【作者】 金正振；

【导师】 王卫国；

【作者基本信息】 中国政法大学 ， 民商法学， 2011， 博士

【摘要】 随着社会的发展,民事关系也变得日益复杂。这种民事关系的复杂化与密切化趋势更加突出了侵权责任法的重要性。另外,在该种侵权行为责任理论中,产生了关于由谁来承担责任的所谓责任范围问题。关于对某人造成的非人身损害或物的损害,其纯粹经济损失能否构成侵权行为法上的救济对象的问题,成为现今侵权行为法中最重要的问题之一。虽然该问题作为合同责任与侵权行为责任之间的界线历来存在诸多争议,但是随着经济损失问题在侵权行为法上的比重逐渐增加,相关地探讨也日益激烈。同该种纯粹经济损失赔偿相关,存在几个无法被忽视的问题。纯粹经济损失随着合同和侵权行为的多样化而逐渐得以类型化。这些类型包括反射损失、转移损失、公共设施的封锁以及因专家错误提供情报导致的损害等,但是,各国并没有对这些纯粹经济损失的类型予以普遍认可。如果扩大纯粹经济损失的因果关系范围,这样的结果会导致潜在的侵权行为人的数量多到无法想像,那么受害人的数量也会增多。对此,各国基于政策性的考量,对各种类型的纯粹经济损失,或缩小对其的认可范围,或对相关责任予以排除。那么,究竟是依据何种根据对纯粹经济损失的责任进行排除的呢?这可以通过从经济学角度对纯粹经济损失相关问题进行分析而得到答案。通过经济学角度的分析,我们可以看到各国对纯粹经济损失的类型都采用了不同的态度。在合同法和侵权行为法相交叉的领域中,通过比较各国所采取的对纯粹经济损失的应对方案,能够提高我们从全局上对侵权行为法体系予以理解和把握的水平,在这种理解的基础上,就中国法如何针对各种损失类型进行解释和适用便会容易许多。基于上述目的,本文分三部分展开论述。第一部分是关于纯粹经济损失的基础及经济分析,第二部分是关于纯粹经济损失责任的国际比较,第三部分是关于纯粹经济损失的赔偿及责任形式的内容。第一部分主要是对纯粹经济损失的相关概念以及典型类型进行介绍,并从经济学角度分析这些典型类型具有何种意义。首先,在对纯粹经济损失所采用的历史分析当中,分为19世纪以前的近代前期和19世纪以后的近代后期两个阶段,围绕着纯粹经济损失在不同阶段的发展的进行探讨。第三章中,通过Bishop教授,Rizzo教授以及Bussani教授的经济分析来了解纯粹经济损失从经济学角度具有的意义。此外,对法院就经济损失问题相关案件中创设发展而来的各种法律原则,以及存在于这些规则中的社会性、经济性和事实上政策性的考量进行探讨。最后,对作为纯粹经济损失问题出发点的责任排除规则的意义进行探讨,并对其理论根据以及该原则的相关批判进行审视。第二部分在基本考察与经济学分析的前提下,对各国的立法例进行比较分析。关于对纯粹经济损失的赔偿大致可以分成两种对立的立法例,在分析各国努力完善其各自基本立法例的同时探讨这些立法例中存在地不完备之处,并将这些立法例进行相互比较,是一种有助于理解该制度而且存在一定必要性的方法论,因此,本研究较多地涉及了纯粹经济损失的比较法考察。笔者选择的比较研究对象有第一章中的英国,第二章中的美国,第三章中的法国,第四章中的德国以及第五章中的韩国。从技术角度来看,虽然也有结合中国与韩国的学说判例对各个论点进行比较分析的方法,但笔者认为纯粹经济损失相关的各论点分别被各国用何种逻辑进行探讨的问题也具有深远意义。据此,本研究采取了后一种方法论。第三部分首先在第一章中针对现今中国对纯粹经济损失的基本态度做了大致介绍,对作为纯粹经济损失问题出发点的责任排除规则的意义进行探讨,并对其理论根据以及该原则的相关批判进行审视。第二章到第五章则主要针对纯粹经济损失的各个类型,以第一部分中纯粹经济损失概念的理解和分析与第二部分中比较法研究中所获得的信息为基础,分别对第一章的“目前中国法学界的观点”,第二章的“纯粹经济损失赔偿的构成要件”,第三章的“侵权法与合同法相交叉的领域”,第四章的“反射损失”,第五章的“转移损失”,以及第六章的“专家责任”这些纯粹经济损失相关的典型性问题和各类型的构成要件,尤其是各类型的具体判例进行阐述分析。结论部分,主要对当今中国存在的纯粹经济损失问题进行了归纳整理,并探讨了本研究中所论述的历史和经济分析给予的启示。另外,通过针对纯粹经济损失的比较法研究,以及将各国的相关研究情况同中国进行比较,提出了有助于中国法律发展的法律体系论和解释论。更多还原

