of liabilities apportionment should be fixed and it is recommended that the above private persons should take out a policy on the liability for what they did.
The matter of gross negligence or not is not the one of scale of the compensation sum. The size of compensation sum doesn't go with the degree of negligence. Even though the 'private persons entrusted with public duties' committed a slight error, the size of government's compensation sum could be gross. The expression that the private persons should be free from liabilities regardless of the degree of negligence would overload the State and local government's finance. Finally, 'State Compensation Act Article 2(1)' should be revised.
Thus the 'private persons entrusted with public duties' take no civil responsibilities against both the government's and the victims' side as far as without purpose or gross negligence by the above Act Article 2(3).
But the 'private persons entrusted with public duties' which has independence on organization and operation should take the civil responsibilities for their prvious deeds. Just the principle of liability with fault should be adapted for their deeds.
If not so, it means the violation of equity, and it leads to the government's financial overload, and the reduction of carefulness to prevent accidents.
For the above reasons, the principle of liability with fault should be adapted widely even in the area of 'private persons entrusted with public duties'.
Firstly, the 'private persons entrusted with public duties' in the above 2(1) means the ones which has independence of low degree below average in relevance with the government. The ones which has independence of high degree doesn't go into it on the above 2(1).
The ones which has independence of comparatively high degree from the government should be ruled by the principle of joint-malfeasance liabilities if possible.
And in the cases as against the highly independed ones the principle of joint-malfeasance liabilities should be applied as far as it goes.
Even though in the above cases the clauses of 'State Compensation Act' should be applied, it could be interpreted that the 'private persons entrusted with public duties' should answer for what they had done regardless of gross negligence or not.
Secondly, for the intention of legistlation according to the legal view which the court and academic circles went after, the expression of 'private persons entrusted with public duties' is inadequate. The expression of 'the private persons who could be measured as entered into administrative organs, in concrete cases, entrusted with public duties' would have been better for that meaning.
Thirdly, However if the 'private persons entrusted with public duties' had no assets to pay for their liabilities to the errors, the victims couldn't be saved. Thus it is recommended that the legal steps making up the shortage of their paying abilities should be taken.
In contracting of trusting public services, the way of liabilities apportionment should be fixed and it is recommended that the above private persons should take out a policy on the liability for what they did.
The matter of gross negligence or not is not the one of scale of the compensation sum. The size of compensation sum doesn't go with the degree of negligence. Even though the 'private persons entrusted with public duties' committed a slight error, the size of government's compensation sum could be gross. The expression that the private persons should be free from liabilities regardless of the degree of negligence would overload the State and local government's finance. Finally, 'State Compensation Act Article 2(1)' should be revised.
목차
Ⅰ. 現代行政의 特質과 自己責任原則
Ⅱ. 國家賠償의 要件
Ⅲ. 公務員의 範圍
Ⅳ. 公務員 個人의 責任
Ⅴ. 法理的 補完論
Ⅵ. 立法論
Ⅶ. 맺음
參考文獻
〈Abstract〉
참고문헌 (4)
참고문헌 신청
함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문
논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!
-
협치시정 구현 위한 서울시 민간위탁제 실태와 혁신방안
서울연구원 정책과제연구보고서
2018 .12
-
船舶安全法 제67조의 立法論的 問題點
동아법학
2010 .05
-
법관의 재판에 대한 국가배상책임
원광법학
2010 .01
-
청탁금지법상의 공무수행사인
한양법학
2016 .11
-
인감증명발급과 국가배상법상 국가 등의 구상권
법학연구
2002 .12
-
고용계약상 손해배상책임 - 근로과정에 생긴 손해를 중심으로 -
원광법학
2009 .01
-
중국 불법행위의 책임귀속원칙에 관한 연구－불법행위책임법(2009년)의 내용을 중심으로－
중국법연구
2010 .01
-
理事의 제3자에 대한 責任에 관한 硏究
법학연구
1994 .12
-
지방자치단체 사무 민간위탁의 법적 근거
지방자치법연구
2014 .01
-
실화책임에 관한 법률의 법경제학적 분석
외법논집
2007 .01
-
중국 불법행위법의 최근동향에 관한 연구 : 불법행위책임법(2009년)의 구성과 주요내용을 중심으로
비교사법
2010 .06
-
지방자치법상 민간위탁의 개념- 행정실무상 유사개념과의 비교를 중심으로 -
지방자치법연구
2013 .01
-
理事의 責任에 관한 規定의 問題點 檢討
한양법학
2008 .02
-
자치단체 유형별 민간등이전비용과 그 구성요소가 부채비율에 미친 영향
한국비교정부학보
2019 .01
-
양벌규정의 개정에 따른 법인처벌의 법리적 이해
외법논집
2011 .01
-
國家賠償法의 營造物責任의 배분을 위한 試論
법학연구
2007 .02
-
공작물책임의 입법적 검토
법과 정책연구
2005 .01
-
국공립보육시설의 민간위탁 지도감독의 문제점과 대안
한국영유아보육학
1996 .03
이 논문의 저자 정보
이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0
UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2010-363-002941874