상대방에 의해 유발된 착오의 법리 = Doctrine of ‘Induced Mistake by the Counterparty’

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

The Doctrine of ‘Induced Mistake by the Counterparty’ was created in the process of revising the problems of our law and applying them to reality, centering on the courts. However, it is not recognized as an explicit system, and its specific contents have not been properly discussed, which has led to the courts that have established this legal principle not being able to apply it as a single standard.
Therefore, this paper properly sheds light on the form of this legal principle, and based on its legitimacy, discusses how to make its contents more specific so that it can be applied as a consistent standard in areas where mistakes are caused by the other party. Above all, by separating this legal principle from the existing Article 109 of the Civil Code and identifying it as the area of ​​Article 110 of the Civil Code, we were able to resolve the problem of deviating from the scope of legal interpretation in relation to Article 109 of the Civil Code despite its legitimacy, and we were able to establish a simple and unified standard. However, except in cases where the person who caused the mistake has intent, it seems that the specific judgment will still not be easy. As in other areas, ultimately, the process of balancing the interests of the two parties in the mistake will have to be carried out, but in this case, Article 110 of the Civil Code on fraud provides a more appropriate framework for thinking than Article 109 of the Civil Code.
Above all, what makes the discussion in this paper more meaningful is that it shows that this problem can be solved through interpretation theory rather than legislative theory. Rather, this paper points out that establishing overly detailed criteria is not only difficult but also inappropriate. It may be necessary to appropriately revise the wording of the relevant system so that it can more clearly reflect these criteria, but it does not seem appropriate to attempt unreasonable legislation at this time. As of 2024, we are in the midst of the third comprehensive revision discussion of our Civil Code, and the revision discussion on the issue of expression of intent such as mistake is also a part of it, so I point this out in particular.

참고문헌 (Reference)

1 지원림, "타인의 기망행위에 의하여 유발된 착오의 취소-대상판결 : 대법원 2005. 5. 27. 선고 2004다43824 판결(판례공보 229호, 1025면)-" (32) : 2006

2 김규완, "채무자의무의 이원구조 -대판 1997.8.22, 97다13023을 계기로 되돌아 본 “채무로서 보호의무”-" 21 (21): 2005

3 정성헌 ; 김규완, "착오취소와 손해배상" 인하대학교 19 (19): 2016

4 지원림, "착오에 관한 약간의 문제제기" 22 (22): 2005

5 박인환, "착오법의 변천과 정보리스크의 분배" 10 (10): 2016

6 박민수, "제3자의 기망행위에 의한 기명날인의 착오" 부산판례연구회 18 : 2007

7 윤진수, "이십일세기 한국민사법학의 과제와 전망: 심당송상현선생화갑기념논문집" 2002

8 정성헌, "영미계약법상 부실표시에 대한 연구" 21 (21): 2015

9 송덕수, "신민법강의" 박영사 2011

10 박인환, "상대방의 고지의무위반과 착오를 이유로 한 취소: 대상판결 대법원 2003.4.11. 선고 2002다70884 판결(공2003상, 1169)" 45 (45): 2004

11 김상중, "사법질서의 변동과 현대화(김형배교수고희기념논문집)" 2004

12 송덕수, "사기에 의한 의사표시와 착오의 관계 -대법원 2005.5.27. 선고 2004다43824 판결" (644) : 2010

13 정성헌, "부실표시에 대한 일반규정도입필요성에 대한 연구" 23 (23): 2019

14 이영준, "민법총칙[한국민법론I]" 박영사 2005

15 곽윤직, "민법총칙(신정판)" 박영사 1989

16 고상룡, "민법총칙" 법문사 2003

17 장경학, "민법총칙" 법문사 1985

18 이은영, "민법총칙" 박영사 2009

19 지원림, "민법개정과 착오법리" 25 (25): 2009

20 지원림, "민법강의" 홍문사 2011

21 "민법(재산편) 개정 자료집" 법무부 2004

22 김형석, "동기착오의 현상학" (151) : 2015

23 정성헌, "동기의 착오에 대한 새로운 규율시도" 경상대학교 24 (24): 2016

24 김상중, "동기의 착오에 관한 개정 예고안 제109조 2항의 특색과 그 운용에 관한 제언" (27) : 2005

25 양창수, "계약법" 박영사 2010

26 김상중, "계약목적물의 시가에 관한 잘못된 관념과 계약 당사자의 보호 -착오와 사기를 이유로 한 의사표시의 취소에 관한 판례의 고찰을 통한 시론적 접근-(하)" (581) : 2005

27 지원림, "계약 및 법률행위법 개정의 방향과 내용-민법개정위원회 제1·2기 제1분과위원회의 결과보고-" (64) : 2012

28 Cartwright, "Misrepresentation, Mistake and Non-Disclosure" Sweet & Maxwell 2006

29 Cartwright, "Contract Law: An Introduction to the English Law of Contract for the Civil Lawyer" Hart Publishing 2007

30 Atiyah, "An Introduction th the Law of contract" Oxford 1995