채무불이행의 효과 – 계약의 해제 - 한국민법의 개정시안을 중심으로 -

김동훈 한국민사법학회 2013 民事法學 Vol.65 No.-

Whenever a party does not perform an obligation under the contract,the aggrieved party can resort largely to two remedies, namelycompensation and termination of contract. Korean civil code declares thatone remedy do not exclude the other one, which coincides with the trendof comparative law. This article deals with termination of contract aseffect of non-performance, focusing on the intents of draft of Korean civilcode. Discussing on the requirements of termination, there are two groups inthe view of comparative law. The international legislations like CISG,PICC, PECL have the root on the common law, which lay the'fundamental' non-performance on the center. This concept contributes toharmonize the conflicting interests of both parties on the right toterminate. And the fault of the aggrieved party is not a requisite oftermination. At the same time these legislations combine the delay ofperformance with the ‘additional period’(Nachfrist), which is the productof German law. Besides they prescribe the termination prior to time forperformance, the so-called 'anticipatory non-performance', which is aproduct of common law. On the other hand German law starts on the ground of traditionalclassification of non-performance, but substantially accepted the tendencyof international legislations and transformed itself. But on the judgementto allow termination German law seems to emphasize the combinationwith the procedural factor, 'additional period'. About the degree ofnon-performance it passively prescribes, so that in the slight breach the aggrieved party can not terminate. One of the noteworthy changes is thatGerman code discarded the fault-principle in the field of termination ofcontract. A comparative survey shows that there will be no great practicaldifference between two systems. The draft of Korean civil code takes asort of compromise in a regard that it provides the concept of materialnon-performance in a passive way and additional period as the mainfactor in deciding to terminate or not. The material intents of the draft can be summarized below. First of all the main shift of the draft is to break with the faultprinciple of termination of contract. It reveals the change of contracttermination from the idea of punishment on debtor to the discharge ofcreditor from the hopeless contract. So the draft removed the grounds offault. Secondly some have claimed the so called 'fundamental nonperformance'requirement be accepted as grounds of termination. The draftrefused to do it because it changes too much the system of responsibilityof non-performance. Besides the draft accepted the termination prior to time for performanceand refused to allow the termination in case of creditor's fault. In conclusion the draft seems to be familiar with german system, whichemphasizes the key role of additional period in the field of termination ofcontract. About the effect of termination we find just minor change. In case ofreturning the supplied property he has to return the earned fruit fromproperty. If the one party cannot return the received property, he has toreturn the amount for the value of property to the other party, unless theother party has fault in no returning of property. This amendments areprovided to clarify the present status of interpretation. The draft introduced a new provision on termination of durational contract, which has characteristic in the duration of contract. Terminationof this kind of contract has effect only in a prospective way, compared toretrospective effect of termination in general according to Korean case law. The draft provides a additional ground for termination of durationalcontract, namely the one party can terminate the durational contract incase that he cannot anticipate continuing existence of contract due to theloss of relational trust.

Termination of contract under the Russian law and under the Korean law

( Keechang Kim ),( Ogorodnikova Mariia ) 고려대학교 법학연구원 2019 The Asian Business Lawyer Vol.23 No.-

Violation of contractual obligation is anything but exceptional in every country. In countries with well-developed legal system, one can expect that the victim of a breach can resorts to a range of remedies to protect its interests and rights in the event of the other party’s breach. Among those remedies, termination of a breached contract becomes particularly important when other remedies such as specific performance are unavailable or ineffective for the obligee. The court’s role in the termination also varies depending on the country. Out-of-court termination appears to be a more usual remedy compared to court-authorised termination. In Russian contract law, unilateral, out-ofcourt termination of a breached contract is becoming increasingly important, whereas in Korea, termination of a breached contract has always been a unilateral exercise of what is presented as the ‘right’ of the aggrieved party which was done out-of-court. Comparative studies of contract law have long been the source of inspiration for law reform which is aimed at finding more effective and efficient ways to protect and to adjust the parties’ competing interests in a satisfactory manner. Russian legal experts review and compare Russian Law with Continental law of European countries and the Common Law of contract. The Korean Civil Code and Korean legal rules relating to termination of a contract seem to have been well-settled and have worked satisfactorily. This paper analyzes and compares the Russian and the Korean Civil Codes, respectively, and the judicial doctrine and legal practice relating to termination of breached contracts. We hope this paper is useful for an improved understanding between Korean and Russian lawyers and businessmen.

