위법행위에 대한 금지청구권의 연구 - 위법성 판단의 문제를 중심으로 - = Study of Prohibitory Injunction against Unlawful Act - focusing on the issue of unlawfulness judgment -

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

It may be injunction and damages that are two major remedial measures to enforce private laws. Damages have a function to compensate a victim's losses on the case of the infringement of its entitlement not only under common law jurisdictions but also under civil law jurisdictions. On the other hand, the underlying idea of injunction is that someone faced with imminent damage must be able under the law on non-contractual liability to take positive action to prevent the damage from happening. So prevention is better than cure.
But, courts in Korea vest a plaintiff with injunctive relief only if he or she succeeds in proving the violation of his or her proprietary rights or quasi proprietary rights except for the rights created by statutes to furnish an injunctive relief. The Korean style enforcement of an injunctive relief shares its common characteristics with other civil law countries. It is strongly required that the basis for new rights should be foreseen.
The Supreme Court of Korea previously held that the remedy in tort is, in principle, limited to monetary damages and, thus, was reluctant to grant an injunctive remedy against an illegal act. However, in its August 25, 2010 decision, the Supreme Court of Korea has acknowledged the relief of preventive claim on the part of the unfair competition. It held that if one who infringe the interest which is needed for the protection by the law, misusing fruits which the competitor has constructed for a long time with considerable effort, his act would be tort. Furthermore, one who has been infringed by such infringement can apply the injunction for unfair act and tort. This judgement is the first step toward the acceptance of injunction as the effect of tort in Korean civil court.
However, this judgement did not make clear whether or not it is needed for the subjective element, for example negligence, regarding the concrete elements. Like a claim for injunction on real right, subjective element is not needed for injunction. It is easy to predict that all kinds of remedial measure can be provided if the rights are violated. So, the practice of common law in an injunctive relief has a considerable implication to the application of injunction in Korea.
And Illegality of a tort under Korean Civil Law is understood as a theory of correlation that it should be decided through interrelation between kinds of inflicted interest and those of inflicting acts. And so called a “stage theory of illegality” that illegality in exercising claim for prevention based on Article 217 of Korean Civil Law should be severer than that of claim of indemnification for damage based on tort, Article 750 of Korean Civil Law, which needs to be accepted in that claim for prevention directly prevents the social and economic activity of an obstructor compared to claim of indemnification for damage by money.

참고문헌 (Reference)

• 1 최상호, "환경오염에 있어서의 위법성" 1998
• 2 김기선, "한국채권법각론" 법문사 1988
• 3 양창수, "한국에서의 불법행위법의 전개-그 경향과 가능성-" 2006
• 4 김천수, "한국 불법행위법에 관한 최근 입법 논의" 한국민사법학회 57 : 3-39, 2011
• 5 곽윤직, "채권각론" 박영사 2003
• 6 김증한, "채권각론" 박영사 2006
• 7 박준서, "주석 민법 [채권각칙(8)]" 한국사법행정학회 2000
• 8 박준서, "주석 민법 [채권각칙(7)]" 한국사법행정학회 2000
• 9 박준서, "주석 민법 [채권각칙(6)]" 한국사법행정학회 2000
• 10 김재형, "제3자에 의한 계약방해 – 현재 또는 장래의 계약관계를 방해하는 경우를 포함하여 –" 비교법실무연구회 2010
• 11 윤진수, "정의로운 사법 : 이용훈 대법원장 재임기념" 2011
• 12 양창수, "정보화 사회와 프라이버시의 보호, 사법적 측면을 중심으로" 1 : 1991
• 13 조홍식, "유지청구 허용 여부에 관한 소고" 22 : 2000
• 14 안법영, "영업경영의 과실침해와 책임귀속의 인과적 표지" 고려대학교 8 : 1996
• 15 김재형, "언론에 의한 인격적 침해에 대한 구제수단" 대한변호사협회 (339) : 68-94, 2004
• 16 송오식, "불법행위의 효과에 관한 일제언" 6 : 1997
• 17 송오식, "불법행위의 효과로서 금지 및 예방청구권 －대법원 2010. 8. 25.자 2008마1541 결정－" 법학연구소 31 (31): 519-558, 2011
• 18 김상중, "불법행위의 사전적 구제수단으로서 금지청구권의 소고 - 대법원 2010.8.25.자 2008마1541 결정에 관한 평석 -" 한국비교사법학회 17 (17): 141-172, 2010
• 19 권영준, "불법행위와 금지청구권" 4 (4): 2008
• 20 김형배, "불법행위에 있어서 책임귀속의 근거와 손해배상의 범위" 고려대학교 1980
• 21 김상중, "불법행위에 대한 금지청구권의 판례법적 형성과 발전" 22 : 2013
• 22 김상중, "불법행위에 대한 금지청구권 규정의 신설 제안" 한국민사법학회 55 (55): 177-233, 2011
• 23 김상용, "불법행위법" 법문사 1997
• 24 김영환, "법학방법론의 관점에서 본 유추와 목적론적 축소" 한국법철학회 12 (12): 1-28, 2009
• 25 유제민, "민사판례연구[ⅩⅩⅩⅦ]" 박영사 2015
• 26 곽윤직, "민법주해[ⅩⅨ] 채권(12)" 박영사 2005
• 27 곽윤직, "민법주해 [XVIII] 채권(11)" 박영사 2005
• 28 곽윤직, "민법주해 [V] 물권(2)" 박영사 1992
• 29 김재형, "민법론 Ⅲ" 2007
• 30 양창수, "독일민법전 : 총칙⋅채권⋅물권" 박영사 2015
• 31 한경환, "기사삭제청구권의 인정 근거 및 요건" 법원도서관 95 : 2013
• 32 이용우, "공해의 위법성-공해소송에서의 이익형량-" 10 : 1979
• 33 윤태영, "營業利益의 侵害와 違法性" 한국민사법학회 (30) : 75-119, 2005
• 34 Teplitzky, "Wettbewerbsrechtliche Ansprüche und Verfahren : Unterlassung - Beseitigung - Auskunft - Schadensersatz" Anspruchsdurchsetzung und Anspruchsabwehr 2011
• 35 Fritzsche, Jörg, "Unterlassungsanspruch und Unterlassungsklage"
• 36 "Staudinger Kommentar" Neubearbeitung, de Gruyter 985-1011, 2013
• 37 "Münchener Kommentar" C. H. Beck 705-853, 2013
• 38 "Münchener Kommentar" C. H. Beck 854-1296, 2013
• 39 Larenz, "Methoden der Rechtswissenschaft" 1995
• 40 Larenz, "Lehrbuch des Schuldrechts" C. H. Beck 1994
• 41 "Erman Handkommentar Ⅱ, 13. neu bearbeitete Aufl."
• 42 김재형, "2010년 분야별 중요판례 분석"