【Abstract】 With the development of our society, the relationship becomes more and more complicated. Such tendency of complication and closely relation highlights the importance of tortious liability. One question is, who will undertake the obligation, appeared in the theory of tortuous liability. Can the pure economic loss, which is not usually a consequent upon physical injury to the victim’s own person or property, be one object of compensation under the tort law? This question was raised as one of the most important topics in the area of tort law. As a question that is happened in the area and overlapped by tort law and contract law, it has been a continuous issue, garnering particular attentions. With the economic loss topic is taking more proportion in the research of tort law, such a question has sparked a hot debate. There are some problems, referring to the pure economic loss, which cannot be ignored.According to the diversity of contracts and infringing act, the work of categorizing pure economic loss is continuously ongoing, which classified into ricochet loss, transferred loss, closure of public service and infrastructures, professional liability and so on. However, these types are not accepted by governments. When taking a broad perspective upon the causality referring to the pure economic loss, and accepting all the types of such loss, there will be incalculable potential infringing actors, at the same time, the number of victims will increase. When facing each type of pure economic loss, governments either narrow down the recognizing scope, or remove some related obligation on account of political consideration. And base on what can the obligation of pure economic loss be removed? For this question, we can get the answer through the economic analysis, showing that every government takes different attitude to each type of pure economic loss. In the area overlapped by contract law and tort law, comparing the solutions taken by governments may improve our understanding of the system of tort law from a whole perspective. On the basis of that, it sounds much easier to find out how the pure economic loss is compensated and controlled under the Chinese legal system, which is related to the application and explanation of legal articles.After having done an observation of pure economic loss, the article takes the structure as bellow, containing three sections. Section 1 is about the basic theories on pure economic loss, in particular, the economical analysis is concluded. The following section discusses the obligations of pure economic loss and the system of compensation in each country, the compensation and control of pure economic loss will be mentioned in the third section.The main purpose of the first section is to introduce the related conception of pure economic loss and typical samples, and analyze the meanings of these typical samples from economic aspects. First, there are two periods in historical analysis of discussion on how pure economic loss is developed which are pre-19th and post-19th. In Section3, To understand the meanings of pure economic loss from the aspects of economy, it will be looking through the economic analysis made by Prof Bishop, Prof Rizzo and Prof Bussani. Meanwhile, there will be discussion on the related cases in the court of law, and the following established principles and the considerations of social, economic and de facto policies for which exist in these rules. Subsequently, the discussion of the meaning of exclusion rule of liabilities which is based on the pure economic loss, and survey the theory and related criticisms.In Section 2, it will compare and analyze the Enactment of Legislation of each countries under the premise of basic inspection and economic analysis. There are two counter compensations of pure economic loss about Enactment of Legislations. It is helpful to understand this system and exist necessary methodology when analyzing each nation. This makes great effort to improve the basic legislation of their own country and then able to discuss any the shortcoming, which exist in these legislations, and then provide comparisons. Therefore, there are certain parts concerned about the survey of comparative of pure economic loss in this research. These chosen objects are UK in Ch1, USA in Ch2, French in Ch3, Germany in Ch4 and Korean in Ch5. Although there are comparative and analytic methods combined by China and Korea, the author believes that pure economic loss associated with the various countries in which the arguments were logical question to explore is quite meaningful. Thereat, this research uses the second methodology.In section 3, we will have a fuller understanding of nowadays the basic attitude of pure economic loss according to China in Chapterl, and then discuss the meaning of exclusion rule of liabilities which is based on the pure economic loss, and survey the theory and related criticisms. From Chapter 2 to Chapter 5 will focus on the different types of pure economic loss, specifically examining "Chinese jurisprodence perspective" in Chapter 1, the "contitutive requirements for compensation of pure economic loss" in Chapter 2, "inter-disciplinary field of Contract law" in Chapter 3, "ricochet loss"in Chapter 4, "transferred loss"in Chapter 5, and "professional liability"in Chapter 6 respectively. In these chapters, the analysis on these typical problems associated with pure economic loss, as well as constitutive requirements and detailed precedents of the each types of pure economic loss will be presented, based on the definition of pure economic loss derived from the analysis in Section 1, and analysis results from the comparative case studies in Section 2.In the conclusion part, the issue of pure economic loss in China was compiled and summarized. We also discussed the historical and economic analysis for their inspiration. In addition, through comparative law studies of pure economic loss, and case studies of various countries compared with China, we have proposed specific legal system and interpretation that is helpful for the development of Chinese law.更多还原