Full metadata record
DC Field | Value | Language |
---|---|---|
dc.contributor.advisor | 韓基貞 | - |
dc.contributor.author | 朴京信 | - |
dc.creator | 朴京信 | - |
dc.date.accessioned | 2016-08-25T04:08:14Z | - |
dc.date.available | 2016-08-25T04:08:14Z | - |
dc.date.issued | 2004 | - |
dc.identifier.other | OAK-000000009758 | - |
dc.identifier.uri | https://dspace.ewha.ac.kr/handle/2015.oak/178443 | - |
dc.identifier.uri | http://dcollection.ewha.ac.kr/jsp/common/DcLoOrgPer.jsp?sItemId=000000009758 | - |
dc.description.abstract | The emergence of art as an investment has stimulated an increase in art forgery as well as art transactions. Accordingly, the opinion of persons who authenticate or appraise art, including the art authenticator, art appraiser or art historian (collectively termed "art experts") has the most direct effect on art market and major financial decisions are often based on the opinion of those who authenticate and appraise a work of art. When things go wrong, art experts need to be held liable for professional misconduct. The purpose of this thesis is to provide an overview of the liability of the art authenticator and art appraiser in American Law and reflect possibilities of the application in Korea. The chapter Ⅱ deals with the art appraisal situation and relevant problem and discusses the theories of liability of the art appraiser in Korea. Though several causes of action are available to the plaintiff, research has been scarce and cases have not been accumulated in this field yet. The chapter Ⅲ covers the general consideration about art authentication and art appraisal and concerns the regulation of art experts in America. This chapter concludes with the most common causes of action asserted against art experts and affirmative defenses in American Law. Art experts can incur liability under a variety of legal theories: most notably disparagement, defamation, negligence, fraud and negligent misrepresentation. However the most dramatic change in recent years has been the recognition of a standard of care applicable to art experts and reliance on instinct and educated guesses, unsupported by methodical research, fact-gathering and analysis, is no longer an acceptable method of practices. Considering discrepancies of the legal system or environment between America and Korea, a discussion of American Law will not apply to all cases, but it would be helpful in setting forth standards on the liability of the art experts enacting laws dealing specially with art appraisal in Korea. This thesis focuses on civil liability of art experts and accordingly does not deal with their criminal liability and seller's representations of authenticity governed by the Uniform Commercial Code are also outside the scope of this thesis. The emergence of art as an investment has stimulated an increase in art forgery as well as art transactions. Accordingly, the opinion of persons who authenticate or appraise art, including the art authenticator, art appraiser or art historian (collectively termed "art experts") has the most direct effect on art market and major financial decisions are often based on the opinion of those who authenticate and appraise a work of art. When things go wrong, art experts need to be held liable for professional misconduct. The purpose of this thesis is to provide an overview of the liability of the art authenticator and art appraiser in American Law and reflect possibilities of the application in Korea. The chapter Ⅱ deals with the art appraisal situation and relevant problem and discusses