불법행위법에서의 손해의 개념에 관한 일고찰–DCFR 및 PETL에서의 논의를 참고로 하여–

According to the Tort Law, if there was no act of aggression, after the victim got a profit and an act of aggression, the difference between the state of the present profit and the state of the present profit, ie, the difference, is regarded as damage, The present majority theory or prevailing theory is the position of judicial precedents. By the way, such a difference is what contained the argument in Germany, and in the case of Germany, it is based on perfect reparation in principle, and it makes sense to think the difference, but in the case of our civil law, In principle, monetary compensation is not necessary, and in the case of default, in the case of default, the purpose of the contract is fixed, and the view of explaining the damage by the difference is somewhat appropriate. It has been overlooked that in many cases it is difficult to notate the difference. The recent Supreme Court has accepted these points, and has made a decision to correct difference on the issue of calculating lost profits due to the loss of work ability. However, such judgments of the Supreme Court consider and change the concept of damage to the entire act of torture, only those that have been discussed and limited to the difficultly individual types that must be described differentially, such as personal injury. The essence of the problem still exists in that it does not do. On the other hand, the EU presents certain concepts and criteria on how to understand damages in the tort law through discussions in the DCFR and PETL. For example, in the case of DCFR, EU countries understand each country's legally important profit, not the difference, and define each type as to what kind of profit is legally important. The fact that we have presented the standards for enacting or revising the law can be considered as suggestive in discussing our tort law.