반응성구조체의 고속충돌에 따른 온도분포 분석

정상현,조수경,배광태,이기봉,Jung, Sang-Hyun,Cho, Soo Gyeong,Bae, Gwang Tae,Lee, Kibong 한국군사과학기술학회 2017 한국군사과학기술학회지 Vol.20 No.5

The temperature profiles upon high speed impact of reactive structural materials were analyzed. A two color pyrometer, which included high-speed camera, spectral splitter, and band pass filters, was utilized to measure transient temperature profiles during and after reactive metal samples impacted into steel plate with velocities of 1600~1700 m/s. The spatial temperature distribution was analyzed from the ratio of spectral radiances at two different wavelength in infrared zone, i.e. 700 and 900 nm. The measured temperatures were calibrated with black body source. Two different types of metal samples, namely aluminum and nickel, were employed to understand reaction behavior upon the impact of samples in ambient condition. According to our experiments, the Ni sample appeared to barely react with ambient air producing an instant small fireball, while Al sample reacts violently with air generating a relatively prolong fireball.

하나의 관리도로 공정 평균과 분산의 변화를 탐지하는 절차

정상현,이재현,Jung, Sang-Hyun,Lee, Jae-Heon 한국통계학회 2008 응용통계연구 Vol.21 No.3

평균과 분산이 동시에 변화할 수 있는 공정을 관리할 경우, 평균의 변화를 탐지하는 관리도와 분산의 변화를 탐지하는 관리도를 병행하여 사용하는 것이 일반적이다. 여러 연구자들이 하나의 관리도를 사용하여 공정 평균과 분산의 변화를 동시에 탐지할 수 있는 절차를 제안했는데, 이 논문에서는 이와 같은 관리도들을 소개하고 그 효율을 비교하였다. 그 결과 GLR 관리도 Omnibus EWMA 관리도 그리고 Interval 관리도는 충분히 좋은 효율을 가짐을 알 수 있었다. Two control charts are usually required to monitor both the process mean and variance. In this paper, we introduce control procedures for jointly monitoring the process mean and variance with one control chart, and investigate efficiency of the introduced charts by comparing with the combined two EWMA charts. Our numerical results show that the GLR chart, the Omnibus EWMA chart, and the Interval chart have good ARL properties for simultaneous changes in the process mean and variance.

