Earticle

초록

영어

In China, compensation for mental damages for breach of contract is a controversial issue. The traditional civil law view holds that the liability for breach of contract does not include mental damage, and that mental damage belongs to tort liability. Cases of mental damage caused by breach of contract continue to appear, and some scholars have begun to affirm the rationality of compensation for breach of contract mental damage. In this context, this article analyzes the textual interpretation and systematic interpretation of Article 996 of the Civil Code and concludes that the legislator’s attitude towards compensation for mental damages for breach of contract is ambiguous. However, the judicial interpretations clearly oppose the system of compensation for mental damages in breach of contract. The contradiction between the two has also caused confusion in the judicial trial. The article uses big data to collect judicial cases and finds that although most judges deny compensation for mental damages for breach of contract in accordance with judicial interpretations, some judges affirm the compensation for mental damages based on the justice of individual cases. Then, the article refutes the view of negating the compensation for breach of contract mental damage, and launches a theoretical defense for constructing the compensation system for breach of contract mental damage from four perspectives, namely, to make up for the loopholes in the overlap of responsibilities, meet the requirements of predictability rules, and meet the principle of complete compensation, and judicial practice can provide experience for the amount of compensation. This article proposes that compensation for breach of contract mental damage needs to meet the conditions of general breach of contract, that is, there is a breach of contract, the injured party suffers serious mental damage, and there is a causal relationship between breach of contract and mental damage. Finally, in order to prevent the breach of contract mental damage compensation system from being abused, the subject of breach of contract mental damage should be restricted to natural persons, and at the same time, the contract type should be restricted. These two points should be used to limit the breach of contract mental damage compensation system.

중국어

在中国, 违约精神损害赔偿是一个备受争议的问题。 传统民法观点认为违约责任中不包括精神 损害, 精神损害属于侵权责任。 因违约而产生精神损害的案例不断出现, 部分学者开始肯定违约精 神损害赔偿的合理性。 在此背景下, 本文通过对《民法典》第996条的文义解释和系统解释两个角度 的分析, 得出立法者对于违约精神损害赔偿的态度模糊不清。 而司法解释却旗帜鲜明的反对违约精 神损害赔偿制度。 这两者的矛盾也引发了司法审判中的混乱。 文章使用大数据采集司法案例, 发现 虽然多数法官依照司法解释否定违约精神损害赔偿, 但部分法官立足于个案正义, 对违约精神损害 赔偿予以肯定。 然后, 文章对否定违约精神损害赔偿的观点予以反驳, 从弥补责任竞合的漏洞、 符 合可预见规则的要求、 符合完全赔偿原则以及司法实践可为赔偿数额提供经验四个角度为构建违 约精神损害赔偿制度展开理论辩护。 本文提出违约精神损害赔偿需要满足一般性违约的条件, 即违 约行为的存在、 受损害方遭受严重的精神损害以及违约行为与精神损害之间存在因果关系这三点。 最后, 为了防止违约精神损害赔偿制度被滥用, 应将违约精神损害的主体限制为自然人, 同时对合 同类型作出限制, 以此从侧面规制违约精神损害赔偿制度。

목차

摘要
Ⅰ. 问题的提出
Ⅱ. 违约精神损害赔偿制度立法分析
Ⅲ. 违约精神损害赔偿制度实证分析
Ⅳ. 构建违约精神损害赔偿制度的理论分析
Ⅴ. 违约精神损害赔偿的可行性
Ⅵ. 结论
参考文献

키워드

저자

• 金路伦 [ 김로륜 | 延边大学法学院 副教授. ]
• 蔡琦 [ 채기 | 延边大学法学院 硕士研究生. ]

참고문헌

발행기관

간행물

표지보기 관심저널 등록

• 간행물명

  동북아법연구 [Northeast Asian law journal]

• 간기

  연3회

• pISSN

  1976-5037

• 수록기간

  2007~2026

• 등재여부

  KCI 등재

• 십진분류

  KDC 369 DDC 341