본문 바로가기

추천 검색어

실시간 인기 검색어

학술논문

계약상 의무위반과 구제법리

이용수 368

영문명
Remidies for Breach of Contract
발행기관
한국재산법학회
저자명
홍성재(Sung-Jae Hong)
간행물 정보
『재산법연구』財産法硏究 第27卷 第2號, 155~203쪽, 전체 49쪽
주제분류
법학 > 법학
파일형태
PDF
발행일자
2010.10.30
8,680

구매일시로부터 72시간 이내에 다운로드 가능합니다.
이 학술논문 정보는 (주)교보문고와 각 발행기관 사이에 저작물 이용 계약이 체결된 것으로, 교보문고를 통해 제공되고 있습니다.

1:1 문의
논문 표지

국문 초록

영문 초록

A party in a contract should perform the duty of the contract. The duty of contract consists of main performance obligation, collateral obligation and protective obligation. Main performance obligation corresponds to the duty which determines the substance and nature of a contract. In case when main performance obligation is infringed, it can enforce the performance of the contract, and the compensation for the breach of contract and cancellation of the contract are admitted. And collateral obligation is the duty for the purpose of protecting benefits of a contract. Although there is an argument whether to classify performance obligation into main performance obligation and collateral obligation or not, these are distinguished from each other in this study. That is because unlike infringing main performance obligation, violating collateral obligation is not allowed to enforce to perform or cancel the contract. It is only allowed to claim damage reparations. Also, a duty of safety is not based on the party’s will, but on forcd obligation in accordance with good faith and fair dealing. And unlike the collateral obligation, the duty of safety aims at protecting another party’s integrity or existing interest. But, in case of violating the duty of safety, it is not allowed to force the performance of duty, but is only allowed to claim for damage reparations. This kind of duty of safety holds good from the process after the extinguishment of the contract. Also, a third party beside the party involved in the contract can the person concerned of protective obligation. However, even though these have the same substance, a duty to give attention to and protective obligation should be distinguished. The reason is that among the duties to give attention to, there is a case which belongs to performance obligation that entails a certain legal relation like labor contracts. Also, even if both of them accompany legal benefits, the transit security duty of tort law and the protective obligation of contract law should be distinguished. The party who is damaged by violating duty of safety, rather than the party who is damaged by infringing transit security duty, is able to receive remedy for the right according to legal principles of contract liability, which is superior in aspects of responsibility for proof or extinctive rescription. In the meantime, the obligation of contract as above belongs to the substance of a obligation, so violating it is applicable to non-fulfillment. Then it takes different remedies according to the case of non-fulfillment; delay in performance, non-impossibility and imperfect performance. Also it takes different requirement according to the ways of remedy for the right; forcing the performance of obligation, claiming compensation for the damage or canceling a contract. Especially, in case that excessive damage beyond benefits of a contract is incurred because of non-impossibility and imperfect performance, there is no room for claiming forced performance or canceling a contract. And unlike forced performance, in order to claim compensation for the damage, the damage due to the breach of contract should be incurred because of the reason that obligor can be blamed of. Besides, in case of canceling the contract, obligor should be responsible forthat. However, in occasion of delay in performance, it is allowed to cancel the contract only when it doesn't perform the obligation of contract within a grace period. Of course, in case that obligation of a onerous contract is imperfectly performed, damaged party can claim responsibility about warranties liability of non-negligence. of negotiating a contract, through the process of realization of the contract, obligor should be responsible for that.

목차

Ⅰ. 서 론
Ⅱ. 계약상 의무의 체계
Ⅲ. 주된 급부의무 위반과 채무불이행
Ⅳ. 부수적 의무와 그 위반에 따른 효과
Ⅴ. 보호의무와 그 위반으로 인한 책임
Ⅵ. 맺는 말

키워드

해당간행물 수록 논문

참고문헌

교보eBook 첫 방문을 환영 합니다!

신규가입 혜택 지급이 완료 되었습니다.

바로 사용 가능한 교보e캐시 1,000원 (유효기간 7일)
지금 바로 교보eBook의 다양한 콘텐츠를 이용해 보세요!

교보e캐시 1,000원
TOP
인용하기
APA

홍성재(Sung-Jae Hong). (2010).계약상 의무위반과 구제법리. 재산법연구, 27 (2), 155-203

MLA

홍성재(Sung-Jae Hong). "계약상 의무위반과 구제법리." 재산법연구, 27.2(2010): 155-203

결제완료
e캐시 원 결제 계속 하시겠습니까?
교보 e캐시 간편 결제