대리권 남용행위에 대한 효과차단의 근거와 대리본질론의 역할 재검토 - 표현대리에 대한 대리권 남용 법리의 적용 판례를 중심으로 -

鄭相鉉 ( Jung Sang Hyun ) 법조협회 2019 法曹 Vol.68 No.5

로마법 이래 근대에 이르기까지 법률행위를 하는 자와 그에 따른 법률효과를 받는 자가 동일하다는 것은 오랜 역사를 통하여 구축된 법률전통이었다. 근대 이후의 사회·경제적 변화는 법률행위를 하지 않은 자에게 법률효과를 귀속시키기 위한 법률제도와 그 이론적 근거의 창안을 견인하였다. 이에 따라 대리제도가 등장하고 대리의 본질을 설명하기 위한 이론적 노력이 독일 보통법을 중심으로 활발하게 전개되었다. 본인행위설, 공동행위설, 대리인행위설 등이 그것이며, 20세기 중반을 거치면서 등장한 통합요건설과 행위규율분리설의 설명 방법은 또 다른 논란거리를 낳았다. 전통적인 대리인행위설은 표현대리를 무권대리로 보고 대리권 남용 법리가 적용되는 것은 유권대리를 전제로 한 개념이라고 생각하였다. 그러나 행위규율분리설에 의하면 표현대리의 법적 성격을 유권대리로 볼 뿐만 아니라 상대방이 알았거나 알 수 있는 대리권 남용행위를 무권대리로 이해하여 기존의 인식체계를 흔들어 놓았다. 나아가 우리나라에서는 표현대리에 대하여 대리권 남용 법리를 적용한 판결도 나타났다. 그 결론은 대리의 본질에 관한 대리인행위설과 그 대척점에 있는 행위규율분리설 중 어떤 견해에 의하더라도 이해하기 어렵다. 대리인행위설을 따르면 위 판결은 무권대리에 불과한 표현대리에 대하여 유권대리를 전제로 하는 대리권 남용의 법리를 적용한 결과가 된다. 또한 행위규율분리설에 따르면 위 판결은 유권대리로 보는 표현대리인에 대하여 대리권 남용의 법리를 적용함으로써 그를 무권대리로 만들고, 이때 이 무권대리인은 표현대리 규정의 적용으로 다시 유권대리가 될 수 있어서 무한반복의 순환론에 빠지고 만다. 결국 위 판결의 결론에는 동일한 사실에 대하여 서로 양립할 수 없는 두 인식체계가 공존하기 때문에, 대리의 본질에 관한 어떤 입장을 취하더라도 논리적이고 균형적인 해석이 불가능하다. 대리권 남용행위는 형식상 대리행위의 요건을 모두 충족하였으므로 대리효과가 발생하는 것이 원칙이다. 다만 대리인의 배임행위에 대하여 그 상대방의 비난가능성, 즉 대리인의 배임의사를 알았거나 알 수 있었던 경우 본인 보호를 위하여 예외적으로 대리효과 발생을 배척할 뿐이다. 그러므로 이러한 대리권 남용 법리의 적용범위는 가급적 제한되어야 하고, 표현대리에까지 이를 적용하는 것은 타당하지 않다. 생각건대 표현대리에 의한 법률효과 귀속과 대리권 남용법리 적용은 별개로 논의되어야 한다. 대리권 남용행위는 엄연히 유권대리에 적용될 수 있으며, 이때 현명을 포함하여 대리행위의 일반적 요건에 흠결이 없다면, 본인에 대한 효과발생을 차단할 논리적 근거는 없다. 그렇다면 이러한 경우에 오히려 본인에 대한 효과귀속은 인정하되, 대리인이 대리권 남용행위를 한 점과 상대방이 이를 알았거나 알 수 있었다는 점에 대한 유책성에 근거하여 이들의 법률관계를 재구성하는 편이 낫다. 표현대리가 성립하였고 표현대리인이 대리권 남용행위를 하였더라도 그 대리행위의 효과를 본인에게 귀속시킨다면 본인이 그로 인하여 손해를 입을 것임은 자명하다. 이러한 본인의 손해를 전보하기 위하여, 표현대리인의 배임행위와 상대방의 악의 또는 과실에 근거하여 이들 모두에게 불법행위에 근거한 손해배상책임을 지우면 될 것이다. It is a legal tradition built through a long history that the effect of the legal acts is attributed to themselves who conduct it until the 19th century. Since then, socioeconomic changes have led to the creation of a legal system and its rationale for attributing legal effects to those who have not acted. Therefore, the agency system appeared, and the efforts to explain the relation between the separate legal actors and the effect attributors and the reason for the legitimate legal effect were actively developed centering on the German Common Law. Those are ‘the theory of principal behavior’, ‘the theory of agent behavior’ and ‘the theory of principal and agent joint behavior’ etc. And other theories that appeared later, ‘the theory of integration requirement’ and ‘the theory of separation of behavior and discipline’ have caused another controversy. While accepting the legislative historical ground that the provisions on the agency of the Korean Civil Law were made by ‘the theory of agent behavior’, there are opinions which argued differently in specific cases. One of the most serious issues is appeared the case in which the theory on the abuse of agency authority, that is to say the theory which block an effect of legitimate agent's legal conduct for his betrayal intention, apply to the non-authorized agent represented a legitimate agent. In particular, the such conclusion of the present case is difficult to reasonably understand, even by any theory on the nature of agency. There is no provision in the Koran Civil Code that expresses external agency authority such as in Article 167, Paragraph 1 of the German Civil Code. The most similar provision seems to be the Article 125 of the Korean Civil Code as to the non-authorized agent looks like a legitimate agent. However, this provision differs from the German Civil Code in light of its requirements and effects, and also Article 126 and Article 129. Therefore, it is not convincing to insist on ‘the theory on the separation of behavior and discipline’ based on Korean Civil Code. Of course, we can not stop making such a claim as theories to explain the nature of agency regardless of the provisions of our Civil Code. However, in light of Article 130 of that Code, a contract made by an agent without authority is not effective, if he does not receive the confirmation of principal. It is difficult to understand the logic that take the agenda of an representative agent who is only non-authorized agent as a legitimate agent. The regulations on representative agent are also subject to only ‘principal is responsible to’(Article 125, Article 126) or ‘principal can not resist’. It dose not take the agenda non-authorized agent as a legitimate agent. In principle, agency authority abusing conduct itself is a substitute effect, unlike the case of the application of theory on the abuse of agency authority, since it fulfills all the requirements of legitimate agent's conduct. However, if the other party of agent knew or could know the betrayal intention of the agent, the effect of the agent’s conduct is blocked for the protection of the principal. Therefore, the application of the theory on the abuse of agency authority should be limited as much as possible, and it is not reasonable to apply this to non-authorized representative agent. I think that the attribution of legal effects by non-authorized representative agent’s conduct to the principal and the application of the theory on the abuse of agency authority should be discussed separately. It is better to reorganize their legal relationship based on the fact that the agent has acted an abuse of agency authority and that the other party knew or could have known about it. It is obvious that if non-authorized representative agent is established and he has done the action on abuse of agency authority, therefore the principal has the effect of the agency and he will be harmed inevitably. In order to convey these damages of the principal, it will be possible for authority abusing agent and his other side to bear liability of tort based on the betrayal intention of non-authorized representative agent and the malice or negligence of the other party.

