CAJ | 학술논문

目前，《侵权责任法》规定的“赔礼道歉”，可分为“自愿的赔礼道歉”和“被迫的赔礼道歉”。后者虽然目前为部分学者所肯定，但从立法论的角度来看应被废除。其理由是：（1）立法机关其实只希望拥有“自愿的赔礼道歉”。（2）美国、英国、加拿大哥伦比亚省、法国、德国、奥地利、日本、我国台湾地区原则上禁止强迫赔礼道歉。（3）“被迫的赔礼道歉”既不能减少或消除原告的愤怒，又无助于被告改过迁善，且原告可以获得慰抚金。
목전，《침권책임법》규정적“배례도겸”，가분위“자원적배례도겸”화“피박적배례도겸”。후자수연목전위부분학자소긍정，단종입법론적각도래간응피폐제。기이유시：（1）입법궤관기실지희망옹유“자원적배례도겸”。（2）미국、영국、가나대가륜비아성、법국、덕국、오지리、일본、아국태만지구원칙상금지강박배례도겸。（3）“피박적배례도겸”기불능감소혹소제원고적분노，우무조우피고개과천선，차원고가이획득위무금。
At present, Tort Liability Law stipulates that "Apology" can be divided into two types: "Voluntary Apology" and "Coerced Apology". Although the latter is affirmed by scholars, from the perspective of theory of legislation, it should be abolished. The reasons are as follows: (1) legislatures only need to have"Voluntary Apology"; (2)"Coerced Apology" is abolished in principle in United States, British, Canada, Columbia, France, Germany, Austria, Japan and Taiwan. (3) "Coerced Apology" can neither reduces or eliminates the plaintiff's anger, nor helps the defendant turn over a new leaf. The plaintiff can receive pensions for comfort.