违约精神损害赔偿制度的适用研究

金路伦,蔡琦 전북대학교 동북아법연구소 2020 동북아법연구 Vol.14 No.2

In China, compensation for mental damages for breach of contract is a controversial issue. The traditional civil law view holds that the liability for breach of contract does not include mental damage, and that mental damage belongs to tort liability. Cases of mental damage caused by breach of contract continue to appear, and some scholars have begun to affirm the rationality of compensation for breach of contract mental damage. In this context, this article analyzes the textual interpretation and systematic interpretation of Article 996 of the Civil Code and concludes that the legislator’s attitude towards compensation for mental damages for breach of contract is ambiguous. However, the judicial interpretations clearly oppose the system of compensation for mental damages in breach of contract. The contradiction between the two has also caused confusion in the judicial trial. The article uses big data to collect judicial cases and finds that although most judges deny compensation for mental damages for breach of contract in accordance with judicial interpretations, some judges affirm the compensation for mental damages based on the justice of individual cases. Then, the article refutes the view of negating the compensation for breach of contract mental damage, and launches a theoretical defense for constructing the compensation system for breach of contract mental damage from four perspectives, namely, to make up for the loopholes in the overlap of responsibilities, meet the requirements of predictability rules, and meet the principle of complete compensation,and judicial practice can provide experience for the amount of compensation. This article proposes that compensation for breach of contract mental damage needs to meet the conditions of general breach of contract, that is, there is a breach of contract, the injured party suffers serious mental damage, and there is a causal relationship between breach of contract and mental damage. Finally, in order to prevent the breach of contract mental damage compensation system from being abused, the subject of breach of contract mental damage should be restricted to natural persons, and at the same time, the contract type should be restricted. These two points should be used to limit the breach of contract mental damage compensation system. 在中国,违约精神损害赔偿是一个备受争议的问题。传统民法观点认为违约责任中不包括精神损害,精神损害属于侵权责任。因违约而产生精神损害的案例不断出现,部分学者开始肯定违约精神损害赔偿的合理性。在此背景下,本文通过对《民法典》第996条的文义解释和系统解释两个角度的分析,得出立法者对于违约精神损害赔偿的态度模糊不清。而司法解释却旗帜鲜明的反对违约精神损害赔偿制度。这两者的矛盾也引发了司法审判中的混乱。文章使用大数据采集司法案例,发现虽然多数法官依照司法解释否定违约精神损害赔偿,但部分法官立足于个案正义,对违约精神损害赔偿予以肯定。然后,文章对否定违约精神损害赔偿的观点予以反驳,从弥补责任竞合的漏洞、符合可预见规则的要求、符合完全赔偿原则以及司法实践可为赔偿数额提供经验四个角度为构建违约精神损害赔偿制度展开理论辩护。本文提出违约精神损害赔偿需要满足一般性违约的条件,即违约行为的存在、受损害方遭受严重的精神损害以及违约行为与精神损害之间存在因果关系这三点。最后,为了防止违约精神损害赔偿制度被滥用,应将违约精神损害的主体限制为自然人,同时对合同类型作出限制,以此从侧面规制违约精神损害赔偿制度。

