本文選題：韓國　切入點：環(huán)境侵權(quán)責任　出處：《延邊大學》2012年碩士論文

【摘要】：環(huán)境侵權(quán)責任成為特殊的侵權(quán)問題,是當今社會須急切解決的問題,環(huán)境損害賠償糾紛也成為了現(xiàn)今審判上的熱點和難點問題。我國從80年代開始重視環(huán)境侵權(quán)責任的問題。從1982《憲法》到2009年《侵權(quán)責任法》,環(huán)境侵權(quán)責任一直不斷的發(fā)展和完善,但是因為《侵權(quán)責任法》出臺時間不久,實際操作上有著很多漏洞,實踐中也存在著諸多問題。韓國環(huán)境侵權(quán)的研究時間比我們國家早,法規(guī)、學說和判例的結(jié)合形成了較為完整的環(huán)境侵權(quán)責任法體系。對于受污者的保護上也有著很好的實踐經(jīng)驗。本文想通過中韓比較介紹韓國的環(huán)境侵權(quán)責任制度,并希望通過比較中韓兩國的環(huán)境侵權(quán)責任制度能探索出完善中國環(huán)境侵權(quán)責任制度的方法。 本文主要從三方面論述了中韓環(huán)境侵權(quán)責任。首先,介紹了中國的環(huán)境侵權(quán)責任�；緝�(nèi)容包括概念、歸責原則、構(gòu)成要件、訴訟時效的適用等。我國環(huán)境侵權(quán)責任的歸責原則采嚴格責任,即無過錯責任。環(huán)境侵權(quán)責任適用舉證責任倒置原則。環(huán)境侵權(quán)責任是我國侵權(quán)責任法中屬于特殊侵權(quán)責任,所以適用特殊的訴訟時效。其次,介紹了韓國有關環(huán)境侵權(quán)責任。基本內(nèi)容包括概念、特征、歸責原則、構(gòu)成要件、訴訟時效。韓國從70年代開始關注環(huán)境侵權(quán)責任問題。自1963年制定《公害防止法》以來,主要以不法行為法、物權(quán)法、相關公法為依據(jù)并結(jié)合學說和判例來解決環(huán)境污染糾紛問題。最后,本文通過對中韓兩國環(huán)境侵權(quán)責任的相關制度比較研究,分析了兩國制度的優(yōu)劣,提出了我國如何借鑒韓國的環(huán)境侵權(quán)責任制度的相關規(guī)定來完善我國環(huán)境侵權(quán)責任法的立法建議。 首先,在比較分析中韓環(huán)境侵權(quán)責任歸責原則的基礎上,提出中國應對物理性的環(huán)境污染規(guī)定過錯責任原則,在一定程度上限制受污染者在環(huán)境侵權(quán)責任中的地位,給予污染者一定程度的保護來保障社會公平問題；在過錯責任的適用上,應借鑒韓國過失責任原則,這樣有利于保護劣勢地位的受污者；在環(huán)境侵權(quán)責任構(gòu)成要件上須單設違法性,并借鑒韓國違法性中‘忍受限度’的判斷標準來完善構(gòu)成要件的理論問題；在因果關系的推定上,中國使用特殊的舉證責任方式,即舉證責任倒置,韓國是以蓋然性說和新蓋然性說等學說來指導因果關系。 其次,對多數(shù)污染者造成的損害賠償責任,我國應借鑒韓國多數(shù)污染者造成損害責任的原理。受污者證明污染者的行為與損害結(jié)果有因果關系時,由被證明造成損害的污染者來承擔責任。污染者能證明自己的行為與損害結(jié)果沒有因果關系的時可以免責。污染者證明自己的行為與部分損害結(jié)果有因果關系時,只對部分承擔相應責任。在不符合上述情形時,應對損害結(jié)果承擔連帶賠償責任。 再次,本文對環(huán)境侵權(quán)責任的免責條件和減輕事由進行了比較研究。我國應借鑒韓國對于應運用比防止義務更嚴格的預見可能性作為因不可抗拒的自然災害而不承擔責任的事由,這樣更有利于保護環(huán)境和受污者的利益。對于自然災害導致的損害也應規(guī)定相應的減輕責任,應以比例免除自然災害導致的部分。如此一來,更能讓受污者得到有利的救濟；在環(huán)境侵權(quán)責任的承擔方式上,應借鑒韓國的禁止請求權(quán)制度來完善我國排出妨害承擔方式的體系。 最后,比較分析了中韓兩國在司法實踐中對環(huán)境侵權(quán)責任的救濟方式。我國應借鑒韓國環(huán)境糾紛調(diào)解委員會的調(diào)解制度,完善我國環(huán)境糾紛解決機制的不足。在訴訟救濟方式下,應借鑒韓國禁止請求權(quán)的訴訟制度來完善排出妨害訴訟救濟的缺陷；在損害賠償訴訟上,應借鑒韓國的擔保制度來完善我國環(huán)境侵權(quán)損害賠償執(zhí)行難的問題。另外,在訴訟時效的適用上應借鑒韓國相關訴訟時效的規(guī)定：‘從受污染者知道被損害或知道加害人之日起的3年,從侵權(quán)行為之日起的10年�！@樣更有利于保護受污者的權(quán)益,同時督促受污者在法定期限內(nèi)行使自己的訴訟權(quán)利。
[Abstract]:Environmental tort liability as a special tort problem, is a problem urgently required in today's society, environmental damage compensation dispute has become a hot and difficult problem in the trial. In China from 80s began to pay great attention to the problem of environmental tort liability. From 1982< to 2009 constitution > < tort law >, environmental tort liability has been constantly develop and perfect, but because the "tort liability law > issued time soon, the actual operation has many loopholes, in practice there are many problems. The study of Korea environmental tort earlier than our country, laws and regulations, combined with the theory and case law formed a relatively complete system of environmental tort liability. For protection from pollution who also has a very good experience. This paper through the comparison between China and Korea to introduce Korean environmental tort liability system, and hope that through the comparison of China and South Korea environmental tort liability system To find a perfect China method of environmental tort liability system.
This paper mainly from the three aspects of Korean environmental tort liability. Firstly, introduces the environmental tort liability China. Basic content includes the concept, principle of imputation, constitutive requirements, the limitation of action application. The imputation principles of liability of environmental tort in China adopted strict liability, the liability without fault. The environmental tort liability for burden of proof the principle of inversion. The environmental tort liability is a special tort liability in tort law of China, so the application of special litigation. Secondly, introduces relevant Korean environmental tort liability. The basic contents include concept, characteristic, principle of imputation, constitutive