Comparative Study on the National Loss Compensation Act: Focusing on the comparison between Germany and Korea

Younji Kim
{"title":"Comparative Study on the National Loss Compensation Act: Focusing on the comparison between Germany and Korea","authors":"Younji Kim","doi":"10.21592/eucj.2022.39.111","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The loss compensation acts in Germany and Korea are similar in basic respects, but different parts are found in specific applications. Germany has applied the ‘expropriation-equal infringement(enteignungsgleicher Eingriff)’ to compensate for the void in legal principles for illegal and irresponsible infringement, and the ‘expropriable infringement(enteignender Eingriff)’ legal principles have been applied to property rights restrictions that appear as an atypical side effect of legitimate administrative action. Germany has elaborately developed the loss compensation act through the victim compensation claim(Aufopferungsanspruch), advanced since the 18th century in the philosophy of natural law, the right to claim the elimination of results, the right to claim damages based on the administrative legal claim-obligation relationships, the right to claim the compensation based on the management of administrative affairs, and the right to claim the reimbursement under public law, in addition. \nUnlike Germany, Korea does not recognize ‘expropriation-equal infringement’, ‘expropriable infringement’, and other claims, and unlike Article 14 (3) of the Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany, which stipulates ‘expropriation’, Article 23 (3) of the Korean Constitution additionally stipulates the ‘use or restriction of property rights by public purpose. It could not be applied indiscriminately as the legal principles such as expropriation-equal infringements, expropriable infringements, and the victim compensation claim developed in Germany are not perfect theories, however. It is not necessary to accept these claims as the right to claim damages based on the administrative legal claim-obligation relationships and the right to claim the compensation based on the management of administrative affairs could be resolved through the application of civil law regulations, and the right to claim the reimbursement under public law could be settled by the principle of general unfair profits, in addition. \nThe recent side effects of the COVID-19 vaccine are an opportunity to develop discussions on vaccination damage compensation as the compensation by the State. Germany has resolved the damage compensation for vaccination through the right to claim sacrifice compensation. Korea does not recognize the right to claim sacrifice compensation, but seeks to compensate for vaccination damage through Article 71 of the 「Act on the Prevention and Management of Infectious Diseases(abbreviation: Infectious Disease Prevention Act)」. Since the scope of vaccination damage compensation is narrow, the cause-and-effect relationship should be alleviated in the future, and it is required to prepare specific vaccination damage compensation standards and add compensation methods through pension receipt in the 「Infectious Disease Prevention Act」 and Enforcement Decree of the same Act.","PeriodicalId":232789,"journal":{"name":"European Constitutional Law Association","volume":"285 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-08-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Constitutional Law Association","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.21592/eucj.2022.39.111","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The loss compensation acts in Germany and Korea are similar in basic respects, but different parts are found in specific applications. Germany has applied the ‘expropriation-equal infringement(enteignungsgleicher Eingriff)’ to compensate for the void in legal principles for illegal and irresponsible infringement, and the ‘expropriable infringement(enteignender Eingriff)’ legal principles have been applied to property rights restrictions that appear as an atypical side effect of legitimate administrative action. Germany has elaborately developed the loss compensation act through the victim compensation claim(Aufopferungsanspruch), advanced since the 18th century in the philosophy of natural law, the right to claim the elimination of results, the right to claim damages based on the administrative legal claim-obligation relationships, the right to claim the compensation based on the management of administrative affairs, and the right to claim the reimbursement under public law, in addition. Unlike Germany, Korea does not recognize ‘expropriation-equal infringement’, ‘expropriable infringement’, and other claims, and unlike Article 14 (3) of the Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany, which stipulates ‘expropriation’, Article 23 (3) of the Korean Constitution additionally stipulates the ‘use or restriction of property rights by public purpose. It could not be applied indiscriminately as the legal principles such as expropriation-equal infringements, expropriable infringements, and the victim compensation claim developed in Germany are not perfect theories, however. It is not necessary to accept these claims as the right to claim damages based on the administrative legal claim-obligation relationships and the right to claim the compensation based on the management of administrative affairs could be resolved through the application of civil law regulations, and the right to claim the reimbursement under public law could be settled by the principle of general unfair profits, in addition. The recent side effects of the COVID-19 vaccine are an opportunity to develop discussions on vaccination damage compensation as the compensation by the State. Germany has resolved the damage compensation for vaccination through the right to claim sacrifice compensation. Korea does not recognize the right to claim sacrifice compensation, but seeks to compensate for vaccination damage through Article 71 of the 「Act on the Prevention and Management of Infectious Diseases(abbreviation: Infectious Disease Prevention Act)」. Since the scope of vaccination damage compensation is narrow, the cause-and-effect relationship should be alleviated in the future, and it is required to prepare specific vaccination damage compensation standards and add compensation methods through pension receipt in the 「Infectious Disease Prevention Act」 and Enforcement Decree of the same Act.
国家损失赔偿法的比较研究:以德国与韩国的比较为中心
德国和韩国的损失赔偿行为在基本方面是相似的,但在具体适用上存在不同的地方。德国运用“征收-平等侵权”原则来弥补非法和不负责任侵权法律原则的空白,而“征收性侵权”法律原则被应用于财产权限制,这似乎是合法行政行为的非典型副作用。德国通过18世纪以来自然法哲学中提出的受害人赔偿请求权(Aufopferungsanspruch)、结果消除请求权、基于行政法律上的索赔义务关系的损害赔偿请求权、基于行政事务管理的赔偿请求权、以及公法上的赔偿请求权,对损失赔偿行为进行了详尽的发展。与德国不同,韩国不承认“征收对等侵权”、“可征收侵权”等主张,而且与德意志联邦共和国基本法第14条第3款规定的“征收”不同,韩国宪法第23条第3款规定了“为公共目的使用或限制财产权”。但是,德国发展起来的侵占等量侵权、侵占性侵权、受害人赔偿要求等法律原则并不是完善的理论,不能一概而论。由于行政法律上的损害赔偿请求权和行政事务管理上的赔偿请求权可以通过适用民法规制来解决,公法上的赔偿请求权也可以通过一般不公平利润原则来解决,所以没有必要接受这些主张。最近出现的新冠肺炎疫苗副作用,是开展疫苗接种损害赔偿作为国家赔偿的讨论的契机。德国通过牺牲赔偿请求权解决了疫苗接种损害赔偿问题。韩国不承认牺牲赔偿请求权,但根据《传染病预防管理法》(简称《传染病防治法》)第71条,对接种疫苗造成的损失进行赔偿。由于疫苗接种损害赔偿的范围较窄,今后应缓解因果关系,并要求在《传染病防治法》和《传染病防治法施行令》中制定具体的疫苗接种损害赔偿标准,并通过领取养老金的方式增加赔偿方式。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信