조직공정성 지각이 심리적 계약위반, 조직몰입 및 일탈행동에 미치는 영향 : LMX 및 CWX의 조절효과 검증

양동민,심덕섭 한국기업경영학회 2020 기업경영연구 Vol.27 No.6

연구는 조직공정성 지각이 심리적 계약위반, 조직몰입, 일탈행동에 미치는 직접효과와 함께 이들 간의 관계에 서 심리적 계약위반의 매개효과 및 LMX(Leader-Member Exchange)와 CWX(Coworker Exchange)의 조절효과를 검증하고자 하였다. 가설 검증을 위해 국내기업 276명의 종업원들의 설문조사 자료를 이용하였다. 실증연구 결과 얻어진 결과는 다음과 같다. 첫째, 조직공정성 지각은 심리적 계약위반에 부(-)의 영향을 미치는 것으로 나타났다. 구체적으로 분배공정성과 절차공정성 모두는 개별적으로 심리적 계약위반에 부(-)의 영향을 주고 있으며, 추가설 명력을 고려할 때 절차공정성이 분배공정성보다 심리적 계약위반에 더 영향을 주는 변수로 나타났다, 둘째, 심리 적 계약위반은 조직몰입에 부(-)의 영향을 미치고 있으며, 조직지향 일탈행동과 개인지향 일탈행동에는 정(+)의 영향을 미치는 것으로 나타났다. 셋째, 심리적 계약위반은 분배공정성과 조직몰입 및 조직지향 일탈행동 간의 관계를 부분 매개하고, 분배공정성과 개인지향 일탈행동 간의 관계는 완전 매개하는 것으로 나타났다. 또한 심리 적 계약위반은 절차공정성과 조직지향 일탈행동 간 관계를 완전 매개하고, 절차공정성과 개인지향 일탈행동 간의 관계를 부분적으로 매개하는 것으로 나타났다. 마지막으로, LMX는 심리적 계약위반이 조직몰입에 미치는 영향을 조절하는 것으로 나타났고, CWX는 심리적 계약위반과 조직몰입, 조직대상 및 개인지향 일탈행동 간의 관계에 있어 조절효과를 갖는 것으로 나타났다. 연구결과를 근거로 연구의 시사점과 추후 연구방향을 제시하였다. Recently most companies are faced with an intense business environment. Under this situation, many companies are conducting various restructuring. These kind of restructuring can influence employees’ perceptions of organizational justices and cause their performance negatively. Although the high interests about organizational justices, many previous researches have limitations. For extenstion of the model related to organizational justice, it is necessary to consider moderating and mediating variables. The purpose of this study is to examine the influence of perception of organizational justice on psychological contract breach, organizational commitment and deviant behaviors. Also, we attempt to verify the mediating effect of psychological contract breach on the relationships between perception of organizational justice and organizational commitment, and between perception of organizational justice and deviant behaviors. Additionally, this study focuses on LMX and CWX as a possible moderator in the relationships between psychological contract breach and organizational commitment, and between psychological contract breach and deviant behaviors. Based on prior literature, this study derives following hypotheses. H 1: Distributive justice will be negatively related to psychological contract breach. H 2: Procedural justice will be negatively related to psychological contract breach. H 3: Psychological contract breach will be negatively related to organizational commitment. H 4: Psychological contract breach will be positively related to deviant behavior. H 5: LMX will moderate the relationship between psychological contract breach and commitment. H 6: LMX will moderate the relationship between psychological contract breach and deviant behavior. H 7: CWX will moderate the relationship between psychological contract breach and commitment. H 8: CWX will moderate the relationship between psychological contract breach and deviant behavior. H 9: Psychological contract breach will mediate the relationship between distributive justice and organizational commitment. H 10: Psychological contract breach will mediate he relationship between distributive justice and deviant behavior. H 11: Psychological contract breach will mediate the relationship between procedural justice and organizational commitment. H 12: Psychological contract breach will mediate he relationship between procedural justice and deviant behavior. To test the proposed hypotheses in our study, we collected data via a survey with a sample of 295 employees in 12 organizations, and after excluding unanswered items questionnaires, total of 276 employees data is used for analysis. Multiple regression analysis is used to test the H1, H2, H3 and H4. Hierarchical regression is used to test the significance of the moderating effects of LMX and CWX(H5, H6, H7, and H8). Bootstrapping regression analysis is used to test the significance of the mediating effects of Psychological contract breach(H9, H10, H11 and H12). The major findings are as follows: 1) both distributive and procedural justice were negatively associated with psychological contract breach. 2) psychological contract breach is positively related to organizational commitment and is negatively related to organizational and interpersonal deviant behaviors. 3) psychological contract breach partially mediated the relationship between distributive justice and a) organizational commitment and b) organizational deviant behaviors, and fully mediated the relationship between distributive justice and interpersonal deviant behaviors. Also, psychological contract breach has turned out to have a partial mediation effect on the relationship between procedural justice and interpersonal deviant behaviors, and has turned out to have full mediation effects on the relationship between procedural justice and organizational deviant behaviors, but contrary to hypothesis, does not mediate the relationship between procedural justice and organizational commitment. 4) the relationships between psychological contract breach and organizational commitment was moderated by LMX, such that the relationship was stronger for employees with low LMX. And CWX moderated the relationships between psychological contract breach and a) organizational commitment and b) organizational and interpersonal deviant behaviors, implying that CWX acted as a buffer mitigating the negative reactions to psychological contract breach. Based on these findings, implications of the research findings are discussed, and recommendations for future research are provided.

국제물품매매계약에 관한 UN협약(CISG)상 근본적 계약위반과 이를 원용한 계약해제권과 대체품청구권에 관한 판례연구

박은옥(Eun Ok PARK) 한국무역상무학회 2015 貿易商務硏究 Vol.66 No.-

This study primarily concerns the fundamental breach of contract by a seller and a buyer's two remedies that are entitled to under the CISG. Regarding the breach of contract, the CISG simply provides a list of each party's obligations and regulates that both parties should fulfill the obligations under the contract as well as the Convention. When the CISG specifies the remedies for both parties, it requires to divide the fundamental breach of contract from breach of contract. By doing so, it provides different remedies to both parties depending on whether it is the fundamental breach of contract or not. From the point of buyer's view, the buyer has two remedies when there is the fundamental breach of contract by the seller; they are the right to declare the avoidance of contract and to require the delivery of substitute goods. The fundamental breach of contract is a pre-requisite condition to be fulfilled in order to exercise these two remedies. Although the CISG provides the definition of fundamental breach of contract, its meaning is not clear enough, so it is interpreted and applied case by case. Therefore, this paper will analyze recent cases focusing on the most debated issues regarding the interpretation of fundamental breach of contract; first, who determines the substantial deprivation and when is the time for determination, second, when is the time for unpredictability of substantial deprivation, and last, who has a burden of proof.