requirements, the limitation of action. South Korea from 70s began to pay attention to the environmental tort liability problem since. < > in 1963 to develop pollution prevention law, mainly by illegal behavior law, property law, public law as the basis and combined with the related theory and case to solve the disputes of environmental pollution. At last, this paper. Comparative study on the related system of China and South Korea environmental tort liability, analyzes both the merits of the system, put forward the relevant provisions of our country to draw lessons from Korea's environmental tort liability system of legislation to perfect our environmental tort liability law.
First of all, based on the comparative analysis of Korean environmental tort liability imputation principle, put forward the principle of fault liability provisions of environmental pollution Chinese to physical, limited by the pollution in the environmental tort liability to a certain extent, position, giving the pollution degree of protection to ensure social justice issues; in the application of fault liability. We should learn from South Korea, the principle of fault liability, which is conducive to the protection of the inferior position of the polluted; in there should be a single set of illegality of environmental tort liability, and learn from South Korea illegality "bear limit" judgment standard to improve the constitution theory; in the causation presumption, China proof responsible for special use, the inversion of the burden of proof, South Korea is new to probability and probability theory to guide the causal relationship.
Secondly, most of the pollution liability caused by damage to the principle, China should learn from South Korea's most pollution liability for damage caused by the polluted. The pollution proof behavior and damage the causal relationship, the pollution damage caused by the proven responsibility. Polluters can prove their behavior and the damage results there is no causal relationship between the exemption. The pollution that damage behavior and part of the results of their own relationship, to bear the corresponding responsibility. In do not meet the above conditions, to deal with the damage results liable for compensation.
Again, the environmental tort liability exemption conditions and reduced reason are studied. China should learn from South Korea to apply than duty to prevent more stringent foresee the possibility as without liability due to irresistible natural disasters cause, this is more conducive to protecting the environment and pollution of stakeholders for. Natural disasters caused by damage should also be provided the corresponding less responsibility, should be in proportion to avoid natural disasters. In this way, can let the polluted get favorable relief; way take in the environmental tort liability, we should draw lessons from Korea's ban request right system to perfect our country from nuisance bear system.
Finally, a comparative analysis of the two countries on the relief of environmental tort in judicial practice. The environmental dispute mediation committee should draw lessons from Korea's mediation system in our country, to improve our environmental dispute settlement mechanism. In the lawsuit relief way, we should draw lessons from Korea banned claim litigation system to improve the defects from nuisance litigation relief; compensation litigation, should learn from South Korea's security system to improve China's environmental tort compensation difficult problem. In addition, the relevant provisions of South Korea should learn from the limitation of action in the applicable statute of limitations: "know know the offender is damaged or the date of 3 years from the contaminated. From the tort of the date of 10 years." so as to better protect the interests of the polluted, polluted and urged to exercise their litigation rights within the statutory period.

