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
- 2009.3
- 수록면
- 129 - 156 (28page)
이용수
초록· 키워드
오류제보하기
In general, a tort is occurred when the following components exist: the intentional act or negligence of the wrongdoer, capacity of the wrongdoer to be responsible, illegality, and proximate cause between harmful act and the damage that arises. Among the prima facie case of a generic tort, ‘illegality’ refers to the illegal act of infringement, in which both feasance and nonfeasance are all included. However, since active harmful act does not exist in the case of a tort by nonfeasance, there is a need for distinguishing in what situation such nonfeasance is regarded as illegal.
In order for failure to do a certain act to be considered illegal, a doer must have a legal duty to prevent the result which may arise due to such nonfeasance of act: there must be a legal duty to act and the existence of breach of such duty. Since the nonfeasance of the person who has no duty to act is not subject to illegality, a tort does not come into effect. In the generality of cases, this breach of duty to act becomes the problem of illegality. That is, since the act of infringing the rights or legal interest does not exist in the case of nonfeasance, the passive act of a doer which is regarded as nonfeasance of act through the medium of breach of duty to act is considered as illegal.
In order for a tort to be committed, the concerned harmful act must be a cause of the damage that arises. However, in the case of a tort by nonfeasance, it occurs not due to the active harmful act but as a result of an act to prevent damages; and thus, strictly speaking, the defendant’s act that is the cause of the damages does not exist. Therefore, a proximate cause in the standard meaning established in the case where damage would not have been caused if a duty to act had been duly performed. As such, the decision on whether a exists in case of a tort by nonfeasance depends on whether the damage would have been caused or not if the concerned duty to act had been duly complied.
In order for failure to do a certain act to be considered illegal, a doer must have a legal duty to prevent the result which may arise due to such nonfeasance of act: there must be a legal duty to act and the existence of breach of such duty. Since the nonfeasance of the person who has no duty to act is not subject to illegality, a tort does not come into effect. In the generality of cases, this breach of duty to act becomes the problem of illegality. That is, since the act of infringing the rights or legal interest does not exist in the case of nonfeasance, the passive act of a doer which is regarded as nonfeasance of act through the medium of breach of duty to act is considered as illegal.
In order for a tort to be committed, the concerned harmful act must be a cause of the damage that arises. However, in the case of a tort by nonfeasance, it occurs not due to the active harmful act but as a result of an act to prevent damages; and thus, strictly speaking, the defendant’s act that is the cause of the damages does not exist. Therefore, a proximate cause in the standard meaning established in the case where damage would not have been caused if a duty to act had been duly performed. As such, the decision on whether a exists in case of a tort by nonfeasance depends on whether the damage would have been caused or not if the concerned duty to act had been duly complied.
목차
Ⅰ. 문제의 소재
Ⅱ. 부작위 불법행위의 규율대상
Ⅲ. 부작위 불법행위에 있어서의 작위의무
Ⅳ. 부작위 불법행위에 있어서의 인과관계
Ⅴ. 결어
참고문헌
Abstract
참고문헌 (0)
참고문헌 신청함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문
논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!
-
업체탐방-(주)ACTS
프린팅코리아
2002 .01
-
해고제한의 법리로서 불법행위이론: 미국의 공공정책 불법행위 이론을 중심으로
기업법연구
2004 .06
-
자동화 컨테이너터미널 개발 전략에 관한 연구
해운물류연구
2005 .01
-
영국 상사법의 개별입법화 동향
기업법연구
2009 .12
-
中国民法典中关于侵权责任的规定和变化
원광법학
2020 .01
-
중국 불법행위법의 최근동향에 관한 연구 : 불법행위책임법(2009년)의 구성과 주요내용을 중심으로
비교사법
2010 .06
-
DCFR의 비계약적 책임 (불법행위법)
외법논집
2009 .01
-
국회입법상 불법에 대한 국가배상책임에 관한 고찰
법학연구
2015 .02
-
會社整理制度에 관한 硏究: 會社整理法上「訴訟의 受繼」와 法理解釋의 限界
기업법연구
2004 .03
-
미국 투자자문업법상 주의의무에 대한 법적 쟁점과 그 시사점 분석
경영법률
2014 .01
-
「지방자치법」과 「지방교육자치에 관한 법률」의 관계 고찰
교육정치학연구
2019 .01
-
북한의 경찰작용법에 대한 일반적 고찰 : 사회안전단속법과 인민보안단속법의 내용을 중심으로
한양법학
2012 .11
-
영국법상 부작위에 의한 불법행위- 작위의무의 발생근거 및 판단기준을 중심으로 -
홍익법학
2019 .01
-
공동불법행위 책임분배의 적정화에 관한 연구
원광법학
2008 .01
이 논문의 저자 정보
이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0
UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2013-360-001271696