심리적 계약의 위반과정에서 매개변인과 조절변인에 관한 연구

김경민(Kyung Min Kim),문형구(Hyoung Koo Moon) 한국인사조직학회 2014 인사조직연구 Vol.22 No.2

본 연구는 개인이 심리적 계약의 위반을 인지하는 과정에서 매개변인과 조절변인, 그리고 선행변인의 영향력을 분석하고 있다. 첫째로 기존에 제시되었던 선행변인 중 하나인 조직사회화가 개인의 심리적 계약 위반에 영향을 미치는 과정에서 개인-조직 적합도가 미치는 매개효과를 살펴보았고, 둘째로 기존 연구에서 간과되었던 변수로서 리더의 관계적 행동이 개인의 심리적 계약의 위반에 영향을 미치는가와, 이 과정에서 조직의 인사제도에 대한 만족도가 미치는 매개효과를 살펴보았다. 마지막으로 이 모든 위반의 인지과정에서 개인차변수인 호혜성의 정도가 어떠한 영향력을 미치는가를 분석하였다. 보다 정확한 추론을 위해 시간차를 두고 반복 측정하는 연구설계를 적용하였다. 국내 대기업 종사자 중 근무기간이 2년 미만인 사람 222명을 대상으로 10주의 간격을 두고 두 번의 서베이를 실시하였으며, 독립변수는 첫 번째 서베이 결과를 사용하였고 종속변수인 심리적 계약의 위반은 두 번째 서베이 결과를 적용하였다. 분석결과, 조직사회화 과정과 심리적 계약 위반의 관계에서 개인-조직 적합도가 매개변인으로 작용하였다. 즉, 조직사회화 과정이 제도화될수록 개인과 조직 간 적합도가 증가하여 결과적으로 개인은 심리적 계약의 위반을 덜 인지하는 것으로 나타났다. 또한 리더의 관계적 행동은 인사제도 만족도와 유의한 관련성은 보였지만, 인사제도 만족도가 심리적 계약의 위반에 유의한 영향을 미치지는 못하였다. 즉, 인사제도 만족도의 경우 매개효과는 나타나지 않았으며, 오히려 리더의 관계적 행동은 개인-조직 적합도를 매개로 위반에 영향을 미치는 것으로 나타났다. 마지막으로 호혜성의 정도는 조절변인으로 작용하여, 개인이 호혜적 원칙을 강하게 보유할수록 개인-조직 적합도가 심리적 계약의 위반에 미치는 영향력이 강화되었다. 이러한 결과는 심리적 계약의 위반이 구체적으로 어떠한 과정을 거쳐 발생하는가에 대한 보다 세부적인 설명을 가능케 함으로써, 위반의 인지과정을 보다 정확히 이해하는 데 기여하고 있다. 또한 위반의 인지에 있어 리더십적인 요소의 영향력과 개인차 변수인 호혜성의 조절효과를 검증함으로써, 조직이 종업원의 심리적 계약 위반을 보다 효과적으로 관리하는 데 있어 새로운 시사점들을 제시하고 있다. This study examined mediating and moderating variables in the process of psychological contract breach, which is the perception by employees that promised obligations in the relationship with their organization have not been delivered. This perception has been revealed to have an effect on individuals' behaviors, emotions, and attitudes within an organization. In particular, when individuals perceived a breach of the psychological contract, their job satisfaction, in-role and extra-role behaviors, organizational commitment, trust, and positive emotions decreased. In addition to this, introducing human resource practices, organizational performance, organizational socialization, and the perception of organizational support have been identified as antecedents of psychological contract breach. Other studies have proposed that this breach works as a mediator in the relationship between organizational justice and organizational citizenship behavior, and the relationship between leadermember exchange and the intention to quit. Like this, previous studies have focused mainly on the antecedent of the psychological contract breach and breach's mediating effect on other variables. However, little attention has been paid to the causal processes that could explain why those variables lead to psychological contract breach. In other words, research on mediators that could explain the relationship between the antecedents and breach perception has been rare. Without understanding these mediating processes, the reasons why individuals perceive breaches to have occurred cannot be fully explained, and solutions that allow an organization to effectively manage individuals' psychological contracts are more difficult to establish. In this respect, the present study attempts to determine the mediating factors in the breach perception process. Specifically, we consider for the first time person-organization fit and the satisfaction with human resource practices within an organization as mediators of breach perception. This study also consolidates the causal relationships between variables using a longitudinal research design. Previous literature has been based primarily on cross-sectional data sets, the use of which in the inference of causal relationships by way of correlation could introduce methodological biases. Therefore, to overcome this limitation, this study uses longitudinal data gathered at two different points in time from the same participants. In the first survey, independent and mediating variables were measured, whereas dependent variables were assessed in the second survey. In doing so, this study suggests a new antecedent and moderator that has been overlooked in the previous literature. In this analysis, an attempt is made to not only clearly understand breach perception mechanisms, but also elicit theoretical and managerial implications from this. The specific model of this study is as follows. Firstly, it suggested that supervisors' relational behaviors would lower the level of psychological contract breach. In regards to mediators, this paper then suggested that person-organization fit would mediate the relationship between organizational socialization tactics and psychological contract breach. It also proposed that satisfaction with human resource practices would mediate the relationship between supervisors' relational behaviors and subordinates' psychological contract breach. Lastly, it proposed that the extent to which individuals hold reciprocity norms would moderate these two relationships. A longitudinal research design was applied to examine the causal relationship between these variables. A total of 222 newcomers to Korean companies were surveyed twice, with a 10-week interval between surveys. All questionnaires were sent by mail to participants along with a pre-stamped return envelope. Participants were requested to write down their personal ID, comprised of a series of letters or numbers, in order to anonymo

