- 영문명
- Compensation for a car accident
- 발행기관
- 충북대학교 법학연구소
- 저자명
- 오지용(Oh Ji-Yong) 신병동
- 간행물 정보
- 『법학연구』第19卷 第1號 (2008), 91~123쪽, 전체 33쪽
- 주제분류
- 법학 > 법학
- 파일형태
- 발행일자
- 2008.06.01
6,760원
구매일시로부터 72시간 이내에 다운로드 가능합니다.
이 학술논문 정보는 (주)교보문고와 각 발행기관 사이에 저작물 이용 계약이 체결된 것으로, 교보문고를 통해 제공되고 있습니다.

국문 초록
영문 초록
The main purpose of having the Compensation for Car Accident Damage Guarantee Act (the "Act") is to ensure that the owner of a car has to enter into a compulsory liability insurance (against people) contract in order to protect a victim due to a car accident and to guarantee a minimum amount to be paid by the government as provided under the Act for the victim where the victim is not entitled to receive the liability insurance proceeds. Therefore, Article 3 of the Act as the main backbone of the liability insurance compensation scheme needs to be interpreted along the same line with the original intention and goal of the legislature literally to protect the victim.
If The word of "driving" in Article 3 is interpreted without taking into account of any operation over the car equipment, but with the meaning of managing and/or using a car on the basis of its original purpose and/or in natural was, any car accident can be interpreted a car accident during the operation. As a result, the victim can be more protected and be better off and the person as the operator who will be responsible for the compensation liability can be impliedly treated as primarily responsible for any consequences arising out of the car driving and operation by the introduction of the driving interest and the dominant driving, which will result in more clear and correct interpretation over the issue of the driver or operator. Having said that, if the rest of people, apart from the operator and/or driver with the awareness of the responsibility are distinguished as the parties to be protected, the issues over a simple rider to join the driver and any substitute driver can be easily solved without introduction of absurd and/or unnecessary sophisticated theory.
In conclusion, the driver or any operator of a car can only be exempted from his responsibility for the compensation liability, once it is provided that he is not liable. As such, the burden of proof has been shifted, the victim will be protected. Otherwise, the current Act where the compulsory liability insurance should be compelled to enter and the government should compensate a certain amount of the money for the victim should play a significant role as a special act ahead of the Civil Code in terms of the enforce ability and it is suggested to broaden its applicability when Article 3 of the Act is interpreted.
If The word of "driving" in Article 3 is interpreted without taking into account of any operation over the car equipment, but with the meaning of managing and/or using a car on the basis of its original purpose and/or in natural was, any car accident can be interpreted a car accident during the operation. As a result, the victim can be more protected and be better off and the person as the operator who will be responsible for the compensation liability can be impliedly treated as primarily responsible for any consequences arising out of the car driving and operation by the introduction of the driving interest and the dominant driving, which will result in more clear and correct interpretation over the issue of the driver or operator. Having said that, if the rest of people, apart from the operator and/or driver with the awareness of the responsibility are distinguished as the parties to be protected, the issues over a simple rider to join the driver and any substitute driver can be easily solved without introduction of absurd and/or unnecessary sophisticated theory.
In conclusion, the driver or any operator of a car can only be exempted from his responsibility for the compensation liability, once it is provided that he is not liable. As such, the burden of proof has been shifted, the victim will be protected. Otherwise, the current Act where the compulsory liability insurance should be compelled to enter and the government should compensate a certain amount of the money for the victim should play a significant role as a special act ahead of the Civil Code in terms of the enforce ability and it is suggested to broaden its applicability when Article 3 of the Act is interpreted.
목차
Ⅰ. 글머리
Ⅱ. 자배법상의 운행
Ⅲ. 운행자 책임
Ⅳ. 타인성
Ⅴ. 결론
참고문헌
【Abstract】
【토론문】
Ⅱ. 자배법상의 운행
Ⅲ. 운행자 책임
Ⅳ. 타인성
Ⅴ. 결론
참고문헌
【Abstract】
【토론문】
키워드
해당간행물 수록 논문
- 리스트(Franz von Liszt)의 刑法學 方法論
- 刊行辭
- 자동차사고로 인한 피해보상에 관한 소고 - 자동차손해배상보장법을 중심으로
- 영국의 부동산등기절차
- 주역의 법자연의 원리와 규범관
- 「법학연구」 투고지침 외
- 중국 물권법의 기본내용과 문제점, 향후과제
- 친자관계소송에서의 DNA감정
- 家庭暴力과 離婚後 子女養育에 관한 一考
- Some Topical Problems of the Development of Russian Private Law
- Problems of Forming Property Rights to Natural Resources
- 국민의 형사재판 참여
- 집행유예에 관한 판례 동향과 개선방안
- 중국 불법행위 입법 소개
- 일본 지방분권의 추진현황과 과제
- 遺傳子技術의 規制原理
- 의무보호예수제도 - 법적 쟁점을 중심으로
참고문헌
관련논문
법학 > 법학분야 BEST
- 인공지능 판사, 과연 가능한가?
- 정치의 사법화와 사법의 정치화 : 온건하고 실용적인 헌법재판의 당위성
- 자국 우선주의 정책과 국제법상 난민⋅이민자 보호-트럼프 행정부의 미국 우선주의를 중심으로-
법학 > 법학분야 NEW
더보기최근 이용한 논문
교보eBook 첫 방문을 환영 합니다!
신규가입 혜택 지급이 완료 되었습니다.
바로 사용 가능한 교보e캐시 1,000원 (유효기간 7일)
지금 바로 교보eBook의 다양한 콘텐츠를 이용해 보세요!
