생활방해에서 수인한도의 차별적 적용에 관한 연구 - 비교법의 연혁를 중심으로 -

The legal basis acceptance limit is based on Article 217 of the Civil Law, which stipulated duty of patience. The important thing is determined illegality on the nuisance and environmental violations, which is the illegality of judgment based on the is acceptance limit. In other words, acceptance limit means a limit that a rational man can endure while he leads a social life, which accepts illegality when an extent of infringement goes beyond the limit generally acceptable in leading a social life in respect with environmental pollution and nuisance. In cases, to judge such al acceptance limit, whether it goes beyond acceptance limit decided taking into account public utility of inflicting company, locality, the order of priority of land use, special circumstance of the inflicted, continuance of infliction, observance of public regulating standard, evasion possibility of damage and measure of damage prevention of inflicting party. The extent of acceptance limit can vary depending on the relief means of the victim, but all of it judges illegality based on al single standard of acceptance limit, so both claims can be uniformally. By the way, in interpreting Article 217 of Civil Law tend to rely on foreign Law, there are a difficulties due to apply to on acceptance limit. So, it investigates the history of on the nuisance which try to draw the implications for Germany, USA and Japan. In the face of the early industrial society, this countries begun to change their interpretation to support the industrial progress. These countries understood that brings the nuisance in the industrial development, which Law was enacted to allow it. But our case, after enacted Article 217 of the Civil Law already, began to be discussed on the nuisance and environmental violations. Therefore, it is a need for a Article 217 of civil Law independent and modern interpretation. Article 217 in the Civil Law covers not only ownership disturbance but also the resident’s right of pain avoidance in a daily life. Its scope of remedy is widespread and also forbids the disturbance of livelihood and environment. Consequentially, it copes with new type of disturbance flexibly. It also relieves damage practically since its object to protect is not a real right but a person. Additionally, as an invoked article for the acceptable limit, let a victim whose disturbance level is below the acceptable limit take it and for whose disturbance level is over the acceptable limit, let him or her charge appropriate action.