- 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
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
참고문헌
최근 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!