계약의 해제에 관한 소고

최봉경(Bong-Kyung Choi) 한국비교사법학회 2012 비교사법 Vol.19 No.1

This paper describes the process of PACL during the last 2 years and as of now PACL could be qualified, at least from my perspective, as just a ‘academic’ draft. At the 6. Forum of PACL held in Seoul on last December the members discussed on the non-performance which presents the most difficult part of PACL. Apart from explaining all the details of the non-performance-related 30 provisions this paper focuses on the termination of contract. The termination of contract had better not be dealt as a question of nature but of legal-technical construction or institutional framework. CISG, PECL, BGB, Uchida-draft point out that all are trying to change the system or test a new system and solution of termination. That means we have various methods in approaching ‘termination'. I think that we hereby need to become aware of the modern meaning and function of pacta sunt servanda, economic analysis of cost caused by termination and consider each partner's interests. Especially there is strong needs to instruments for restraining termination as a remedy. First of all the breach of contract must be fundamental and it's not fundamental breach if the non-performance is a minor one. Then the termination of contract will only be possible for the buyer if the additional period(so called Nachfrist) has lapsed to no avail. It will give the seller a second chance to perform. At last the seller's right to cure will prevent the buyer from terminating the contract if the defect of goods is curable within a reasonable period of time and without undue inconvenience to the buyers(e.g. PICC Art.7.1.4). These instruments are, to a considerable extent, helpful to restrain the termination of contract, which is quite expensive from the perspective of social-economic costs. And termination of the contract has far-reaching impact on its partners. CISG Art. 25 defines a fundamental breach of contract as resulting in such detriment to the other party as substantially to deprive him of what he is entitled to expect under the contract, unless the party in breach did not foresee and a reasonable person of the same kind in the same circumstances would not have foreseen such a result. Here PACL follows it. The Unification of Asian Contract Law requires ‘time', ‘patience' and ‘cooperation'. It’s a long way to ascertain the identity of asian law. Many problems are to treat in concreto. Still things like the relation of non-performance doctrine and sales law on defect goods, more details about the consequences ‘after' termination and criteria of fundamentality of breach should be taken into account. Those will all make people to approach civil law, especially contract law, in easier and clearer way. The law exists for human being, not in reverse: Hominum causa omne ius constitutum est.

실시협약(PPP Contract) 중도해지시 대주의 이익보호방안-해지시지급금(Termination Payment) 산정기준 비교 및 이에 대한 대주의 직접적 권리확보방법을 중심으로-