우리나라 판례에 나타난 CISG상의 본질적 계약위반

최성수 가천대학교 법학연구소 2015 가천법학 Vol.8 No.1

본질적 계약위반의 개념은 CISG에 있어서 가장 핵심적인 요소 중의 하나이다. 본질적 계약위반은 협약에서 계약해제, 대체물인도청구 등의 전제조건으로 기능하고 있는 만큼 그 개념을 명확히 하여야 하나, 개념의 모호성으로 인하여 개개의 사건의 해결 속에서 개념을 구체화하고 그에 대한 하나의 추세와 경향의 형성을 지켜보아야 한다. 본질적 계약위반인지의 여부는 개개의 사건마다 여러 가지 요소를 고려하여 판단하여야 하나, 본질적 계약위반이 되는지 여부가 논의되는 대강의 유형은 매도인의 경우는 물품부적합, 물품인도의무의 위반, 인도지체, 수량부족 등이고, 매수인의 경우는 대금의 부지급, 수령거부, 대금지체와 수령지체 등이다. 이러한 유형의 추출은 본질적 계약위반의 유형화에 도움이 된다. 본질적 계약위반의 해석에서 유의할 점은 먼저, 협약의 계약유지의 이념에 가능한 한 부합하는 태도의 요구이다. 이는 특히 매도인의 추완권과 연결되는 문제인데, 본질적 계약위반의 범위를 좁힐수록 매도인의 추완권의 성립의 여지는 더욱 커질 것이고, 이는 협약의 계약유지의 이념 구현에 부합하는 결과를 낳는다. 그리고 본질적 계약위반이 협약 독자적인 개념인 만큼 어떠한 국내의 선입견적인 해석이나 법적 근거들은 배제하고 협약의 국제적인 성격에 천착하여 협약 제7조의 해석원칙에 충실하게 해석하여야 한다는 것이다. 그 길이 협약이 추구하는 사법의 통일노력에도 기여하는 길이 된다. 이와 같은 관점에서 본질적 계약위반과 관련한 지금까지의 우리나라의 판례는 비록 판결의 수는 많지 않지만 비교적 협약의 입법취지에 충실하게 형성되어 온 것으로 보인다. 향후 국제거래의 증대에 따라 협약 적용 국내 판결의 증가가 예상되는데 CISG의 입법취지와 기존의 판례의 경향 등을 참고하여 합당한 판결들이 이어져야 하고, 학계와 실무에서도 본질적 계약위반에 대한 각국의 판례들을 계속 천착하여 본질적 계약위반의 유형별 처리 경향과 추세를 추적하는 노력을 경주하여야 한다. 이를 통하여 본질적 계약위반에 대한 일응의 지침이 형성되고 이것이 각국의 법원에 공유됨으로써 궁극적으로 사법의 통일에 이바지하게 된다. The concept of fundamental breach of contract is one of the most critical factors in the CISG. Fundamental breach of contract is functioning as a precondition for avoidance of contract and delivery of substitute goods, so it is needed that the concept of it is to be clear, but due to its ambiguity of the concept, we can concrete the concept of it in the resolution of each cases, by related judgments, we can find and form the trends and tendencies of the concrete concept of fundamental breach of contract. As described above, to know whether there is a fundamental breach of the contract, contracts shall be determined in consideration of various factors on the individual case. We can suggest the types of fundamental breach of the contract by the seller and buyer. About the seller, the types are non-conformity of the goods, non-delivery of the goods, late delivery, shortage and the like. In the case of buyer, the types are non-payment, non-receipt, delay in payment and receipt and so on. These extraction of types is helpful to typing of the fundamental breach of the contract. The important point in the interpretation of the fundamental breach of contract is: first, it is needed to review the way that meets the spirit of maintenance of the contract of the CISG. This problem is especially associated with the seller's right to cure non-conformity of goods. If we narrow the scope of a fundamental breach of contract, it gives a larger room for the establishment of the seller's right to cure non-conformity of goods which is in consistent with the ideal of maintenance of the contract; second, it is needed to exclude any local or national prejudices in the interpretation of it and to exclude the national legal basis. It should be interpreted in consistent with the international character of the CISG and the principles of interpretation of Article 7 of the CISG. It is the way to match the efforts for unifying the laws to which the CISG is pursuing. On the view of same perspective, we can estimate that although the number of cases ruled is not much, the rulings have been fairly faithful to the legislative intent of the CISG. In the future, the cases applying the CISG will be increasing, I think that more reasonable judgment is to be held with reference to the trends of the existing case law, the legislative intent of the CISG and other countries case law. In addition, if possible, it is needed to continue in effort to study each country's case law on the fundamental breach of contract, and to extract its own intrinsic tendencies and trends by types of breach of contract. Through this kind of working, we can provide uniform guidance to the courts of the each countries, it will somewhat ultimately contribute to the unification of the laws.