離婚으로 인한 財産分割請求權의 法的 性格과 相續의 認定 與否에 대한 法理 再檢討(上)

정상현(Jung Sang-Hyun) 성균관대학교 법학연구소 2006 성균관법학 Vol.18 No.1

  This article deals with the legal character of the claim for the division of matrimonial property, and with the possibility of succession on the property divided. The division of matrimonial property is a very serious problem to married couple at the time of their dissolution, and practically a large number of judicial precedents in connected with this problem have accumulated already. Therefore this research divides two articles for the arrangement of various theory and precedents. In this serial number, I publish the first article which includes general contents on the right of claim for division of the matrimonial property, legislative background of provision in connected with the right in the Korean Civil Code(the fallow as KCC), and matters on legal character and succession of the right of claim. The second article will be published in next serial number, and it should include the decision of subject, concrete method, standard and ratio for division of matrimonial property, especially in judicial precedents, the matters concerned with the way to distinguish the portion of property which is able to succeed from is not able to.<BR>  I think that several following points have to make a study further detail in this article.<BR>  The origin of family is a that of property, and the relation of husband and wife is the same means as the economical organization. The matrimonial property is the essential qualities of family life, and it is a very important matter of the family law who possess the property have been acquired in married period. In spite of that matter"s seriousness, in Korea, for some past time, the problem of properties possession have not been discussed at all. As a matter of course, the matrimonial properties that even had been possessed to wife since the wedding time and have been acquired in married period belong to the husband in essence as well as in outward form, because in a large percentage of married couple, most of wives have not economic and social independence from husband"s management and guardianship under the "Patriarchal System".<BR>  But the present days, the legislative matter to regulate the matrimonial property rise to the surface by reason of improvement of wife"s economic position in family. Therefore the KCC has "the Matrimonial Property System" ever since the time of its establishment, and it separately had provisions that is able to regulate the possession of properties from contract of husband and wife, and otherwise to regulate by statutory. The former calls "the Contractual Property System"(KCC Sec. 829) and the latter calls "the Legal Property System"(KCC Sec. 830 and the following). Merely in Korea, the utilization of Contractual Property System is unsatisfied, and therefore in general we obey the Legal Property System provided by the statute law. According to the KCC, it provides that properties have been possessed since the wedding time or acquired in married period by a party belong to that party exclusively(Art.830 Para.1), provides that in principle these peculiar properties are possessed, took charge and shall be able to dispose by each one(Art.831), and provides that the indefinite properties to whom to belong is presumed the co-ownership of husband and wife(Art.830 Para.2).<BR>  Even though the matrimonial property is based on "the Separate System", it is not serious problem that the properties of a married couple to whom to belong or to be registered at the happy time of husband and wife. However it is necessary to arrange the properties acquired collaboratively by a married couple, at the time of dissolution of marriage such as divorce. At this time, the right of claim for division of the matrimonial property have been endow to each of husband and wife. On the KCC, it had not been mentioned at the time of the establishment of Code in 1960, but the provision of Article 2 of 839 about it was inserted n

