‘제3자 보호효력 있는 계약’의 의미에 대한 소고 = A Review on Contract with Protective Effect for the Third Parties

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

According to the principle of Freedom of Contract, there is freedom to choose the other side of contract and there comes the relative effect of contract. Both contracting parties could make a deal to have an effect on each other regulated by the principle of private autonomy.
The others are generally the other side of the contract. In some cases when there are regulations for the third parties, this could be a contract in favour of the third parties, though. Otherwise, the effect of contract is not to reach the third parties in principle. In some cases, though, the third could use this contract for the accomplishment of it, or could get damage by the intention or the negligence of the debtor.
As the above cases, there are many conditions where parties other than those in contract are involved. Under these circumstances where the thirds have loss by the intention or the negligence of the performance assistant, it would be inappropriate that they could only exercise the rights for the compensation of the damage caused by tort, especially when the performance assistant is incapable of compensation.
The paper “Contract with Protective Effect for the Third Parties” claims it is insufficient to protect the third by the regulations of general tort because the damage to the third could not be compensated by the proviso of article 756(1). This paper could be the cornerstone to the protection of the third from the effect of the contract. This provided a change to the view that the relative effect of the contract is constant, furthermore, a room to discuss the effect of contract could reach the third. To define the personal reach of the contract could have new meaning in modern complicated society. There are lots of complex legal relations not expected in the past, so contracting parties could not mention and agree all the third parties affected so comes the necessity to protect them like the debtor.
This study reviewed the paper, the meaning to that time and the discussion of today. Like Germany that developed statutory law after cumulative discussions over a long time, we could unfold various studies on the reach of person and time of the contract to enact a rational law that fits modern society.

참고문헌 (Reference)

• 1 김재형, "한약업사의 설명의무- 醫師의 說明義務 法理의 연장선상에 있는가? -硏究對象判決: 대법원 2002. 12. 10. 선고 2001다56904 판결(공 2003, 327)" 한국민사법학회 (26) : 241-276, 2004
• 2 김형배, "한국법학의 회고와 전망" 법문사 1991
• 3 서광민, "채권법상의 보호의무" 서강대학교 법학연구소 3 : 2001
• 4 송덕수, "채권법각론" 박영사 2021
• 5 이은영, "채권각론" 박영사 1999
• 6 김용담, "주석 민법 : 채권각칙 (3)" 한국사법행정학회 2016
• 7 김용담, "주석 민법 : 채권각칙 (1)" 한국사법행정학회 2016
• 8 박희호, "제3자에 대한 責任 ― ‘제3자 보호효 있는 계약’의 도입을 지지하며 ―" 한국민사법학회 (30) : 385-429, 2005
• 9 임건면, "제3자손해청산과 제3자보호효를 가진 계약" 한국재산법학회 15 (15): 1998
• 10 한권탁, "자원봉사자를 둘러싼 법률문제에 관한 소고" 법학연구소 14 (14): 132-157, 2020
• 11 남기연, "스포츠 팀닥터의 선수에 대한 민사책임" 한국스포츠엔터테인먼트법학회 17 (17): 179-195, 2014
• 12 임건면, "분만과정 중 피해를 입은 태아의 계약상의 손해배상청구권 - 독일에서의 논의를 중심으로 -" 법학연구원 20 (20): 125-148, 2008
• 13 이영준, "법사상과 민사법" 춘제 현승종박사 화갑기념논문집 간행위원회 1979
• 14 김민중, "민법학의 회고와 전망(민법전 시행 30주년 기념논문집)" 한국 사법행정학회 1993
• 15 송덕수, "민법학논총, 후암 곽윤직 교수 회갑기념" 박영사 1985
• 16 곽윤직, "민법주해 13 : 채권 (6)" 박영사 1997
• 17 지원림, "민법강의" 홍문사 2020
• 18 박희호, "계약체결상의 과실책임과 위법성" 법학연구소 (18) : 249-279, 2005
• 19 김상중, "간접피해자의 보호 - 제3자 보호효를 가진 계약과 제3자 손해청산제도의 필요여부" 한국민사법학회 (36) : 461-490, 2007
• 20 유원규, "가옥소유자의 임차인에 대한 공작물책임" 민사판례연구회 12 : 1990