CAJ | 학술논문

以一个因素作为一般侵权责任与特殊侵权责任划分标准的“单纯构成要件说”、“归责原则说”、“一般条款说”和“责任主体说”，均存在不足。而无论是非单纯构成要件说，还是多元化标准说，实质上都不过是上述学说中两个或两个以上的相加，其都存在“多标准划分”的逻辑错误。从我国目前情况看，宜以证明责任的特殊性作为划分一般侵权责任与特殊侵权责任的标准，即凡是由权利入对加害行为、损害事实、加害行为与损害事实之间因果关系、加害人过错等侵权责任四个构成要件事实存在承担证明责任的侵权责任，属于一般侵权责任；凡其证明责任与这样证明责任不同的侵权责任，属于特殊侵权责任。
이일개인소작위일반침권책임여특수침권책임화분표준적“단순구성요건설”、“귀책원칙설”、“일반조관설”화“책임주체설”，균존재불족。이무론시비단순구성요건설，환시다원화표준설，실질상도불과시상술학설중량개혹량개이상적상가，기도존재“다표준화분”적라집착오。종아국목전정황간，의이증명책임적특수성작위화분일반침권책임여특수침권책임적표준，즉범시유권리입대가해행위、손해사실、가해행위여손해사실지간인과관계、가해인과착등침권책임사개구성요건사실존재승담증명책임적침권책임，속우일반침권책임；범기증명책임여저양증명책임불동적침권책임，속우특수침권책임。
To ascertain between general torts liability and special torts liability, all the theories that based their standard on single factor have defects, including ＂simple necessary elements theory＂, ＂principle of attribute liability theory＂, ＂general clause theory＂ and ＂the subject of liability theory＂. Further, both complicated necessary elements theories and multi-factor standard theories are combination of two or more than two of the four above theories, and have the logic error of multiple clas-sification standards. For the current perspective, burden of proof should be the standard to classify general torts liability and special torts liability. Whenever the right holder has to prove the four elements of torts： tort act, damages, causal relation be-tween the act and the damages and the fault on the tortfeasor, the burden is general torts liability; and whenever the burden of proof is different than this, the burden is special torts liability.