미국법상 계약위반에 관한 연구

김영희 한국민사법학회 2015 民事法學 Vol.70 No.-

There are considerable similarities between Korean contract law and U.S. contract law. By way of example, the both laws have a key concept of non-performance in their breach of contract systems. This situation helps lawyers of a country to understand the basics of the breach system of another country without elaborating. It is necessary, however, for the lawyers of both countries to pay special attention to so-called prima facie similarity. It means that a concept looks like similar at first glance but is different in detail. The concept of non-performance is a typical example. Korean contract law generally uses the concept of non-performance. By comparison, U.S. contract law uses the concept of breach, but it is quite frequently using the breach mixed with the non-performance. The classification of non-performance or breach can be a another typical example. Korean contract law puts emphasis on the classification of non-performance into the impracticability, the delay, and the 3rd type. U.S. contract law, by comparison, puts emphasis on the classification of breach into the material breach and the trivial breach. Those kind of seemingly minor differences are often enough lead to big differences both in legal theory and in legal practice. For example, U.S. contract law is frequently using the rule of condition in the case of non-performance, while Korean contract law is not. For another example, U.S. civil court generally gives the right of termination of contract to a injured by reason of material breach, while Korean civil court does not and does on a case by case basis.

국제물품매매계약에 관한 유엔협약상 이행기 전 계약위반의 구제수단과 민법에 대한 시사점

이영경 법조협회 2020 法曹 Vol.69 No.4

United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods, “CISG”), was accepted and is effective in South Korea. CISG has some provisions for remedies in case of anticipatory breach of contract. Article 71 provides that a party may suspend the performance of his obligations, if it becomes apparent that the other party will not perform a substantial part of his obligations due to certain reasons. Article 72 provides that, if prior to the date for performance of the contract it is clear that one of the parties will commit a fundamental breach of contract, the other party may declare the contract avoided. Article 73 provides for special rules applicable to installment contract. These provisions are different from the way the Korean Civil Code (“KCC”) deals with similar circumstances. The KCC has Article 536, Paragraph 2 whereby a party may refuse performance of its obligation in case where there is any significant cause existing by which the other party’s performance becomes difficult, The proviso of Article 544 of the KCC provides that, if an obligor declares in advance his intention that he will not perform its obligation, no peremptory notice shall be required for terminating the contract. Although some scholars and court cases apply the Article 544 or its proviso and principle of good faith for termination of contract in case of anticipatory breach of contract, it seems not sufficient to deal with termination of contract in case of anticipatory breach of contract and some legal uncertainties arise. By comparison, CISG provides for remedies in case of anticipatory breach of contract in details in Articles 71, 72 and 73. It should be meaningful to review Articles 71, 72 and 73 and consider how to interpret and amend the KCC. Recently, there has been discussion about amendment of the KCC in order to provide matters about anticipatory breach of contract. It is necessary to consider the problems arising from the lack of provisions in KCC relating to anticipatory breach of contract clearly and make progress in the near future to resolve the problems. 국제물품매매계약에 관한 국제적 규범인 국제물품매매계약에 관한 유엔협약(United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods, 이하 “국제물품매매협약”)은 우리나라에 수용되어 국내법으로서 효력을 가지고 있다. 국제물품매매협약은 제71조 내지 제73조에서 이행기 전의 계약위반시 구제수단에 대하여 규정하고 있다. 의무불이행은 이행기가 도래하여야 발생하는 것이 원칙이지만, 채무자의 이행거절이나, 신용도의 하락 또는 재정상태의 악화 등 사정이 생겨 이행기가 도래하였을 때 의무를 이행하지 않을 것임이 예견되는 경우에는 이행기 도래 전이라도 상대방에게 구제수단을 인정할 필요가 생긴다. 이러한 이행기 전의 계약위반에 대하여 국제물품매매협약은 제71조에서 상대방이 의무의 실질적 부분을 이행하지 않을 것으로 판명된 경우 선이행의무의 이행정지권을, 제72조에서 상대방이 본질적인 계약위반을 할 것임이 명백한 경우에 계약해제권을 인정한다. 그리고 제73조는 분할인도계약에 대한 특칙으로서 분할인도계약의 해제에 관하여 규정하고 있다. 이들 조항은 영미법상 이행기 전의 계약위반 개념을 기반으로 각국의 이해관계를 조율한 결과물로서, 이러한 경우에 대한 민법의 규정 내용과는 차이가 있다. 민법은 이행기 전의 계약위반에 대하여 상세한 조항을 마련하고 있지 않고, 제536조 제2항에서 불안의 항변권을 두고 있는 정도이다. 민법 제544조 단서는 이행거절의 경우 계약해제에 대하여 규정하는데, 판례는 동 조항과 함께 신의칙을 적용하여 이행기 전 계약위반시 계약해제를 인정하고 있지만 이러한 방법으로는 한계가 있다. 국제물품매매협약은 국내법적 효력을 가진다는 점에서 중요성이 큰데, 이행기 전의 계약위반시 처리에 대하여 상세히 규정하고 있어 시사하는 바가 크다. 본고에서는 동 협약 제71조 내지 제73조의 규정내용에 대하여 살펴보고, 민법의 불안의 항변권과 이행기 전의 계약위반시 계약해제의 문제를 검토한다. 그리고 협약과 민법의 규정내용을 비교하여 차이점을 살펴보고, 이행기 전의 계약위반에 관한 해석상 문제와 입법적 고려사항에 대하여 생각해 본다. 향후 민법개정시 이행기 전의 계약위반에 관한 법조문의 도입과 정비를 적극적으로 검토하여야 할 것이다.

서면에 의한 부동산증여계약ㆍ부동산교환계약 불이행과 배임죄 성부에 관한 검토 - 대법원 2018. 12. 13. 선고 2016도19308 판결, 대법원 2018. 10. 4. 선고2016도11337 판결에 대한 비판적 견해 -