황성현 국제거래법학회 2018 國際去來法硏究 Vol.27 No.2

As private sector investments are prerequisite for all public-private partnership (PPP) projects, it is essential to secure the bankability of a PPP project for project financing. Accordingly, a PPP contract (concession agreement) shall be negotiated and entered into as a bankable contract. This article is written to compare and analyze protection measures for lender’s interests in cases of early termination of a PPP contract, centering around termination payment. The key to protecting lender’s interests in cases of early termination of a PPP contract is ensuring debt service, and it is mainly achievable by stipulating the appropriate amount of termination payment in the PPP contract and securing lender’s direct rights thereon. Since debt recovery ratio analysis on each termination payment scenario is, along with sensitivity analysis of the project finance (PF) financial model, an important part of a lender’s credit review, stipulating the appropriate amount of termination payment in a PPP contract has meaning not only to lenders, but to sponsors as well. This secures the bankability of a whole project, more than simply facilitating sponsors to recover their own equity investment. As such, this article introduces a legal basis and various approaches to calculation methods of termination payment so as to provide readers with a reference point when they conduct credit review for a PPP project or PPP contract negotiation. In addition, it compares and analyzes in detail various calculation methods of termination payment respectively provided under Guidance on PPP Contractual Provisions (World Bank), Framework Plan of PPP Projects (Ministry of Finance of Korea), and Standardisation of PF2 Contracts (HM Treasury of UK), depending on the cause of early termination. This article also addresses how lenders secure direct legal rights on termination payment which is due to the project company from the host government in accordance with the PPP contract. The lenders are not parties to the PPP contract; therefore, they need special legal methods to secure their direct rights with regards to the termination payment. This article introduces the most widely used methods therefor, security assignment and pledge, from a perspective of each governing law including, inter alia, English law and Korean law. One must also consider correlations between unique characteristics of security over the project company’s rights/claims under the PPP contract and legal principles regarding security assignment and pledge under each governing law. Further, this article introduces the surrogation right of the mortgagee over concession rights under the Korean PPP law as another method to secure lender’s direct legal rights on termination payment. Plus, it briefly introduces the Turkish government’s debt assumption programme as another method to ensure debt service in cases of early termination of a PPP contract. 모든 PPP사업은 정부재정이 아닌 민간자본의 조달을 전제로 하는바, 프로젝트 금융(project finance)의 금융지원타당성(bankability) 확보가 필수적이다. 따라서 실시협약은 금융조달 가능한 (bankable) 형태로 체결되어야 한다. 본고에서는 특히 해지시지급금(termination payment)을 중심으로 실시협약 중도해지시 대주의 이익보호방안을 살펴본다. 실시협약 중도해지시 대주(lender)의 이익보호의 핵심은 대출원리금 상환 보장에 있고, 이는 주로 적정 수준의 해지시지급금 및 이에 대한 대주의 직접적인 권리 확보를 통해 가능하다. 해지시지급금 시나리오별 대출원리금 회수 비율 분석은 재무모델 민감도 분석과 함께 대주의 여신심사의 중요 부분을 차지하는바, 적정 수준의 해지시지급금 확보는 사업주(sponsor)에게도 단순히 자신의 투자금 회수 여부 이상의 프로젝트 전체의 금융지원타당성(Bankability) 확보의 의미가 있다. 따라서 본고에서는 다양한 해외 PPP사업의 여신심사 또는 실시협약 협상에 참고할 수 있도록 해지시지급금의 법적 근거와 산정기준의 유형을 소개하고, 실시협약 중도해지사유 별로 World Bank 권장실시협약조항(Guidance on PPP Contractual Provisions), 한국 민간투자사업기본계획, 영국 재무부 실시협약 표준(Standardisation of PF2 Contracts)상의 구체적 해지시지급금 산정기준을 비교분석한다. 또한 프로젝트 회사(project company)가 사업소재국 정부(host government)에 대해 갖는이러한 해지시지급금청구권에 대해 대주가 어떻게 직접적인 법적 권리를 확보할 수 있는지살펴본다. 가장 널리 활용되는 수단인 채권양도담보(security assignment)와 채권질권(pledge) 을 영국법, 한국법 등의 주요 준거법 별로 간략히 소개하고, 해지시지급금청구권 등 PPP사업 사업약정(project documents)상 권리에 대한 담보에 대해 요구되는 특징과의 관계를 살펴보기로 한다. 나아가 그 밖의 대주의 직접적 권리확보방법으로서 한국의 민간투자사업법상의 관리운영권에 대한 저당권자의 물상대위권을 살펴보고, 해지시지급금 외의 대출원리금 상환 보장방안으로서 터키의 채무인수제도(debt assumption programme) 등을 간략히 살펴본다.

해지 통고에 의한 단체협약 해지의 요건과 한계

정순방(Jueng Soon-Bang) 한국노동법학회 2010 노동법학 Vol.0 No.35

In short, the purpose of Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act(here in after referred to as the ‘Trade Union Act') is to improve the working condition of workers and to maintain industrial peace by self-agreement of two-parties However, termination of collective agreement by notifying of termination that is prescribed in Article 33, clause 3 of Trade Union Act is counter to this purpose. Because termination of collective agreement by a unilateral expression of will under no-restriction can invalid legal tranquility and other system based on collective agreement widely. In particular, trade union-activities involved in the use of trade union office, a bulletin board and full-time officer etc that can be acknowledged after agreement of employer that for the most part can be existed in the forms of collective agreement and this termination of collective agreement is turned against workers. In this point of view, this termination of collective agreement being growed rapidly centering public sector until recently involves various dangerousness that is connected to shortage of peaceful functions that collective agreement have discharged and can be extended to be do harm to the basis of collective agreement as a self-norm. So it is requisite to minimize social conflict by presenting the requirements and limitations on the termination of collective agreement by notifying termination. For this (1) the legal intent of the latter part in article 33, clause 3 of Trade Union Act prescribing terminate the existing collective agreement by notifying termination should be sought from article 33, clause 2 disapproving unlimited collective agreement and article 33, clause 3 approving self-extension agreement (2) From this point of view, self-extension agreement allowed to terminate should be restricted to the agreement that can be equated unlimited collective agreement not all self-extension agreement (3) The termination will be allowed under this condition, yet the termination with intent to weak trade union-activities and of collective bargaining and refusal and delay of collective bargaining by reason of the termination can be judged to unfair labor practices.