離婚으로 인한 財産分割請求權의 法的 性質과 相續의 認定 與否에 대한 法理 再檢討(下)

정상현(Jung Sang Hyun) 성균관대학교 비교법연구소 2006 성균관법학 Vol.18 No.3

This article is connected with the former serials of the last term. It deals with the matters to divide matrimonial properties at the time of divorce, the object of properties to divide, concrete method and ratio of division and so on. Especially in judicial precedents, there is the matter concerned with the distinction to the portion of properties to be succeeded or not. By the way, that matter is able to be solved according to the conclusion that right of the claim for the division on matrimonial property is what for the substantial liquidation of co-ownership(husband and wife) or maintenance for a piteous party after divorce. The general views and judicial precedents have brought out of the standpoint that the right of claim for the division on matrimonial properties have double characters of the substantial liquidation of co-ownership and the maintenance for a piteous party after divorce. And they emphasize that the legal character of the right of claim draws an inference from two elements, liquidation and maintenance. On the other hand, they also insist that the amount of liquidation among the properties divided at the time of divorce is able to be succeeded, the amount of maintenance is not. But such interpretation has a big error. It cannot explain that how is the one right able to have the dual characters at the same time such as liquidation and maintenance, and that if the amount of liquidation is able to be succeeded and the amount of maintenance is not, whether the single right of claim for the division of matrimonial property on the whole is able to be succeeded or not. Even though the possibility of succession has been determined with due consideration of the liquidation or maintenance, according to various precedents continually be accumulated from year 1991, there are no precedents to decide separately the part of liquidation and the part of maintenance. Consequently, I think that the theories and precedents have to unify the one character for a liquidation or maintenance in concerned with the legal character of the claim for the division on matrimonial property, and that especially precedents should give a decision to separate plainly the part of liquidation and the part of maintenance at the time of division the matrimonial property. It is appropriate view that the legal character of the claim for the division of matrimonial property is to liquidate cooperating properties of married couple at the time of divorce on the ground of husband"s and wife"s contribution to properties. Therefore, I think that the right of claim should be succeeded, if the claimer is dead. Needless to say that the maintenance for wife who is wanted a economical ability after divorce should be considered separately such as a legislative policy for the protection of women. One step forward, I hope to point out several mistakes on the Article 839-2 of the Korean Civil Code. It provides that (1) one of the parties who has been divorced by consent may claim a division of property against the other party(para. Ⅰ), (2) if any consent is not made for a division of property as referred to in paragraph I, or if it is impossible to reach a consent, the Family Court shall, upon request of the parties, determine the amount and method of division, considering the amount of property acquired by cooperation of both parties and other circumstances(para. Ⅱ). (3) the claim for division of property as referred to in paragraph I shall be extinguished at the expiration of two years from the day of divorce(para. Ⅲ). However, it is too abstract for ours to decide an extent of properties be devised and to select a concrete method, standard and ratio for the division of matrimonial property. Therefore, I propose to make some changes a writing materials as like ""property acquired by cooperation of both parties "", ""the amount and method of division"" and ""o