the theories of liability of the art appraiser in Korea. Though several causes of action are available to the plaintiff, research has been scarce and cases have not been accumulated in this field yet. The chapter Ⅲ covers the general consideration about art authentication and art appraisal and concerns the regulation of art experts in America. This chapter concludes with the most common causes of action asserted against art experts and affirmative defenses in American Law. Art experts can incur liability under a variety of legal theories: most notably disparagement, defamation, negligence, fraud and negligent misrepresentation. However the most dramatic change in recent years has been the recognition of a standard of care applicable to art experts and reliance on instinct and educated guesses, unsupported by methodical research, fact-gathering and analysis, is no longer an acceptable method of practices. Considering discrepancies of the legal system or environment between America and Korea, a discussion of American Law will not apply to all cases, but it would be helpful in setting forth standards on the liability of the art experts enacting laws dealing specially with art appraisal in Korea. This thesis focuses on civil liability of art experts and accordingly does not deal with their criminal liability and seller's representations of authenticity governed by the Uniform Commercial Code are also outside the scope of this thesis. | - |
dc.description.tableofcontents | 목차 제1장 서론 = 1 제2장 우리나라의 현황 = 3 제1절 미술품 감정의 실태 = 3 1. 미술품 감정 현황 = 3 2. 미술품 감정의 문제점 = 4 제2절 감정인의 私法的 책임 = 5 1. 계약위반 = 6 2. 불법행위 = 6 (1)요건 = 6 (2)명예훼손 = 7 3. 사기에 의한 의사표시 = 8 제3장 미국법의 내용 및 분석 = 9 제1절 인증 및 감정의 의의 = 9 1. 정의 = 9 (1) 인증 = 10 (2) 감정 = 11 2.구별 개념 = 12 (1) 소장기록(provenance) = 12 (2) 논평(commentary) = 13 제2절 인증인 및 감정인 제도 = 13 1. 종류 = 13 2. 자격 = 14 (1) 인증인 = 15 1) 전문성 구비 여부 = 16 2) 미술가와 딜러 = 16 3) 인격권(Droit Moral)하에서의 권한 = 17 4) 인증위원회(Authentication Committees) = 19 ①의의 = 19 ②경쟁제한의 문제 = 20 (2) 감정인 = 22 3. 행위규제 = 24 (1) 이익상충(Conflict Of Interest)의 금지 = 24 (2) 윤리지침 = 26 제3절 인증인 및 감정인의 私法的 책임 = 28 1. 책임의 근거 = 28 (1) 불법행위 = 29 1) 주관적 요건 = 29 ①고의 = 29 ②과실 = 29 가. 주의의무(duty of care) = 29 나. 사진에 의한 조사 = 33 다. 카탈로그 레조네(Catalogue Raisonne) 참조 = 34 라. 의심의 여지가 있는 인증이나 소유권을 고려할 감정인의 의무 위반 = 35 2) 객관적 요건 = 37 3) 주요유형 = 37 ①제품비방(product disparagement) = 38 ②명예훼손(defamation) = 41 가. 진술이 명예훼손적(defamatory)일 것 = 41 나. 사실의 적시에 기한 진술일 것 = 43 다. 허위의 진술 = 45 라. 원고에 관한 내용일 것 = 46 마. 미술전문가에 의하여 제3자에게 공표되었을 것 = 46 바. 책임의 성립에 필요한 요건을 구비하였을 것 = 46 (2) 계약 위반 = 47 1) 명시적 계약 위반 = 48 2) 묵시적 계약 위반 = 49 (3) 부실고지 = 49 1) 악의에 의한 부실고지(fraudulent misrepresentation) = 49 ①요건 = 50 ②책임의 범위 = 53 2) 과실에 의한 부실고지(negligent misrepresentation) = 53 ①요건 = 53 ②책임의 범위 = 54 (4) 상표법(Lanham Act) 위반 여부 = 56 (5) 소비자법 위반(Violation of Consumer Statutes) = 58 2. 항변사유 = 60 (1) 기여과실(Contributory Negligence) 또는 과실상계(Comparative Negligence) = 60 (2) 원고비적격성 = 62 (3) 회피가능한 결과(Avoidable Consequences) = 63 (4) 위험의 인수(Assumption of Risk) = 63 (5) 면책조항 = 64 (6) 보험에 의한 제한 = 64 제4장 결론 = 65 참고 문헌 = 67 Abstract = 71 | - |
dc.format | application/pdf | - |
dc.format.extent | 699287 bytes | - |
dc.language | kor | - |
dc.publisher | 이화여자대학교 대학원 | - |
dc.title | 美術品 認證人 및 鑑定人의 責任에 관한 美國法 硏究 | - |
dc.type | Master's Thesis | - |
dc.title.translated | Liability of the Art Authenticator or Appraiser in American Law | - |
dc.creator.othername | Park, Kyoungshin | - |
dc.format.page | ⅲ , 73 p. | - |
dc.identifier.thesisdegree | Master | - |
dc.identifier.major | 대학원 법학과 | - |
dc.date.awarded | 2005. 2 | - |