RISS 학술연구정보서비스

검색
다국어 입력

http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.

변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.

예시)
  • 中文 을 입력하시려면 zhongwen을 입력하시고 space를누르시면됩니다.
  • 北京 을 입력하시려면 beijing을 입력하시고 space를 누르시면 됩니다.
닫기
    인기검색어 순위 펼치기

    RISS 인기검색어

      KCI등재

      계약은 얼마나 좌절될 수 있는가? - 사정변경의 원칙에 대한 새로운 패러다임 제시 - = How Much Can a Contract Be Frustrated?

      한글로보기

      https://www.riss.kr/link?id=A108994780

      • 0

        상세조회
      • 0

        다운로드
      서지정보 열기
      • 내보내기
      • 내책장담기
      • 공유하기
      • 오류접수

      부가정보

      다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract) kakao i 다국어 번역

      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.
      번역하기

      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.

      더보기

      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

      더보기

      분석정보

      View

      상세정보조회

      0

      Usage

      원문다운로드

      0

      대출신청

      0

      복사신청

      0

      EDDS신청

      0

      동일 주제 내 활용도 TOP

      더보기

      주제

      연도별 연구동향

      연도별 활용동향

      연관논문

      연구자 네트워크맵

      공동연구자 (7)

      유사연구자 (20) 활용도상위20명

      이 자료와 함께 이용한 RISS 자료

      나만을 위한 추천자료

      해외이동버튼