음악치료사가 지각한 음악치료 종결에 대한 현상학적 연구

이은혜 한국음악치료학회 2017 한국음악치료학회지 Vol.19 No.2

이 연구는 국내 음악치료사들이 경험하는 음악치료 종결에 대한 현상학적 연구로 음악치료 사들의 종결 경험을 바탕으로 음악치료 종결의 의미를 파악하고 다양한 종결 현상을 탐구 하기 위한 목적으로 수행되었다. 이를 위해 8명의 음악치료사와의 인터뷰를 통해 자료를 수집하였으며 Moustakas(1994)의 현상학적 연구방법을 사용하여 분석하였다. 분석 결과 75 개의 의미단위들로부터 16개의 상위 주제군과 종결 방식, 종결 원인, 종결 고려사항, 종결의 만족과 어려움, 미완종결에 대한 치료사의 반응과 대처, 종결의 의미의 6개의 핵심 주제가 도출되었다. 이 연구는 그동안 음악치료의 다른 주제들에 비해 비중 있게 다루어지지 못했 던 종결에 대해 연구를 하였고 그 결과, 음악치료에서 나타나는 종결 현상이 치료사 마다 각기 다른 경험과 시각과 견해를 가지고 있다는 것을 밝히게 되었다는 데에 의의가 있다. The purpose of this study was to explore the experience of music therapists' music therapy termination and to understand the meaning of termination of music therapy. Data was gathered through interview with 8 music therapists and was analyzed by using phenomenological research method of Moustakas(1994). The result of the study revealed 6 principal themes and 16 theme groups. The principal themes are (1)method of termination, (2)causes of termination, (3)termination considerations, (4)the satisfaction and difficulty of termination, (5)psychological response and method of react of the premature termination, and (6)the means of music therapy termination. It is significant that the termination of a music therapy has demonstrated that each therapists has different experiences and perspectives.

음악치료사와 아동ㆍ청소년 보호자의 음악치료 종결에 대한 개념도 연구

이은혜,김영신 한국음악치료학회 2020 한국음악치료학회지 Vol.22 No.2

The purpose of this study is to explore the perceptions of the termination of music therapy for children by music therapists and guardians. 10 pairs of music therapist and child’s guardian were interviewed about decision factors, processes, and outcomes of termination of music therapy. The answers were analyzed via concept mapping methodology through multidimensional scale analysis and cluster analysis. As a result, the decision factors of termination were commonly satisfaction with therapeutic outcomes, unsatisfaction with therapeutic outcomes, client-related factors, and environmental factors. But the therapist recognized the relationship between therapist and guardian, and the guardian recognized unsatisfaction of music therapy intervention. The processes of termination were commonly therapist's lack of decision to terminate, communication for preparation for termination, and preparation for termination by the therapist, and in addition, guardians were experiencing regret for termination. Outcomes of termination, both therapist and guardian recognized the benefits of termination and difficulties about insufficient preparation for termination. But the difference between therapist and guardian was that guardian had indifference of termination. 본 연구는 아동ㆍ청소년 음악치료의 종결에 있어 음악치료사와 아동ㆍ청소년 보호자가 인식하는 종결경험을 탐색하고 그 인식을 비교하기 위한 연구이다. 연구의 대상은 음악치료의 종결을 경험한 음악치료사와 아동·청소년의 보호자 10쌍이다. 대상자들을 개별 면담하여 음악치료 종결의 결정요인, 과정, 결과에 대한 진술문을 도출하고, 개념도 방법론을 사용하여 다차원 척도분석과 군집분석을 통해 그들의 인식을 탐색하고 비교하였다. 연구 결과, 음악치료사와 보호자가 인식하는 종결 결정요인은 공통적으로 만족스러운 치료 성과, 불만족스러운 치료 성과, 클라이언트와 관련한 요인, 환경적 요인으로 나타났으며, 치료사는 보호자와의 관계 문제를, 보호자는 불만족스러운 치료 중재를 종결 결정요인으로인식하는 차이가 있었다. 종결 과정에서는 치료사의 종결 결정권 부재, 종결 준비를 위한 의사소통, 치료사의 종결 준비과정을 공통적으로 인식하고 있으며, 이에 더해 보호자들은 종결에 대한 아쉬움을 경험하고 있는 것으로 나타났다. 종결 결과에서는 치료사와 보호자 모두 종결이 주는 유익과 미흡한 종결 준비로 인한 어려움을 인식하고 있었다. 그러나 일부 보호자들은 종결에 대한 무관심이 나타나 음악치료사와 인식의 차이를 보였다.

