동물점유자 책임의 해석상 쟁점

Interpretational issues concerning animal occupier responsibility

Animals themselves combine special risks and benefits. Article 759 of the Korean Civil Code recognizes the occupier s responsibility for the wrongdoing of animals that can be controlled by humans. While the number of animals used for production or transportation has decreased, the number of households with pets is rapidly increasing due to various factors such as advances in nuclear families. As the bond between humans and animals has expanded, the opportunity for humans to encounter animal risks will inevitably increase. In fact, there are frequent cases of physical or health infringement due to animal accidents. Nevertheless, since most of the disputes between the parties have been resolved by reconciliation, it is hard to find a related case in Korea. This article examines legislative and interpretative issues concerning animal occupier responsibility. The interpretation theory and practical examples of Article 718 of the Japanese Civil Code, which were counted by the Korean Civil Law, give useful implications at this point. This is because while shifting the burden of proof to the occupant, the government strictly restricts the verification and realizes the fair sharing of damages through the legal principles of comparative negligence. Some scholars in Korea suggest that luxury animals and livestock animals should be divided into strict responsibilities in the former and fruit responsibilities in the latter, as in Article 833 of the German Civil Code. However, there is something hard to readily understand because the argument is not sufficient. In modern society, I think there needs to be a deeper discussion on whether it is appropriate to over-expand dangerous materials lacking risk distribution functions, whether animal risks can be equated with unspecified risks created by modern society, and whether there is any fear of damaging human-animal relationships. I hope this article will serve as a small opportunity for the establishment of interpretation of animal occupier responsibility and the progress of legislation.