장래 불법행위청구의 소의 이익– 대판 2018. 7. 26. 2018다227551 –

The precedent taken up in this study is a meaningful case. When comparing with Japanese precedent, I should pay attention to this precedent's admitting interest of action for future performance. This precedent interpreted interest of action for performance based on future tort very rationally. The circumstances a third person concerns, this precedent admitted interest of action for future performance by the reason that a debtor will continues the debt default. The interest of action for future performance is admitted exceptionally. There isn't big opposition between the precedent and the theory about the exceptional admitting. A theory also generally accepts the individual case a precedent admits just as it is. This study argues the significance and coverage of this precedent based on related precedent and theory. Japanese precedent and theory were arguing this problem more deeply, and I also referred to those this study. As far as there are no special circumstances if the present tort is judged also to continue in the future, interest of the future tort action is admitted. This precedent did such interpretation. Even if I understand, it isn't this unfair for an defendant. It's because an defendant has to take damage by such tort eventually. Such interpretation would be the flexible correspondence which fits in with remedy.