윤태석 법조협회 2020 法曹 Vol.69 No.5

According to the Supreme Court, double-dealing of real estate establishes a criminal breach of trust. That is, in a real estate sale contract where the performance of contract has reached a full-fledged stage with the delivery of an intermediate payment, the seller owes a fiduciary duty to the buyer, in which the seller is obliged to cooperate with the buyer in the buyer’s preservation of property by protecting and managing the buyer’s pecuniary advantage, and from that moment the seller becomes “a person who administers another’s business,” as stated in the crime of breach of trust. Where the seller in such a position disposes of the said real estate to a third party, the crime of breach of trust is established. Court applies the legal principle of double-dealing of real estate to the cases of written real estate gift contract and real estate exchange contract, so that in such cases the obligation to transfer the ownership of real estate to the buyer is deemed “another’s business”, and where the seller in such a position disposes of the said real estate to a third party, the crime of breach of trust is established. However, even if the purpose of the precedent that double-dealing of real estate establishes a criminal breach of trust is affirmed, it is difficult to agree with the logical structure that nonfulfillment of real estate gift contract or real estate exchange contract also establishes a criminal breach of trust according to the same legal principle. As the real estate sales, real estate gift, and real estate exchange are not only different in terms of the contract law of the civil act, but also different in terms of the protected legal interests under the criminal law, and only the purpose of the contracts which is the transfer of ownership of real estate is the same, applying the same legal principle of criminal breach of trust in double-dealing of real estate to all of the above contracts is a leap of logic that overlooked different aspects of the above contracts. Thereafter, nonfulfillment of real estate gift contract or real estate exchange contract should not establish the criminal breach of trust, and relevant Supreme Court precedents must be changed. 대법원 판례에 따르면 부동산이중매매는 배임죄가 된다. 즉, 부동산매매계약에서 중도금이 지급되는 등 계약이 본격적으로 이행되는 단계에 이른 때에 매도인은 매수인의 재산보전에 협력하여 재산적 이익을 보호·관리할 신임관계에 있게 되며 그때부터 배임죄에서 말하는 ‘타인의 사무를 처리하는 자’에 해당하고, 그러한 지위에 있는 매도인이 부동산을 제3자에게 처분하면 배임죄가 성립한다. 서면에 의한 부동산 증여계약이나 부동산교환계약의 경우에도 부동산이중매매의 법리를 적용하여 목적부동산의 소유권을 이전할 의무는 ‘타인의 사무’에 해당하고 그 부동산을 제3자에게 처분하면 배임죄가 성립한다는 것이 판례이다. 그러나 부동산이중매매가 배임죄에 해당한다는 판례의 취지를 긍정한다고 하더라도 서면에 의한 부동산증여계약ㆍ부동산교환계약 불이행이 동일한 법리에 따라 배임죄에 해당한다는 논리적 구조에는 동의할 수 없다. 왜냐하면 부동산매매와 부동산증여 및 부동산교환은 민법의 계약법적 측면에서도 상이하고, 형법상의 보호법익 측면에서도 상이하며, 오로지 부동산의 소유권이전이라는 계약 목적만이 동일할 뿐이어서 위와 같은 계약 전부에 대하여 부동산이중매매의 배임죄법리를 동일하게 적용하는 것은 상이한 측면을 간과한 논리의 비약이다. 따라서 서면에 의한 부동산증여계약ㆍ부동산교환계약 불이행에 대해서는 배임죄의 성립을 부정하여야 하고 그에 대한 기존의 대법원 판례는 변경되어야 한다.

일반 논문 : 해제권의 요건으로서 계약위반의 중대성에 관한 비교법적 연구 -영국계약법, 미국계약법, 국제물품매매협약(CISG)과 민법개정시안을 중심으로-