不動産 名義信託法理의 基礎 序說

정상현(Jung Sang-Hyun) 성균관대학교 법학연구소 2005 성균관법학 Vol.17 No.2

The nominal trust theory of real estate is originally developed through the judicial precedents. Especially, under the rule of Japanese imperialism, the clan could not register the real estate with its own name, because it had not a judicial personality. Therefore a real estate of the clan must had been registered in the name of its a member or members. By the way, many disputes took place in relation to clan's properties, for the reason that the nominal member disposed the property without the permission of the whole members. For the purpose of a solution to those problem, judicial precedents had contrived a following new theory. This theory is that both parties of agreement compose with two parts ownership on the real estate, that is to say, the internal ownership and the external ownership. The internal ownership is held by a nominal truster who is registered in his own name, and external ownership is granted to nominal trustee who possess the property substantially. And even though the nominal trustee, as external owner, dispose of the object to the another person without the internal owner's permission, the another person can acquire the ownership of the object valid. Merely in era of Japanese imperialism, the judicial precedents judged erroneously that this theory had consisted as a general principle of law in Korea. But that theory had existed neither in Korea nor in Japan. On the contrary it had been abused to destroy the ground of clan's property by the government of Japanese imperialism. By the way, more serous problem is that the theory is maintained by judicial precedents at the present time. It carries on false transaction deed and its application to the large extent brings about many legal problems in the modern era, such as land speculation, tax dodging and evading law, etc. Expecially, the theory of nominal trust and the intermediate abbreviated registration are not conformed to the formalistic registration system of Korean civil law. Therefore Korean government revised the partial provision of the act of inheritance tax(1974), and legislated the act of special measures of registration(1990) in order to eliminate unconformed registration, and the act of substantial named registration(1995) to restrain from unlawful agreement by nominal trust. Consequently, this paper dealt with following points at issue. That is to say, the history and legal background of nominal trust theory, the rearrangement of various types on the nominal trust agreement, and the analysis on contents of the act of substantial named registration(1995) under the topic of present legal problems and betterment on the future, etc. Together with those points, there are still existent the problems on the effect of nominal trust agreement and on the return of nominal entrusted properties. Merely, these problems will be dealt through the my another paper.

