Under the Anglo-American law, there are two types of causation: ‘factual causation’ and ‘legal causation’. The test for factual causation is a but-for test or sine qua non test. However, there is no dominant test for legal causation. The reason for that is legal causation is a flexible analysis involving a variety of policy considerations. The structure of the theory of causation in Korean and German law is almost the same as in Anglo-American law. Under Korean and German law, causation has two aspects: ‘natural causation’, and ‘objective imputation’. Natural causation is a matter of fact and determined by the sine qua non test as in the Anglo-Americna law. The issue of objective imputation cannot be answered by a single test because it is a matter of policy or evaluation. The test for legal causation and objective imputation is determined after evaluating various policy considerations. The author of this article compares a Korean Supreme Court case and a US Supreme Court Case concerning legal causation. The US case is a very famous one commonly known as the Palsgraf case. In Palsgraf, the Plaintiff was standing on a railroad platform purchasing a ticket, when a train stopped and two men ran forward to catch it. One of the men nearly fell, and two railroad employees attempted to help him. In the process, a package containing fireworks fell and the contents exploded. As a result of the explosion some scales at the other end of the platform fell and struck the Plaintiff. Plaintiff sued and a jury found in her favor. The Appellate Division affirmed this decision. However, the Court of Appeals, the highest court in New York, reversed and dismissed Palsgraf’s complaint, deciding that the relationship of the guard’s action to Palsgraf’s injury was too remote to make the defendant liable. The dissenting opinion in Palsgraf’s viewed the case as a matter of proximate cause. The dissent takes the view that, as a matter of law, it could not be determined that the Defendant’s actions were not the proximate cause of the Plaintiff’s injuries. The structure of a Korean Supreme Court case is very similar to that of the US case. In the Korean Case, the Defendant’s car was struck by a train at a railroad crossing due to Defendant’s negligence. The Plaintiff, who was waiting for a train’s passing at the railroad crossing, fell and was injured. The Plaintiff was not hit by the Defendant’s car, but he was injured because of the impact of the crash. The Korean Supreme Court recognized the causation between the Defendant’s negligence and Plaintiff’s injury. However, the author of this article argues that this case is a matter of legal causation and Defendant’s action was not the proximate cause of the Plaintiff’s injury. This argument is almost same as the one put forward by the dissent in the US case. The tests for legal causation or objective imputation vary from view points to view points. Thus, it is important to develop certain tests for legal causation or objective imputation that can be applied generally. For that to occur, we must analyze scholarly opinions and court results from both German law and Anglo-American law.

[연 구]
 Ⅰ. 머리말 - 대상판례의 쟁점
 Ⅱ. 인과관계의 사실적 측면과 법적 측면
  1. 개관
  2. 사실상의 인과관계
  3. 법적 인과관계 - 객관적 귀속
   (1) 연혁과 의의
    가. 의의
    나 연혁
   (2) 판단 기준
 Ⅲ. 비교 판례 - Palsgraf v. Long Island R. Co.-
  1. 사실관계
  2. 판결의 내용
  3. 시사점
 Ⅳ. 대상 판례에 적용
  (1) 상당인과관계설
  (2) 상당인과관계설과 객관적 귀속론
  (3) 대상판례의 검토
 Ⅴ. 맺음말
 [참고문헌]
 [Abstract]

• 김종구(조선대학교 법과대학 교수, 법학박사, Professor of Law, Chosun University College of Law.) | Kim, Jong-Goo