담보책임법상 감액청구권과 손해배상청구권

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

In the real life, we encounter various situations wherein the usefulness of price reduction arises. However, a Korean court prefers to claim damages rather than the price reduction. The reason for the court preferred for damages because it is difficult to estimate the reduction. However, it is also not easy to calculate damages in the case of
service contracts. In particular, damages under the warranty liability are difficult to determine the extent of the damage. This is because they do not require negligence to claim damages. As a result, the damages have been bounded by subjective contractual valuation. The extent of the damages is limited to the reliance interest and eventually, a proportional reduction method is used, as if the right to claim for price reduction is
exercised.
However, the extent of the damage shall not be limited to the reliance interest, as long as it is claimed for damages in default. However, since it does not presuppose negligence in compensation for damages, it is necessary to reasonably limit its scope. In other words, the damages resulting from violations of protective obligations cannot be included in the scope of compensation. Even in this case, if the contract is terminated due to the breach of
an obligation of the debtor, he will not be able to claim damages due to defects. In such cases, reimbursement of reliance interests should be considered.
It is difficult to say clearly the scope of damages because the legislator s intention is not clear about the damages due to defects liability. The legislator s intent is also not clear about the relationship between damages and the right to price reduction. However, it must be wrong, that the price reduction is a different expression of the claim for damages.
The price reduction is aimed at restoring the subjective equivalence of the contract, and the claim for damages is aimed at restoring the state of property that would exist if there was no defect in the object

참고문헌 (Reference)

1 이상광, "하자담보책임론" 법원사 2000

2 김형배, "하자담보의 본질" 1981

3 김대정, "채무불이행책임설에 의한 하자담보책임의 재구성" (9-10) : 1993

4 양창수, "채권편에 대한 민법개정안 해설" 8 : 2007

5 김형배, "채권총론" 박영사 1999

6 김석우, "채권법각론" 박영사 1978

7 김주수, "채권각론" 삼영사 1993

8 이은영, "채권각론" 박영사 2001

9 곽윤직, "채권각론" 박영사 2001

10 이태재, "채권각론" 진명문화사 1985

11 김형배, "채권각론" 박영사 2001

12 이은희, "임차인의 선관주의의무에 관한 연구" 23 (23): 2012

13 사법연수원, "요건사실론" 사법연수원 2016

14 서종희, "신뢰이익손해배상과 원상회복적 손해배상 ― 이행이익과 신뢰이익의 이분법적 사고의 문제점 ―" 비교법학연구소 36 : 159-204, 2012

15 김형배, "민법학연구" 박영사 1989

16 곽윤직, "민법주해 제13권" 박영사 2009

17 양창수, "민법입문" 박영사 2017

18 김민중, "민법개정을 통한 여행계약의전형계약화와 관련한 과제" 부설법학연구소 40 : 199-231, 2013

19 길기봉, "민법 제574조의 적용범위" 법원도서관 (27) : 1997

20 서광민, "매도인의 하자담보책임" (11-12) : 1995

21 박영복, "매도인의 하자담보책임" 고시계 2001

22 조규창, "논리와 직관" 법문사 1998

23 조규창, "논리와 직관" 법문사 1998

24 김상중, "계약 성립에 관한 기본 판결례의 소개와 분석" 한국비교사법학회 20 (20): 973-1032, 2013

25 남효순, "가등기에 기한 본등기경료로 인한 매도인의 담보책임에 있어서 적용규정과 손해배상의범위" 16 : 1994

26 이재근, "瑕疵擔保責任과 債務不履行責任의 競合 및 그 損害賠償의 範圍" 민사판례연구회 (28) : 264-347, 2006

27 金載亨, "契約의 解除와 損害賠償의 範圍- 履行利益과 信賴利益을 중심으로 -" 대한변호사협회 320 : 3-, 2003

28 Zimmer, "Zivilrechtswissenschaft und Schuldrechtsreform" Das geplante Kaufrecht S191-, 2001

29 Kirsten, "Verschuldensunabhängige Schadensersatzhaftung für Sachmängel beim Warenkauf" 2009

30 Henssler, "Vergütungsanspruch des Rechtsanwalts im Falle vorzeitiger Mandatsbeendigung im Normgefüge des § 628 BGB" 1-, 2005

