2013년 민사(채권법) 중요 판례

Abstract

This article is the examination on the meaning of 6 major rulings arbitrarily selectedby the author among the civil case rulings on the Law of Obligations made by the Supreme Courtduring the year of 2013. The 6 cases are as following. 1) A rightful person exercised its right within the relevant periodafter trusting the attitude of a debtor, who showed an attitude that it will not quote the completionof extinctive prescription in a past event case; 2) the panel of all Supreme Court Judges ruling(2012-da-202819 ruled on May 16th 2013) regarding whether it would be allowed for a debtor(state) to argue on the completion of extinctive prescription or not (passive); 3) a debtortransferred its own equity after a mortgage had been established on a real estate, which was jointly owned by the debtor and a person, who had pledged his/her property to secure another’sobligation; 4) the panel of all Supreme Court Judges ruling (2012-da-5643 ruled on July 18th 2013)regarding the secured debt amount borne by the equity of a debtor, when judging whether thetransfer had been a deceptive act or not; 5) a leased housing was transferred after the leasedeposit return bond of the lessee, who had the opposing power in accordance with the HousingLease Protection Act, had been provisionally seized; and 6) the panel of all Supreme Court Judgesruling (2011-da-49523 ruled on January 17th 2013) regarding whether the succession of third partydebtor status on the provisional seizure of receivable by a transferee would be allowed or not. These rulings were notable rulings and it is believed that the opinion on each ruling was correct. The Supreme Court ruling (2013-da-22812 ruled on November 28th 2013) on the requirement toterminate a contract, when there were multiple inheritors after a party of sales and purchasecontract had died and the inheritors sought to terminate the contract, has the significance as aprecedent. The Supreme Court ruling (2013-da-34945 ruled on September 13th 2013) on the methodof return to original state and the scope of deceptive act revocation when the mortgage acquiredby a beneficiary through deceptive act had been canceled by the exercise of preceding mortgageand the dividend for the beneficiary had not been paid due to an injunction for the non-payment ofdividend and the Supreme Court ruling (2011-da-88870 ruled on September 26th 2013) on theallocation of proving liability when a consumer sought damage compensation to a manufacturerbased on an illegal act on Civil Code were also significant rulings.