본문 바로가기

추천 검색어

실시간 인기 검색어

학술논문

미국법상 금지명령 제도

이용수 25

영문명
Injunction in American Tort Law
발행기관
한국민사법학회
저자명
김태선(Kim, Tae Sun)
간행물 정보
『민사법학』제61호, 473~504쪽, 전체 32쪽
주제분류
사회과학 > 사회과학일반
파일형태
PDF
발행일자
2012.12.31
6,640

구매일시로부터 72시간 이내에 다운로드 가능합니다.
이 학술논문 정보는 (주)교보문고와 각 발행기관 사이에 저작물 이용 계약이 체결된 것으로, 교보문고를 통해 제공되고 있습니다.

1:1 문의
논문 표지

국문 초록

영문 초록

In recent months, the Civil Law Reformation Committee of the Ministry of Justice drafted the amendment of the Tort Law in Korea. The draft includes a remedy of injunction against torts and its requirements and is stated in the following: The right to prevention exists in so far as compensation would not be an adequate remedy and it is reasonable for the person who would be liable for the causation of the damage to prevent it from occurring. This article, supporting the broad offering injunctive relief to remedy tort, studies the Injunction in American Tort Law and tries to seek its implication for Korea. To be entitled to permanent injunctive relief in American Tort Law, a plaintiff must establish that a future harm is irreparable and that the hardship brought to the defendant by compliance is not disproportionate to the benefit to the plaintiff after compliance. The requirement that harm be irreparable has been softening in many cases, stated in terms of the relative adequacy of injunction. The relative hardship likely to result to the defendant if an injunction is granted and to the plaintiff if it is denied is one of the factors to be considered in determining the appropriateness of injunction against tort. Restatement (second) of torts points out that by hypothesis, the defendant is the wrongdoer. Care must be taken that the needs of the deserving plaintiff are not too easily overbalanced by the hardship that an injunction would bring upon the defendant. Examining the foregoing statement, the article suggests the following: The inadequacy of damages requirement in the recent draft should not be posed in absolute terms but in comparative terms for ascertaining the relative adequacy of injunction against the damages. It should not be the law that an injunction be refused unless other remedies are inadequate in the sense of being wholly unserviceable or worthless. Injunction should bring more ordinary relief to remedy tort in Korea.

목차

Ⅰ. 시작하며
Ⅱ. 미국의 금지명령 법리 - 손해의 회복불가능성과 이익형량을 중심으로
Ⅲ. 미국 금지명령 법리의 시사점
Ⅳ. 마치며
참고문헌

키워드

해당간행물 수록 논문

참고문헌

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!

교보e캐시 1,000원
TOP
인용하기
APA

김태선(Kim, Tae Sun). (2012).미국법상 금지명령 제도. 민사법학, (61), 473-504

MLA

김태선(Kim, Tae Sun). "미국법상 금지명령 제도." 민사법학, .61(2012): 473-504

결제완료
e캐시 원 결제 계속 하시겠습니까?
교보 e캐시 간편 결제