31 Jakab, "Verbraucherkauf in Europa" S27-, 2003

32 Hellweg, "Ueber die Berechnung der Preisminderung bei der actio quanti minoris" 59 : 35-, 1876

33 Zimmermann, "The Law of Obligations" 1996

34 Piegsa, "Teilleistungsstörungen bei Verträgen über mehrere körperliche Gegenstände" 2005

35 von Savigny, "System des heutigen Römischen Rechts, Band 3" 1840

36 Honoré, "Studies in the Roman Law of Sale" 132-, 1959

37 Wilhelm, "Schuldrechtsreform 2001" 861-, 2001

38 Canaris, "Schadensersatz wegen Pflichtverletzung" 1815-, 2001

39 Jakobs, "Recht der Schuldverhältnisse II" 1980

40 Honsell, "Quod interest im bonae-fidei-iudicium" 1969

41 Jakab, "Praedicere und cavere beim Marktkauf" 1997

42 Baldus, "Orbis Iuris Romani" S20-, 1999

43 MünchKomm, "Münchener Kommentar zum Bürgerlichen Gesetzbuch"

44 Chiusi, "Modern, alt und neu – Zum Kauf nach BGB und römischem Recht" 217-, 2003

45 Korth, "Minderung beim Kauf" 2010

46 Mainzer, "Komplexe Systeme und Nichtlineare Dynamik in Natur und Gesellschaft" 1999

47 Staudinger, "Kommentar zum Bürgerlichen Gesetzbuch mit Einführungsgesetz und Nebengesetzen"

48 Zitelmann, "Irrtum und Rechtsgeschäft" 1879

49 Barnhizer, "Inequality of Bargaining Power" 76 : 139-, 2005

50 HK-BGB, "Handkommentar, Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch: BGB" 2014

51 Jakobs, "Gesetzgebung im Leistungsstörungsrecht" 1985

52 Honsell, "Gedächtnisschrift für Kunkel" GS Kunkel S53-, 1984

53 v. Olshausen, "FS für UlrichHuber" FS Huber S471-, 2006

54 Wank, "FS für Herbert Wiedemann" FS Wiedemann S3-, 2002

55 Althammer, "Ersatz vergeblicher Maklerkosten nach der Schuldrechtsreform" 129-, 2003

56 Himmelschein, "Erfüllungszwang und Lehre von den positiven Vertragsverletzungen" 135 : 255-, 1932

57 Flume, "Eigenschaftsirrtum und Kauf" 1975

58 von Bar, "Draft Common Frame of Reference (DCFR), Volume 1" 2009

59 Canaris, "Die Reform des Rechts der Leistungsstörungen" 499-, 2001

60 Gaier, "Die Minderungsberechnung im Schuldrechtsmodernisierungsgesetz" 336-, 2001

61 Pfersche, "Die Irrthumslehre des österreichischen Privatrechts" 1891

62 Honsell, "Die EU-Richtlinie über den Verbrauchsgüterkauf und ihre Umsetzung ins BGB" 278-, 2001

63 Ackermann, "Der Schutz des negativen Interesses" 2007

64 Bechmann, "Der Kauf nach gemeinem Recht" 1965

65 Harke, "Das neue Sachmängelrecht in rechtshistorischer Sicht" 205 : 67-, 2005

66 Canaris, "Das allgemeine Leistungsstörungsrecht im Schuldrechtsmodernisierungsgesetz" 329-, 2001

67 v. Jhering, "Culpa in contrahendo oder Schadensersatz" 4 : S1-, 1861

68 Soergel/, "Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch mit Einführungsgesetz und Nebengesetzen"

69 Mommsen, "Beiträge zum Obligationenrecht, Band I" 1853

70 "Beck’scher Online Kommentar BGB"

71 김재형, "2000년대 民事판례의 傾向과 흐름(債權法)" 민사판례연구회 (33) : 1089-1298, 2011