法学研究
法學研究
법학연구
Cass Journal of Law
2012年
5期
103~120
,共null页
监护人责任 不完全行为能力人 侵权责任法 独立责任 自己责任
鑑護人責任 不完全行為能力人 侵權責任法 獨立責任 自己責任
감호인책임 불완전행위능력인 침권책임법 독립책임 자기책임
liability of the guardian, person with limited capacity, Tort Liability Law, independentliability, responsibility for his own fault
依立法者原意，我国侵权责任法第32条第2款系规定被监护人对受害人的无过错责任，且排除责任能力制度的引入。但此种规定过于偏惠受害人，对被监护人不公，不利于未成年人保护，与同法第33条发生评价上矛盾，与比较法上认识不舍，实为法政策上失误。故应采客观解释，认为该款仅规制监护人与被监护人之间的内部求偿关系，被监护人责任之构成，则应适用第6条第1款之一般过错责任。至于责任能力制度之阙如，可以过错概念之操作暂时弥补其不足。监护人责任之基础，在于监护义务之违反，性质上属于自己责任、独立责任。监护人责任之构成适用第32条第1款之无过错责任，悖于立法目的，且与同法第9条第2款发生评价上之矛盾，自立法论而言，以改采过错推定为宜。解释论上，只能充分利用同条第1款后段之责任减轻规范，扩张监护人之责任阻却事由，对“行为人致人损害”要件作严格认定（尤其是要求行为人须具备客观过错），稍作弥补。此外，无论是监护人还是被监护人，都可能依特定要件，向受害人承担同法第24条之公平责任。在对受害人之关系上，监护人与被监护人承担连带责任。
依立法者原意，我國侵權責任法第32條第2款繫規定被鑑護人對受害人的無過錯責任，且排除責任能力製度的引入。但此種規定過于偏惠受害人，對被鑑護人不公，不利于未成年人保護，與同法第33條髮生評價上矛盾，與比較法上認識不捨，實為法政策上失誤。故應採客觀解釋，認為該款僅規製鑑護人與被鑑護人之間的內部求償關繫，被鑑護人責任之構成，則應適用第6條第1款之一般過錯責任。至于責任能力製度之闕如，可以過錯概唸之操作暫時瀰補其不足。鑑護人責任之基礎，在于鑑護義務之違反，性質上屬于自己責任、獨立責任。鑑護人責任之構成適用第32條第1款之無過錯責任，悖于立法目的，且與同法第9條第2款髮生評價上之矛盾，自立法論而言，以改採過錯推定為宜。解釋論上，隻能充分利用同條第1款後段之責任減輕規範，擴張鑑護人之責任阻卻事由，對“行為人緻人損害”要件作嚴格認定（尤其是要求行為人鬚具備客觀過錯），稍作瀰補。此外，無論是鑑護人還是被鑑護人，都可能依特定要件，嚮受害人承擔同法第24條之公平責任。在對受害人之關繫上，鑑護人與被鑑護人承擔連帶責任。
의입법자원의，아국침권책임법제32조제2관계규정피감호인대수해인적무과착책임，차배제책임능력제도적인입。단차충규정과우편혜수해인，대피감호인불공，불리우미성년인보호，여동법제33조발생평개상모순，여비교법상인식불사，실위법정책상실오。고응채객관해석，인위해관부규제감호인여피감호인지간적내부구상관계，피감호인책임지구성，칙응괄용제6조제1관지일반과착책임。지우책임능력제도지궐여，가이과착개념지조작잠시미보기불족。감호인책임지기출，재우감호의무지위반，성질상속우자기책임、독립책임。감호인책임지구성괄용제32조제1관지무과착책임，패우입법목적，차여동법제9조제2관발생평개상지모순，자입법론이언，이개채과착추정위의。해석론상，지능충분이용동조제1관후단지책임감경규범，확장감호인지책임조각사유，대“행위인치인손해”요건작엄격인정（우기시요구행위인수구비객관과착），초작미보。차외，무론시감호인환시피감호인，도가능의특정요건，향수해인승담동법제24조지공평책임。재대수해인지관계상，감호인여피감호인승담련대책임。
According to the intention of the legislators, Paragraph 2 of Article 32 in Chinese Tort Liability Law regulates the liability without fault of the wards for the injured. Meanwhile, this paragraph excludes the application of the institution of capacity for responsibility. However, this paragraph originates from an error of legal policy. It＇s unjust to the wards and gives too much priority to the injured, which is against the protection of the minor and contradicts the legal thought of Article 33. It also contradicts the basic thoughts in comparative laws. So the objective interpretation of this paragraph should be adopted, that is, it deals only with the problem of the inside claim between the ward and his guardian. The liability of the ward to the injured should be decided according to Paragraph 1, Article 6 （the principle of fault liability）. The absence of the institution of capacity for responsibility can be made up by the interpretation of fault. The liability of the guardians has its roots in breach of the duty of guardianship. This is an independent responsibility and a responsibility for his own fault, not the so-called vicarious liability. According to the law, the liability of the guardians should be determined by Paragraph 1, Article 32 （liability without fault）, which is against the purpose of legislation and contradicts the legal thought of Paragraph 2, Article 9. Therefore, from the aspect of the future amendment of the law, fault assumption liability should be adopted to the liability the of guardians. But from the aspect of interpretation, we can only use the rule of mitigation of liability provided in Paragraph 1, Article 32, expand the application of the defenses which prevent the guardians from burden the liability, and interpret strictly the constitutive requirement of ＂the actor causes damage to others＂. Both the ward and his guardian have the possibilities of bearing the liability to compensate the injured on the basis of the principle of fairness （Article 24）, if the constitutive requirements of this principle are met. The ward and the guardian should undertake jointly and several liability for the loss of the injured.