이제우 ( Jewoo Lee ) 고려대학교 법학연구원 2015 고려법학 Vol.0 No.77

법무부 민법개정위원회의 2013년 민법개정시안에 따르면 채무불이행으로 인한 해제권은 현행 민법 제544조 내지 제546조에서 규정하고 있는것과 달리 하나의 일반조항(개정시안 제544조)을 통해서 규율되고 있다. 그 결과 현행 민법에서 채무불이행의 유형에 따라 개별적으로 규정되고 있는 법정해제권의 요건들이 통일되어 채무불이행이 있으면 그러한 채무 불이행이 ‘경미하여 계약의 목적달성에 지장이 없는’ 한 해제가 가능하다. 그런데 개정시안은 계약해제권과 관련된 내용에 있어 몇 가지 측면에서 아쉬운 모습을 보인다. 개정시안에 대해서 특기할 점을 언급하자면 다음과 같다. 첫째, 민법개정위원회가 본질성 또는 중대성과 같은 적극적 요건이 아닌 경미성으로 표현되는 소극적 요건을 도입하는 것은 입증책임의 체계를 혼란스럽게 할 뿐만 아니라 해제권의 요건을 불분명하게 하는 문제가 있다. ‘경미하지 않은’ 채무불이행으로 인해 ‘계약의 목적달성에 지장이 있는 경우’가 무엇을 의미하는지 생소하고 불확실하다. 둘째, 개정시안은 ‘최고 후 해제’의 원칙을 고수하고 있는데 채무불이 행의 일정한 성질을 요건으로 해제권의 발생을 판단하는 입장을 취하면서도 계속해서 원칙적으로 최고를 요구하는 것이 바람직한지 검토할 필요가 있다. 셋째, 개정시안은 계약해제의 요건으로 귀책사유를 배제하고 있다. 그러나 국제입법례를 살펴보면 예견가능성과 고의적 또는 무모한 채무불이 행이 해제권의 요건으로서 중요한 의미를 갖는다. 이러한 요건에 대한 고려 없이 무조건 귀책사유를 배척하는 것은 오히려 국제적 입법동향에 반하는 개정이 될 수 있는 만큼 조심스런 접근이 요구된다. 이처럼 개정시안의 여러 문제는 본질적 계약위반 개념을 중심으로 발전해온 CISG와 국제입법례에 대한 깊은 이해를 요한다. 이를 위해서는 해제제도에 있어 CISG에 직·간접적으로 중요한 영향을 미친 코먼로도 살펴볼 필요가 있다. 다만 영국계약법과 미국계약법이 적지 않은 차이를 보이는 만큼 이를 개별적으로 검토하기로 한다. 한편, 국제입법례 중에는“유럽계약법원칙”(Principles of European Contract Law, 이하 PECL), “국제상사계약원칙”(UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts, 이하 PICC) 그리고 “공통참조기준초안”(Draft Common Frame of Reference, 이하 DCFR)을 중심으로 ‘본질적 계약위반’ 개념을 살펴보기로 한다. According to Art. 544 of the Draft bill of the Civil Code (2013) the institution of avoidance in Korean civil law is set to under go a major revision. However the proposed changes to the current norms leave much to be desired. Therefore the purpose of this paper is to analyse and criticize Art. 544 of the Draft bill, by comparing English contract law, American contract law, CISG and other international contract law. First, by incorporating the concept of fundamental breach of contract but only in a passive manner, by means of the concept of ``triviality of breach`` and ``hinderance to the realization of the purpose of a contract`` the Draft bill dilutes the already unfamiliar and vague concept of fundamentality of breach. Such an approach is adopted by the drafters of the bill in order to incorporate the concept of fundamentality of breach of contract in such a manner as to sustain as much as possible the current institution of avoidance. Despite the best endeavors of the drafters the Draft bill is riddled with contradiction. Second, the Draft bill retains the Nachfrist principle while (indirectly) adopting the concept of the fundamental breach of contract.Considering that the two serve the same purpose such an amendment is undesirable. Finally, the drafters of the bill decided against the inclusion of a clause concerning intentional non-performance. It was argued that the avoidance of contract should not be determined by the negligent or intentional behaviour of the party in breach. However an examination of international contract law reveals that the subjective condition on the part of the debtor should be considered when deciding on whether the right of avoidance arises or not.