변제자대위에서 이중지위자의 부담액 산정에 관한 판례 재검토

정상현(Jung, Sang Hyun) 충북대학교 법학연구소 2018 法學硏究 Vol.29 No.2

Ⅰ. 대상판결 Ⅱ. 평 석 Ⅲ. 결 어

상대방에 대한 무권대리인 책임의 연혁적 고찰

정상현(Sang Hyun Jung) 성균관대학교 법학연구소 2016 성균관법학 Vol.28 No.3

The Article 135 of the Korean Civil Code prescribes in the 1st Sentence that if a person who has made a contract as an agent of another can neither prove his authority nor get the principal to ratify the contract, he shall be liable to the other party, at the latter’s option, either for the performance of the contract or for the compensation to damages. This article has followed the Article 179 of the German Civil Code and Article 177 of the Japanese Civil Code in prescribing the responsibility for the performance of the contract or for compensation to damages. If the other party could have obtained full satisfaction from the principal had the contract been binding on him, the unauthorized agent is liable to the same extent. In general, legal scholars explain that the ground of agent’s responsibility is for the sake of the protection of third party’s reliance, transaction safety and confidence of agent system. They also insist that agent’s responsibility is no-fault liability providing by law. But there are several questions as follows in this explanation. Why is the agent liable to the same extent with principal, despite of having no authority? Why is the agent liable to the performance of the contract, although the contract between the unauthorized agent and the other party is void? Aggravation of agent’s responsibility according to the general explanation is one of the fictional thought, therefore this explanation take an other run. I think that the ground of agent’s responsibility have to be found in his intention, therefore I suggest the theory of implied warranty as a ground for that responsibility in this paper. If the agent has not aware his no authority, he is liable to the other party for his intention of warranty to the authority of representation. If the agent has aware his no authority, he is liable for his intention of warranty to the principal’s ratification. The agent is in such circumstances liable for breach of an implied warranty that he has the authority or ratification which he purports to have. Of course, this suggestion is not new viewpoint at all, having no originality. The general explanation of the preceding part was insisted by Josef Hupka, on of the german legal scholars, to explain the Article 179 of the German Civil Code. The insistence of Hupka is introduced by Hatoyama Hideo, one of the japanese legal scholars, and generalized in Japan. These interpretation flows generally to korean civil law. The most substantial contradiction is that unauthorized agent’s responsibility for the performance of the contract is prescribed in the Article 135 of the Korean Civil Code. This is the cause of aggravation of agent’s responsibility and appearance of general explanation. Therefore, I suggest the revision of Article 135 that he shall be liable to the other party for only compensation to damages instead of performance, if a person who has made a contract as an agent of another can neither prove his authority nor get the principal to ratify the contract in the 1st Sentence. Many countries, that is to say, French, Italy, Switzerland, Taiwan Civil Code have a same provision. And this is the lawmaking trend of international convention and european contract law. 우리민법 제135조는 무권대리인이 자신에게 대리권이 있음을 증명하지 못하고 본인의 추인을 얻지 못하면, 상대방은 그의 선택에 좇아 무권대리인을 상대로 계약의 이행 또는 손해배상책임을 물을 수 있다고 규정한다. 그런데 이와 같이 손해배상책임 외에 이행책임을 규정함으로써 그 책임의 내용과 범위가 무권대리인이 유권대리였다면 본인에게 발생하였을 책임과 동일한 정도 내지 계약이 유효하게 성립된 경우와 유사한 정도의 책임을 지며, 상대방이 손해배상책임을 선택하더라도 유권대리 내지 계약의 유효성을 전제로 신뢰이익이 아닌 이행이익을 배상해야 하는 것으로 파악한다. 그러나 무권대리인은 본인을 위하여 대리행위를 하였을 뿐 스스로 그 계약에 구속될 효과의사가 없었고, 상대방 역시 무권대리인이 아니라 본인과의 법률효과 귀속을 의욕하였을 뿐이므로, 무권대리인과 상대방에게 대리행위로 인한 법률효과를 귀속시킬 수는 없다. 그럼에도 위 규정은 무권대리행위 자체가 불성립이거나 무효인 상태로 상대방에 대한 무권대리인의 ‘이행책임’을 인정할 뿐만 아니라, 이행책임이 병렬적으로 규정된 논리적 귀결에 따라 상대방이 ‘손해배상책임’을 선택하는 경우에 배상범위가 이행이익으로 확대된다. 결국 이 규정과 그에 대한 일반적 해석론은 민법상의 의사표시이론 및 대리효과 귀속원리에 부합하지 않는 결과를 초래하고 말았다. 이러한 해석상의 논란은 무권대리행위의 법률적 효과를 무권대리인 자신에게 귀속시킬 수는 없음에도, 민법 제135조가 무권대리인에게 ‘이행책임’을 지도록 규정한데서 기인한다. 이것이 독일민법 제179조를 획일적으로 단순화하여 수정한 일본민법 제117조를 비판적 검토 없이 그대로 수용한 우리민법 제135조의 연혁적 한계이다. 그러므로 본 논문의 목적은 우리민법 제135조에 직접적으로 영향을 미친 일본민법 제117조와 독일민법 제179조의 입법과정에 대한 역사적 의미를 검토하고, 이와 다른 내용으로 규정된 최근의 국제적 입법동향과 프랑스민법 등 손해배상책임만을 규정한 입법례와의 비교검토를 통하여, 우리민법에 대한 바람직한 해석론 및 입법론 제시의 단초로 삼기 위함이다.