유럽공통참조기준(DCFR)에 있어서의 계약 해제(termination) - 특히 그 효과를 중심으로 -

박영복 한국외국어대학교 법학연구소 2017 외법논집 Vol.41 No.1

Termination of contracts, which is a means of the most important reliefs from non-performance, focuses on making the party afflicted with non-performance getting out of the restriction of a contractual relationship. Therefore, most of legislations have regulation about what requisites concede termination of contracts and what effects are given, which are regulated differently depending on the scope and characteristics of an individual legislation. In full, the DCFR is the Draft Common Frame of Reference (Principles, Definitions and Model Rules of European Private Law). As the title suggests, the DCFR contains principles which underpin the model rules; definitions of terms used in the model rules; and model rules on a number of areas of private law. It was published in 2009 to solve the problem arisen from the difference of the regulations of contract law among the countries of EU. Unlike the other remedies, termination as a remedy in Section 5 of Book III of the DCFR applies only to contractual obligations and contractual relationships. DCFR lays down more specific rules on the effects on obligations under the contract (DCFR articles III.–3:511 to III.–3:515). As the main consequence, the parties no longer have the right of enforcement; however, they have rights and obligations concerning restitution. Certain rights and obligations arising from the contract survive; for example, termination does not affect any provision of the contract for the settlement of disputes. Restitution is not required where the performance was due in separate parts or was otherwise divisible and what was received by each party resulted from due performance of a part for which counter‑performance was duly carried out. The paper is dealt with especially the effects of termination: outstanding obligations under the contract come to end and return of benefits received (or value). The termination in the DCFR is to be analyzed by comparison with German law, French law, English law(common law) and PECL. It is available to deepen knowledge of European private law and will be a source of inspiration to researchers and reference for korean national legislators. 유럽계약법의 원칙, 개념 정의 그리고 모델법안을 내용으로 하는 공통참조기준 초안(Draft Common Frame of Reference; 이하 공통참조기준. DCFR)은 학술적인 것으로 정치적으로 공인된 것은 아니며그 자체로서는 법적 구속력을 가지지 않는다. 그러나 DCFR은 유럽 사법을 새로이 그릴 수 있는 기초로 역할 할 수 있는 것으로, 이를 기반으로 공통의 문제에 대한 상호 이해를 증진하고 사법에 대한 공통의 논의가 촉진되게 될 것이라 하면서, DCFR의 기초자는 DCFR이 사법적 문제를 적절하게 해결하기 위한 발상의 원천(source of inspiration)이 되기를 기대하고 있다. DCFR 완전판은 모델준칙 규정 및 각 조문에 대한 Comments(각 규정의 해설 및 관련 사례) 및Notes(비교법적 자료)로 그 내용이 구성되어 있다. 본고의 연구 주제인 계약해제(termination)에 대해서는 DCFR 제3편 제3장 제5절(section)에 불이행에 대한 구제수단의 하나로 규정하고 있다. 이 제5절은 4개의 관(sub-section)으로 구성되어 있는데, 제1관 해제의 사유(원인), 제2관 해제권의 범위, 행사방법 및 상실, 제3관 해제의 효과, 제4관 원상회복으로 되어 있다. 본고에서는 DCFR상의 계약해제, 그 중 특히 해제의 효과를 중심적으로 살펴보았다. 따라서 제5절의 제3관과 제4관이 주된 내용이 된다. 다만 이를 검토하기 위해서는 전제적으로 그 개념, 요건 등의지식이 요구되므로 본고 Ⅱ에서는 이에 대해 먼저 개괄적으로 정리하였다. DCFR에 있어서의 계약해제의 일반적 효과(본고 Ⅲ)와 원상회복(본고 Ⅳ)에 관한 내용을 정리하였다. 이때 DCFR의 기초자들의 사고⋅시각을 보다 정확히 이해하기 위해 기초자들의 「주석서」(DCFR 의 확정판의 해설)를 중심으로 가능한 범위에서 그 내용을 정리하였다. 그 다음 비교법적 시각에서DCFR의 태도를 분석하고 정리하였다(본고 Ⅳ). DCFR은 유럽에서의 사법통일화작업의 결실이라는점에서 대륙법계의 독일과 프랑스, 그리고 영국법(common law) 및 그 전신이라 할 수 있는 유럽계약법원칙(PECL)과의 법비교를 통해 분석하면서 그 이동 및 특징 등을 살펴보았다(본고 Ⅴ).