【學位授予單位】：延邊大學
【學位級別】：碩士
【學位授予年份】：2012
【分類號】：D931.26;D923

【參考文獻】

相關期刊論文 前10條

1 劉輝;馬文哲;周瑩瑩;;論我國環(huán)境侵權(quán)損害賠償制度的完善[J];國家林業(yè)局管理干部學院學報;2011年02期

2 高圣平;楊旋;;環(huán)境污染責任的構(gòu)成要件研究——基于《侵權(quán)責任法》第八章的分析[J];創(chuàng)新;2011年06期

3 李愛德;;論環(huán)境侵權(quán)責任構(gòu)成要件之行為違法性[J];太原城市職業(yè)技術學院學報;2011年06期

4 鄒雄;藍華生;;環(huán)境污染責任適用范圍辨析——《侵權(quán)責任法》第八章解讀之一[J];海峽法學;2011年01期

5 沈曉顏;李美佳;;環(huán)境侵權(quán)的賠償范圍[J];法制與經(jīng)濟(中旬刊);2011年05期

6 黃錫生,鄧禾;韓國的環(huán)境糾紛行政解決制度及其借鑒[J];環(huán)境保護;2004年03期

7 朱偉;;議《侵權(quán)責任法》中環(huán)境侵權(quán)問題[J];今日財富(金融發(fā)展與監(jiān)管);2011年10期

8 穆遠松;;論環(huán)境侵權(quán)歸責原則及對弱勢群體的保護——以侵權(quán)責任法為中心的分析[J];南陽理工學院學報;2010年03期

9 金相容;樸愛圣;;韓國侵權(quán)行為法基本原則和構(gòu)成體系[J];金陵法律評論;2009年02期

10 張寶;;環(huán)境侵權(quán)歸責原則之反思與重構(gòu)——基于學說和實踐的視角[J];現(xiàn)代法學;2011年04期

相關碩士學位論文 前7條

1 王宗梅;環(huán)境侵權(quán)民事救濟研究[D];山東經(jīng)濟學院;2011年

2 馮嬌雯;論環(huán)境侵權(quán)中的因果關系推定[D];中國政法大學;2011年

3 融華;環(huán)境侵權(quán)的歸責原則研究[D];復旦大學;2011年

4 郭燕;環(huán)境侵權(quán)的民事救濟法律問題研究[D];四川社會科學院;2010年

5 何恩元;我國環(huán)境侵權(quán)損害賠償制度研究[D];重慶大學;2011年

6 張永青;環(huán)境民事糾紛非訴訟解決機制研究[D];中南林業(yè)科技大學;2011年

7 張國強;環(huán)境侵權(quán)救濟機制研究[D];吉林大學;2010年

，

本文編號：1714006