The doctrine of ‘frustration of purpose’ in common law, which developed in closely connection with the distribution of risks such as impossibility of performance, contrasts with continental law’s principle of ‘change of circumstances’, which...

http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.
변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.
다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)
The doctrine of ‘frustration of purpose’ in common law, which developed in closely connection with the distribution of risks such as impossibility of performance, contrasts with continental law’s principle of ‘change of circumstances’, which...
The doctrine of ‘frustration of purpose’ in common law, which developed in closely connection with the distribution of risks such as impossibility of performance, contrasts with continental law’s principle of ‘change of circumstances’, which evolved based on the principle of good faith. The requirements for both the doctrine of ‘frustration of purpose’ in common law and the principle of ‘change of circumstances’ in continental law commonly include the occurrence of an event unforeseen by the contracting parties at the time of contract formation, without fault on their part. Despite their very similar content, the different starting points stem from the civil law’s reluctance to terminate a contract entirely due to unforeseen events occurring after its effective formation. In civil law, the tendency to maintain or modify the contract in situations where it becomes difficult to uphold due to significant changes in circumstances, rather than terminating it, can be seen as an unconscious adherence to the notion that ‘contracts must be honored’ or ‘pacta sunt servanda’. The perspective in common law that views the principle of change of circumstances similar to faultless impossibility of performance is largely historical. These differing perspectives on the same phenomenon demonstrate the diverse interpretations and development of legal principles. Through this, the purpose of this paper is to provide an opportunity to newly view the principle of change of circumstances from a broader perspective.
참고문헌 (Reference)
1 김대경, "해제요건에 관한 비교법적 고찰 -독일 민법을 중심으로-" 11 (11): 2019
2 송덕수, "채권각론" 박영사 2023
3 박영복, "재교섭을 통한 계약내용의 수정" 444-, 2010
4 송덕수, "사정변경의 원칙 <대한민국에서의 모습>" (85) : 2018
5 "사정변경의 법리에 대한 연구" 한국법학원 2023
6 양형우, "민법총칙" 정독 2023
7 송덕수, "민법총칙" 박영사 2024
8 정상현, "민법개정안 제544조의 4에 대한 비판적 검토" 20 (20): 2008
9 고세일, "미국 계약법의 사정변경 법리" 31 (31): 2014
10 정상현, "事情變更法理의 沿革的 考察" 23 (23): 2011
1 김대경, "해제요건에 관한 비교법적 고찰 -독일 민법을 중심으로-" 11 (11): 2019
2 송덕수, "채권각론" 박영사 2023
3 박영복, "재교섭을 통한 계약내용의 수정" 444-, 2010
4 송덕수, "사정변경의 원칙 <대한민국에서의 모습>" (85) : 2018
5 "사정변경의 법리에 대한 연구" 한국법학원 2023
6 양형우, "민법총칙" 정독 2023
7 송덕수, "민법총칙" 박영사 2024
8 정상현, "민법개정안 제544조의 4에 대한 비판적 검토" 20 (20): 2008
9 고세일, "미국 계약법의 사정변경 법리" 31 (31): 2014
10 정상현, "事情變更法理의 沿革的 考察" 23 (23): 2011
11 Oliver Wendell Holmes, "The Path of the Law" 10 : 457-, 1897
12 Ronald H. Coase, "The Nature of the Firm : Origin" 4 : 3-, 1988
13 Ronald H. Coase, "The Firm the Market and the Law"
14 "Restatement (Second) of Contracts"
15 Brian A. Blun, "Contracts Wolters Kluwer" 2013
16 Andrew A. Schwartz, "A"Standard Clause Analysis"of the Frustration Doctrine and the Material Adverse Change Clause" 57 : 789-, 2010
17 윤진수, "2014년 민법 개정안의 평가와 회고" 2022
독일 형법상 보험남용에 근거한 보험사기 예비죄 신설논의에 대한 비판적 검토
미국 계약책임법리에 관한 이론적 고찰 - fault에 관한 논의를 중심으로 -
중국⋅대만⋅홍콩⋅마카오에서 각 법역 간 민상사 판결의 상호 승인 및 집행 - 구제충돌법(區際衝突法) 관점에서의 고찰 -
금융소비자보호법상 분쟁민원 해결과 편면적 구속력에 대한 법적 연구