항목	Soms Field	내용	언어
제목	dc.title	共同不法行爲에 關한 硏究
제목(제2언어)	somsterms.translated	A STUDY ON JOINT TORT
저자	dc.creator	安光俊
저자(제2언어)	somsterms.otherName	An, Gwang-Joon
소속	somsterms.affiliation	江陵大學校 大學院
발행기관	dc.publisher	江陵大學校 大學院
지도교수	somsterms.advisor	梁亨宇
발행년도	dcterms.issued	2007
학위수여년월	somsterms.awarded	2007. 2
자료유형	somsterms.subType	학위논문
학위명	somsterms.thesisDegree	석사
학과 및 전공	somsterms.major	法學科
원문형식	dc.format	application/pdf
원문크기	dcterms.extent	671575 bytes
원문매체	dcterms.medium	application/pdf
원문페이지	somsterms.page	iii, 104 p.
본문언어	dc.language	한국어
초록/요약	dcterms.abstract	This paper of object protects profit of a victim in interpreting theory of joint tort, and it is to solve definition, a problem of fairness distribution in letting the results to be severe on an assailant cause at the same time. It is joint tort, and a box is a system to do so that the people whom add him if a lot of persons added loss to a jointly different person, and took part in an act compensate for loss jointly. As it is diversified complication, and a society goes to an industrial social development, a type of joint tort will be subdivided gradually. That is, if majority phosphorus participated in one loss occurrence, of course, the work that majority phosphorus undertakes on one loss is frequently occurring. These multiple assailants and the accidents that occurred because of the victim are appearing in with a modern tort law of new assignment, and scale of happened loss will grow larger. Civil Code is defining separately joint tort in an Article 760 with general tort. That is, it is made an external form of an act a basis and is dividing a type of joint tort. The time when majority phosphorus gave loss to a stranger by joint tort that cannot know whether an act of a certain person is the Having given loss on act of majority phosphorus, and it is admitting as an abetter or abettor joint tort agent And there are must lose Joint indemnification responsibility according to a degree of the participation because they participated in the occurrence of loss. However, It can admit completion of joint tort if an act of majority phosphorus does a cavity because our regulation Article 760 about joint tort is leaving only one text and caused one loss occurrence. And the problem that is it must all see with joint tort of a conference is with different types joint tort except abetter or abettor and joint tort of assailant ambiguity. Our majority of opinion and a judicial precedent are taking objective joint relativity on the common anger that is completion requirements of joint tort. Even if it takes untrue joint obligation in the effect, and the first impression does not have economic strength on assailant, if the magnetic force how a from him and becomes a victim. Civil Code Article 760 an effect of infringement revert to a field as soon as it is all participator and is defining a kind and a method of responsibility to occur by other tort regulation and is founding responsibility itself. That is, responsibility is generated complete or the occurrence of loss partially. However, an objective joint relativity cannot present a real basis called objective related cavity. Therefore, it is dealt with what the tort which was independent corresponds if a cavity vies simply and can deal with by a Civil Code Article 750 by a Civil Code Article 760, and joint tort is making an existence reason of a system nonsensically. However, indistinctness anger of an objective joint relativity not to light up that it was doing basically partial causation with a tyranny clearly first and can do. And it is with doing whether a victim can prove that there have been a few subjectivities between assailants as for subjectivity a few related common New Year's Day as expected, and it cannot be suitable, and relief of a victim can do. Specially, an objective joint relativity is proper and will do because problems to do whether it is to admit case subjectivity a little connection as environmental pollution between thing Karmas to give how are. Nature of responsibility needs strict subjectivity a little common relation between debtors planning in a joint obligation in joint tort and cannot see and stagnation refining and untrue joint obligation on victim protection and a balance with other special tort, It is right of indemnity that it can exercise one person repays a more than his burden section among joint debtors, and having on other person, for example, guarantor on a main debtor. A case of a joint tort agent is same as a joint debtor, too. If a joint tort ruler fulfills the duty ot a victim, it is to be able to acquire right of indemnity about his burden part on other joint tort agent. Therefore, a problem to do what kind of effect you have on the different assailant who did not get exemption in effect of exemption about the first impression joint tort prudence must be set up according to meaning of exemption. There is not regulation in law on an extinctive prescription period of right of indemnity, and the extinctive prescription that a bond is general because it has no juridical relation between joint tort agent is ten years from the day that repaid to creditors with actuality. Regulation of joint tort of the existing Civil Code can show the regular tangible function, That is, it is asked for a researcher of a legislation proposal or an interpretation plan on responsibilities of the multiple assailant who was not able to have requirements of joint tort acutely and will do pollution and a traffic accident.	영어
목차	dcterms.tableOfContents	제1장 서 론 = 1 제1절 연구의 목적 = 1 제2절 연구의 범위 = 2 제2장 불법행위 일반 = 3 제1절 서설 = 3 제2절 불법행위 = 3 Ⅰ. 불법행위의 의의 및 성질 = 3 1. 불법행위의 의의 = 3 2. 불법행위의 성질 = 3 Ⅱ. 불법행위의 성립요건 = 4 1. 가해행위 = 4 2. 고의ㆍ과실 = 6 3. 위법성 = 15 4. 책임능력 = 28 5. 손해의 발생 = 33 제3장 공동불법행위 = 39 제1절 서설 = 39 Ⅰ. 서설 = 39 Ⅱ. 공동불법행위책임의 성질 = 41 1. 학설 = 41 2. 판례 = 43 3. 검토 = 44 제2절 공동불법행위의 유형 = 45 Ⅰ. 협의의 공동불법행위 = 45 1. 성립요건 = 45 2. 위법성 = 49 3. 책임능력 = 49 4. 인과관계 = 50 Ⅱ. 가해불명의 공동불법행위 = 60 1. 서설 = 60 2. 성립요건 = 61 3. 가해자의 증명과 면책 = 63 4. 다른 유형의 공동불법행위와의 관계 = 64 Ⅲ. 교사 ? 방조에 의한 공동불법행위 = 65 1. 교사 ? 방조의 의의 = 65 2. 과실에 의한 교사 ? 방조 = 66 Ⅳ. 병존적 공동불법행위 = 67 1. 의의 = 67 2. 병존적 공동불법행위의 인정실익 = 68 Ⅴ. 공동불법행위자의 책임 = 69 1. 공동불법행위책임의 성질 = 70 2. 연대채무ㆍ부진정연대채무 병존설 = 70 3. 부진정연대채무설 = 70 4. 연대채무설 = 72 5. 검토 = 72 Ⅳ. 공동불법행위자 상호간의 구상관계 = 76 1. 서설 = 76 2. 구상권의 근거 = 76 3. 구상의 범위 = 80 Ⅶ. 피해자와 공동불법행위자 중의 1인과의 사이에 발생한 사유 = 83 1. 서설 = 83 2. 책임배제계약의 경우 = 84 3. 법률에 의한 책임의 제한 = 86 4. 1인에 대한 면제 = 88 5. 상계 = 91 6. 혼동 = 93 Ⅷ. 손해배상의 범위 = 93 1. 서설 = 93 2. 물적 침해에 의한 손해배상의 범위 = 94 3. 인적침해에 의한 재산적 손해의 범위 = 94 4. 과실상계 = 96 제4장 결론 = 98 ※참고문헌 = 100 ABSTRACT = 102