계약교섭의 일방파기와 손해배상책임 - 대상판결 : 대법원 2003. 4. 11. 선고 2001다53059 판결

• 영문명: One-Side Break-Off of Contract Negotiation and Liability for Damages
• 발행기관: 중앙대학교 법학연구원
• 저자명: 이은영(Lee Eun-Young)
• 간행물 정보: 『법학논문집』法學論文集 第30輯 第2號, 321~345쪽, 전체 25쪽
• 주제분류: 법학 > 법학
• 파일형태: PDF
• 발행일자: 2006.12.30

영문 초록

  The case being reviewed dealt with liabilities of a party who broke off negotiation of product supply contract one-sidedly. The existence and scope of responsibilities of compensation for damages caused by one-side breaking-off of contract negotiation are at main legal issue.
  The defendant had requested some artists to make a tentative plan of sculpture respectively on condition that the defendant would select finally one plan out of tentative plans and get a contract of product/supply/installation of sculpture with a selected artist. Thereafter the defendant selected the plaintiff"s tentative plan of sculpture and notified the plaintiff of the fact in reality.
  In this case have a definite product supply contract been concluded? If not, what reason does justify liabilities of a party who broke off negotiation of product supply contract one-sidedly? If the liability of one-side breaking-off of contract negotiation is admitted, how far extend limits of compensation for damages?
  The Korean Supreme Court denied the conclusion of definite contract because the plaintiff"s request, selection and notification of selection couldn"t be regarded as a expression of subscription. The request and selection of tentative plans in the case are nothing but arrangements or negotiation for conclusion of contract.
  One party oughts to be faithful to another party in good faith while arranging or negotiating of contracts which last from beginning of negotiation to conclusion of contract. If a party neglect duties of care, he ought to compensate for damages caused by negligence. The court admitted tort liability of the defendant because the plaintiff"s had just expectation or reliance that definite contract would be concluded surely. However, it would be reasonable that responsibilities of compensation for damages is constructed on the basis of not tort liability but contractual liability(Culpa in contrahendo) in case that plaintiffs acquire rights of exclusive contract negotiation.
  With regard to the scope of liabilities caused by one-side breaking-off of contract negotiation, liabilities amount to compensation of reliance interest commonly. The court decided on the case that the plaintiff could claim consolation money for mental injuries in case of infringement of personal benefits.

목차

Ⅰ. 사건의 개요 및 법적 쟁점
Ⅱ. 이 사건 계약의 성립여부
Ⅲ. 계약교섭의 일방파기로 인한 손해배상책임
Ⅳ. 계약교섭의 일방파기로 인한 손해배상책임의 범위
〈Abstract〉

키워드

계약교섭(Contract Negotiation) 일방파기(One-Side Breaking-Off) 합의(Agreement) 예약(Preengagement) 손해배상(Compensation for Damages) 불법행위책임(Tort Liability) 계약책임(Contractual Liability) 계약체결상 과실책임(Culpa in Contrahendo) 계약이전단계의 책임(Precontractual Liability) 위자료(Consolation Money) 신뢰이익(Reliance Interest) 이행이익(Performance Interest)