契約解除의 本質 및 效果

金大貞(Kim Dae-Jeong) 중앙대학교 법학연구원 2007 法學論文集 Vol.31 No.1

  (1) The system of a cancellation of the Korean Civil code(KBGB) inherited the system of a cancellation of the abrogated old Korean Civil code(the Japanese Civil code), and the system is a compromise between the system of French Civil code(Code civil) and the system of German Civil code(BGB).<BR>  (2) The system of a cancellation is a system that has been designed for protecting the innocent party(creditor) who has already performed his contractual obligations in bilateral contract. The institutional significance of the system of a cancellation is that it is a special remedies for innocent party(creditor) to free himself unilaterally from biding force of contract. Namely, the system of a cancellation is a system that is recognized by the Principle of Good faith and Fair dealing to protect innocent party effectively and that is the system for making up for the weak points in the system of damages for breach of contract. By understanding the nature of a cancellation as the sytem of making up for the weak points in the system of damages for breach of contract, we can clear up the §551 of KBGB that admits the retrospective effect of cancellation of the contract ab initio, while admits the concurrence of damages for breach of contract.<BR>  (3) The question whether a cancellation of the contract has a retrospective effect or not is not the pure theoretical problem but the problem of a definite decision in optional legislative policies. Therefore, the question which is proper interpretative theory on the KBGB between ?the theory of directive effect? and ?the theory of relation of liquidation? is dependent upon whether KBGB provide the retrospective effect to restore the status quo ante(restitution of performance, thus restoring the parties to their precontractual positions) of contract as the effect of the cancellation or not. From this point of view, we can say that the KBGB coincide with ?the Theory of directive effect?. Because the KBGB clearly distinguish between a termination of the contract which simply brings to an end any duty to perform obligations which have not yet been performed and a cancellation of the contract which rescind the whole contract ab initio to restore the status quo ante, and the KBGB provides the third party protection clause §548(1) that supposes a proprietary effect of a cancellation of the contract.<BR>  (4) Restoration the status quo ante by the cancellation of the contract has proprietary effect, and the right to claim restoration for a cancellation of the contract has a nature as a proprietary right to claim. The §548(1) is a special clause to prevent destroying the safety of deal that caused by restoring the real right to original owner by cancellation of the contract as a matter of course.<BR>  (5) The essential contents of a cancellation of the contract is to restore the status quo ante(the original condition) that has proprietary effect for making up for the real problem(weak points) in the system of damages for breach of contract. So even the effect of a contract extinguishs retrospectively by a cancellation of the contract but the right to claim damages for breach of contract(non-performance) does not extinguish. The §551 of KBGB is the prescription that makes clear this point of view. And although the law make fiction that the contract has been extinguished retrospectively by a cancellation of the contract, the real losses of a innocent party for breach of contract would never extinguish. Therefore, it would be desirable to recognize the right of a innocent party to claim damages for breach of contract separately the retrospective effect of a cancellation of the contract and the effect of restoring the status quo ante.