합의해제의 효과 - 대법원 2005. 6. 9. 선고 2005다6341 판결 -

오종근 한국민사법학회 2012 民事法學 Vol.59 No.-

The parties to a contract can agree to terminate the contractual relationship. The Agreement need not be express. It may be implied from what the parties have said or done. However the termination should not be readily implied. Only if that is clearly the intention of the parties should that result follow. When a contractual relationship is terminated by agreement the parties will normally regulate the effects of the termination. In the absence of that regulation, the effects are regulated by the rules to regulate those of a termination by notice with appropriate adaptations : Contractual relationship is retroactively terminated between the parties, but the termination is prospective in effect against the third parties. The termination by agreement does not affect liability for damages caused by past non-performance. A party who has received any benefit by the other's performance of obligation under the terminated contractual relationship is obliged to return it in accordance with § 548(Korean Civil Code). To the extent that the benefit is transferable it is returned by transferring it. However where the benefit is not transferable its value must be paid. The obligation to return a benefit extends to any natural or legal fruits received from the benefit.

단체협약 해지에 관한 법리

강선희(Kang Sun-Hee) 한국노동법학회 2010 노동법학 Vol.0 No.35

This article examined on the termination of collective agreements in three perspectives. (1) First, vested right of termination of collective agreements by Article 32, Subparagraph 3, Proviso in Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act(TULRAA). Art. 32, Subpar. 3, Proviso of TULRAA : “If no conclusion is made on a new collective agreement after the expiration of the extended effective term, the existing agreement shall be applicable only if the existing agreement specifically provides that it shall remain in effect until a new collective agreement is concluded, provided, however, that any one party concerned may terminate the collective agreement by giving notice to the other party six months in advance.” This provision is newly prescribed by law in March 13, 1997 and latest terminations of collective agreements are done by this provision. In fact, this termination of collective agreements brought about side-effects in shrinking trade union activity, being discrepant on the regulative intention. For requisites of the termination of collective agreements, this provision prescribed automatic extension clause only. This article examined the possibility of interpretation of the provision according to the regulative intention, and tried to find a legislative improvement. (2) Second, termination of collective agreements by the doctrine of fundamental change of circumstances(clausula rebus sic stantibus). Termination of collective agreements by the doctrine of fundamental change of circumstances means modification of collective agreements by a sudden socio-economic change. So, the main contents of modification of collective agreements is purpose of changing the clause which prescribed ‘the standards concerning working conditions and other treatment of workers’. The legal requisite for the application of the doctrine of fundamental change of circumstances is given concrete form. (3) Nonfulfillment and violation of collective agreements, etc. Generally agreed that termination of collective agreements by any party to the collective agreements should be authorized in extremely exceptional circumstances. But in extremely exceptional circumstances - in case of nonfulfillment or violation threatening to the significance of existence of collective agreements - this article argues that collective agreements should not be terminated. In case of serious nonfulfillment and violation, according to that nonfulfillment and violation, bearing the legal liability(civil obligation and criminally punish)is sufficient. In valid term of collective agreements, this article argues that any party to the collective agreements should not be making disorder by termination of collective agreements. This article examined the requisite and limitation of the rights of termination, according to the different nature. Termination of collective agreements is recent happenings. Therefore the academic world have not treated this theme mainly and there are no research accomplishments. Hereafter, this article is expected to be basic research which is providing the starting point in this research theme.