아웃사이드미러 떨림 시험법 및 재질 최적화 기술 연구

정상현(Jung, Sang Hyun),김일수(Kim, Ill Soo),유병섭(Yu, Byung Sub),하동현(Ha, Dong Hyun),민복기(Min, Bok Ki),최병곤(Choi, Byung Gon) 한국자동차공학회 2017 한국자동차공학회 학술대회 및 전시회 Vol.2017 No.11

Outside-mirror that provides the driver a smooth rear vision is to be considered rigid so that no vibration occurs is located outside the front door. Were but conduct a la carte Analysis of stiffness oriented Until now, not the actual vehicle condition is applied, the failure to utilize the vibration characteristics data robust design is insufficient trembling evaluation of a la carte condition and vibration assessment of vehicle condition of the vehicle differs from the design stage I could see that. Through this study, we propose a technique to screen matches the evaluation of the vehicle and the part itself through the vibration evaluation, and material optimization study utilized a vehicle vibration characteristics of the mirror and reduce cost and weight and at the same time ensuring the consistency of interpretation.

賣買目的 土地에 發生한 事情의 變更과 契約의 效力

정상현(JUNG Sang-Hyun) 한국법학원 2008 저스티스 Vol.- No.104

사정변경법리를 계약법의 일반원칙으로 인정하여 당사자나 법원에게 계약을 변경하거나 해소할 수 있는 권리를 부여하는 것은 계약의 가장 기본적인 효력인 구속력을 파괴하는 결과를 야기하고, 거래의 안전에도 치명적인 타격을 줄 수 있다. 이러한 법리를 신의칙의 분칙으로서 또는 신의칙과 대등한 민법의 일반원칙으로서 받아들이는 다수학자들의 주장에 따르면, 당사자의 의사에 의하여 구속력이 부여되었던 계약이 단순한 객관적 사정의 변경에 의하여 수정 또는 해소되는 결과가 되는데, 이는 합의를 계약성립의 절대적인 요건으로 하는 계약법의 원리와도 맞지 않는다. 물론 우리 민법이 사정변경의 법리 자체를 부정하는 것은 아니며, 개별적인 규정에 의하여 긍정하는 측면이 있을 뿐만 아니라 판례 역시 이 법리를 인정하는 부분이 있다. 다만 이러한 민법상의 규정과 판례는 당사자에게 계약관계의 변경 내지는 해소권을 특별한 경우에 특별한 조건을 전제로 인정하고 있을 따름이다. 현실적으로도 사정변경의 법리를 일반원칙으로 인정할 경우, 계약의 당사자는 이러한 원칙이 존재한다는 이유로 계약체결에 있어서 구체적인 계약내용의 확정에 소홀하게 되고, 궁극적으로 이 법리를 원용하여 일방적인 계약의 변경 또는 해소를 주장하는 결과를 야기하게 된다. 그러므로 오히려 계약의 당사자로 하여금 신중한 계약체결에 임할 수 있도록 그 계도를 통하여, 계약문언에 “급격한 사정의 변경이 있는 경우 계약내용에 대하여 법원의 화해권고결정이나 강제조정결정에 따른다”든가, “물가상승 등과 같은 사정의 변경이 있는 경우 합리적인 가격을 결정하기 위하여 중재판정을 따른다”는 등의 조항을 기재하도록 유도해야 할 것이다. 본 판례와 관련하여 우리 민법에서 소위 사정변경의 법리를 계약법의 일반원칙으로 인정하는 것은 부당하다고 생각한다. 만약 전혀 예견치 못한 사회적ㆍ경제적 격변으로 인하여 기존의 계약관계에 있어서의 불균형이 극히 심한 경우에는 계약유형별로 구체적인 조건을 명시하는 특별법 내지 행정입법의 신속한 제정을 통하여 이를 시정하는 것이 바람직할 것이다. 이러한 점에서 본 판결이 외부적인 사정으로서 공공공지로의 편입은 계약의 구속력을 배척할 정도의 사정변경에 해당되지 않는다고 판시한 것은 지극히 타당한 결론이다.