프랑스 파기원은 프랑스 민법 제1242조 1항에 근거하여 물건으로 인한 손해배상책임에 관한 이론을 개발했다. 이는 프랑스 민법 제정 당시 예상하지 못했던 상황, 즉 산업화로 인한 대량 생산으로 인한 피해 배상 문제에 대응하기 위한 것이었다. 프랑스 파기원은 프랑스 민법 제1242조 제1항의 단순한 조항에 대한 해석을 발전시켜 과책의 추정 또는 책임의 추정이나 물건의 적극적 역할 등 물건으로 인한 손해배상책임이 무한정 확장되는 것을 방지하는 이론들을 개발해 냈다. 소개한 프랑스민법 개정안은 이러한 프랑스 판례의 발전을 수용하여 명문화한 것이다.
물건으로 인한 손해배상책임에 관한 프랑스 민법 개정안의 이러한 태도가 우리 민법에 시사하는 바가 무엇일까? 우리 민법도 공작물의 설치 또는 보존상의 하자로 인하여 발생한 손해에 대하여 공작물의 점유자 및 소유자의 배상책임을 규정하고 있다(제758조 제1항). 다만, 이 조항은 공작물에 적용되는 것으로 규정하고 있다는 점에서 프랑스 민법 제1242조의 적용범위와는 차이를 보인다. 더욱이 우리 민법은 공작물 점유자에게는 손해방지에 필요한 주의의무를 다하였음을 면책사유로 하고(동법 제758조 제1항 단서), 공작물 소유자에게는 무과실책임을 규정하고 있다는 점에서, 프랑스의 파기원이 물건의 관리자로서 물건의 관리에 권한을 가지고 있는 자에게 손해배상책임을 묻는 것과는 달리 아주 경직적인 모습을 가진다는 한계를 보인다. 공작물 소유자도 공작물의 관리를 할 수 없는 경우에는 면책의 필요성이 있고, 공작물 관리자 역시 손해방지에 필요한 주의의무를 다하였음을 이유로 일률적으로 면책시키기 보다는 물건의 관리를 기대할 수 없었음을 증명하는 경우에만 면책시키는 프랑스 파기원의 입장을 되새길만 하다. 또한, 프랑스민법 개정안 제1242조가 물건으로 인한 손해배상책임을 규정함으로써 여전히 해결하지 않고 있기는 하지만 무형적인 물건으로 인한 손해배상책임에 관해서는 우리 민법 역시 고민해야 할 영역이다. 특히 하자있는 소프트웨어나 정보로 인하여 손해가 발생한 경우에 피해자의 구제를 위하여 무과실책임을 고려해야 할 영역(가령, 강인공지능으로 인한 손해의 발생 등)이 있음을 고려하지 않을 수 없다. 우리 민법상 무과실로 인한 손해배상책임을 해석하는데 있어서 프랑스민법 개정안 및 파기원의 태도에 관하여 주목할 필요가 여기에 있다고 본다.
The French Court of Cassation developed a theory of liability for damages caused by objects based on Article 1242, paragraph 1 of the French Civil Code. This was in response to a situation that was not foreseen when the French Civil Code was written, namely the problem of compensating for damage caused by mass production due to industrialization. By developing an interpretation of the simple language of Article 1242(1) of the French Civil Code, the French Court of Cassation developed theories that prevented liability for damages caused by objects from extending indefinitely, such as the presumption of fault, the presumption of liability, or the active conduct of the objects. The proposed amendments to the French Civil Code reflect these developments in French case law. What are the implications of the French Civil Code amendments for our own civil law? Our Civil Code also provides for the liability of the occupier and owner of a workpiece for damages caused by defects in the installation or preservation of the workpiece (Article 758(1)), but this provision differs from the scope of Article 1242 of the French Civil Code in that it applies to the workpiece. Furthermore, the Korean Civil Code provides that the occupier of the workpiece is exempted from liability if he has exercised the necessary care to prevent damage (Article 758, paragraph 1), and the owner of the workpiece is liable without fault, which is very rigid, unlike the French law, which holds the person who has the authority to manage the workpiece liable for damages as a custodian of the workpiece. It is worth recalling the position of the French wrecker's office that the owner of the workpiece should be exempted if the workpiece cannot be managed, and the manager of the workpiece should be exempted only if it is proved that the management of the workpiece could not be expected, rather than exempting the workpiece uniformly because it has fulfilled the duty of care necessary to prevent damage. In addition, although Article 1242 of the Amendment to the French Civil Code provides for liability for damages caused by tangible things, it is an area that our civil law should also consider when it comes to liability for damages caused by intangible things. In particular, when damages are caused by defective software or information, there are areas where strict liability should be considered for the relief of victims (e.g., when damages are caused by strong artificial intelligence). It is worth noting that the amendments to the French Civil Code and the attitude of the Court of Cassation in interpreting the liability for damages caused by objects in our civil law are relevant here.
The French Court of Cassation developed a theory of liability for damages caused by objects based on Article 1242, paragraph 1 of the French Civil Code. This was in response to a situation that was not foreseen when the French Civil Code was written, namely the problem of compensating for damage caused by mass production due to industrialization. By developing an interpretation of the simple language of Article 1242(1) of the French Civil Code, the French Court of Cassation developed theories that prevented liability for damages caused by objects from extending indefinitely, such as the presumption of fault, the presumption of liability, or the active conduct of the objects. The proposed amendments to the French Civil Code reflect these developments in French case law. What are the implications of the French Civil Code amendments for our own civil law? Our Civil Code also provides for the liability of the occupier and owner of a workpiece for damages caused by defects in the installation or preservation of the workpiece (Article 758(1)), but this provision differs from the scope of Article 1242 of the French Civil Code in that it applies to the workpiece. Furthermore, the Korean Civil Code provides that the occupier of the workpiece is exempted from liability if he has exercised the necessary care to prevent damage (Article 758, paragraph 1), and the owner of the workpiece is liable without fault, which is very rigid, unlike the French law, which holds the person who has the authority to manage the workpiece liable for damages as a custodian of the workpiece. It is worth recalling the position of the French wrecker's office that the owner of the workpiece should be exempted if the workpiece cannot be managed, and the manager of the workpiece should be exempted only if it is proved that the management of the workpiece could not be expected, rather than exempting the workpiece uniformly because it has fulfilled the duty of care necessary to prevent damage. In addition, although Article 1242 of the Amendment to the French Civil Code provides for liability for damages caused by tangible things, it is an area that our civil law should also consider when it comes to liability for damages caused by intangible things. In particular, when damages are caused by defective software or information, there are areas where strict liability should be considered for the relief of victims (e.g., when damages are caused by strong artificial intelligence). It is worth noting that the amendments to the French Civil Code and the attitude of the Court of Cassation in interpreting the liability for damages caused by objects in our civil law are relevant here.