쌍무계약해제의 요건으로서 이행최고와 이행제공 : 대법원 2022. 10. 27. 선고 2022다238053 판결 = Notice of Performance and Tender as Prerequisites for Termination of Contract : Supreme Court Decision on Oct. 27, 2022, case no. 2022Da238053

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

The pretext of article 544 of Korea’s Civil Code stipulates that a reasonable period of additional time shall be set and a notice of performance shall be made in order to terminate a contract. If the obligor neither performs nor offers the tender of performance of its obligations within that period, the obligee can terminate the contract. In a decision rendered on Oct. 27, 2022, case no. 2022Da238053, the Supreme Court holds that the invalid notice of termination shall be reinterpreted into or valid as a notice of performance, and that the conclusion of a trust agreement for securing a debt alone does not constitute the actual tender of payment. The former is an application of existing case law, while the latter is new. The former ruling is, however, not only unjust in theory, but also would lead to an unjust result in practice, which is demonstrated in the very case. Fortunately, there were material breaches of contracts in all the cases that previously applied this case law and recognized termination, while the termination was eventually denied for other reasons in the case where there was no material breach and the obligee sought opportunistic termination. In contrast, the aforementioned decision affirmed termination despite the absence of material breach. The latter holding is also unjust, as the tender of payment can also be provided orally when it comes to an executory contract, and the conclusion of a trust agreement for securing a debt can constitute the oral tender of performance with excluding termination.

참고문헌 (Reference)

• 1 황적인, "현대민법론 IV" 박영사 1987
• 2 손명지, "해제요건론의 동향에 대한 비판적 검토 - 유책요건과 최고요건을 중심으로 -" 법학연구소 46 (46): 1-26, 2022
• 3 여하윤, "프랑스 민법상 재판상 해제(résolution judiciaire) 요건 검토" 한국재산법학회 34 (34): 33-61, 2017
• 4 이동진, "청헌 김증한 교수 30주기 추모논문집간행위원회 편 우리 법 70년 변화와 전망" 법문사 2018
• 5 곽윤직, "채권각론" 박영사 2014
• 6 김용덕 편집대표, "주석민법[채권각칙 1]" 한국사법행정학회 2021
• 7 김창석, "이행지체를 원인으로 한 계약해제의 요건으로서의 이행의 최고" 한국법학원 (57) : 2000
• 8 명순구, "우리 민법상 이행지체로 인한 계약해제와 그 비교법적 특성" 한양대학교 법학연구소 (12) : 1995
• 9 양진섭, "부동산담보신탁에 관한 연구" 서울대학교 대학원 2012
• 10 서울고등법원, "민사판례해설(2019. 7. 1.자 공보∼ 2023. 6. 15.자 공보) 제1권(민법, 상사)" 15-, 2019
• 11 박범석, "대법원판례해설 제95호" 법원도서관 2013
• 12 北居 功, "解除要件規定の構造論 - 解釈論および立法論の視点から -" 법학연구소 36 (36): 167-198, 2016
• 13 北川善太郎, "日本法学の歴史と理論" 1968
• 14 谷口知平, "新版注釈民法(13)" 2006
• 15 渡辺達德, "新注釈民法(11)II" 2023
• 16 北居 功, "契約履行の動態理論Ⅰ―弁済提供論" 2013
• 17 平井宜雄, "債権各論一上契約総論" 2008
• 18 "Wahl, Schuldnerverzug"
• 19 Peel, "Treitel on The Law of Contract" 2011
• 20 Stannard, "Termination for Breach of Contract" 2014
• 21 "Staudinger Kommentar zum BGB/Schwarze, Neubearbeitung"
• 22 Schlechtriem, "Schuldrecht Allgemeiner Teil" 2005
• 23 Brooks, "Remedies On and Off Contract" 120 : 690-, 2011
• 24 Craswell, "Passing On the Cost of Legal Rules : Efficiency and Distribution in Buyer-Seller Relationships" 43 : 361-, 1991
• 25 U. Huber, "Leistungsstörungen, Bd. II" 1999
• 26 U. Huber, "Leistungsstörungen, Bd. I"
• 27 Rummel, "Kommentar zum ABGB/Reischauer" 918-, 2000
• 28 "Historisch-kritischer Kommentar zum BGB/Hattenhauer, Bd. II/2"
• 29 "Hage-Chahine, Rep.dr.civ., Resolution-Resiliation (fevrier 2021)"
• 30 Schmidt-Kessel, "Gläubigerverzug" HWB-EuP 2009
• 31 Stannard, "Delay in the Performance of Contractual Obligations" 2007
• 32 "Basler Kommentar/Wiegand, Art. 107 OR, 3. Aufl."