초록 열기/닫기 버튼
There are three type of ‘collision of obligations’. One is ‘the collision between obligation of commission and obligation of commission’, another is ‘the collision between obligation of commission and obligation of omission’,the other is ‘the collision between obligation of omission and obligation of omission’. But, in the true sense of the rule, ‘the collision between obligation of commission and obligation of commission’ is the only ‘collision of obligations’. As for the legal character of ‘collision of obligations’, two parties exist. One is ‘the theory of emergency evacuation’, the other is ‘the theory of the normal usage’. The ‘collision of obligations’ is similar to the emergency evacuation,but there are different points between them. In other words, ‘collision of obligations’ has ‘the compulsion of the act’which must choice and perform the one obligation, and the violation of the rule is revealed by the omission, not the affirmative commission. So ‘collision of obligations’ has its own system which is distinguished from ‘emergency evacuation’. Therefore, it is desirable that ‘collision of obligations’ should be regarded as ‘the legal act by the normal usage’. There are two views in the settlement of the collision of the same valued obligations. One is ‘the theory of offsetting of illegality’, the other is ‘the theory of offsetting of responsibility’. Come to think of it, it is desirable that the collision of the same valued obligations should be regarded as ‘the case which cannot be expected legal act’. To conclude, this collision is ‘the act without the responsibility’.
키워드열기/닫기 버튼
collision of obligation, justified collision of obligation, collision of obligation exempted from responsibility, emergency evacuation, collision between obligations of commission
