본문 바로가기
KERD
논문KCI 등재

제3자를 위한 계약의 재검토 − 새로운 형태의 보증을 중심으로 −

A Review on the Contract for the benefit of third party - the New Type of Contract of Suretyship -

0

조회

0

다운로드

3

인용

0

참고문헌

키워드

초록

By contract, as a basic institution of legal thought, the parties may arrange that the third party acquires the right to demand the performance directly. It never vests in the promisee, he only may acquire the right to claim that performance be rendered to the third party. By a contract of suretyship the surety puts himself under a duty to the creditor of a third party to be responsible for discharging that third party’s obligation. The contract for the benefit of the third parties has been found on the variety of surrounding pheonomena, especially on the area of suretyship. It is a new type of Surety, but the contract for the benefit of the third parties are of practical importance. In case of insurance such a profit of suretyship ; guaranty insurance policy, insured sum will be paid to the third party on the occurrence of the insured event - non performance of the main debtor. The main function of performance base enrichment is to find a satisfactory solution for multipartite who is performing within contractual relationship involving chain of performance. If any contracts within the chain of performance is imperfect, restitution must occur between adjoining parties in the chain, the rule against leap- frogging is very important. Performance based restitution between three or more parties has become one of the most controversial areas. In case the parties concerned have differing views about has performed toward whom, a contractual approach has a acid test in case of the contract for the benefit of the third parties. The main obstacle is the dogma of privity of contract which creates rights and duties only for and against the parties. The relationships of performance are decisive for the way in which enrichment is returned. On the reasoning, the legal theory of the contract of surety may be applied on the new type of the suretyship. But it is very controversial.

Abstract

By contract, as a basic institution of legal thought, the parties may arrange that the third party acquires the right to demand the performance directly. It never vests in the promisee, he only may acquire the right to claim that performance be rendered to the third party. By a contract of suretyship the surety puts himself under a duty to the creditor of a third party to be responsible for discharging that third party’s obligation. The contract for the benefit of the third parties has been found on the variety of surrounding pheonomena, especially on the area of suretyship. It is a new type of Surety, but the contract for the benefit of the third parties are of practical importance. In case of insurance such a profit of suretyship ; guaranty insurance policy, insured sum will be paid to the third party on the occurrence of the insured event - non performance of the main debtor. The main function of performance base enrichment is to find a satisfactory solution for multipartite who is performing within contractual relationship involving chain of performance. If any contracts within the chain of performance is imperfect, restitution must occur between adjoining parties in the chain, the rule against leap- frogging is very important. Performance based restitution between three or more parties has become one of the most controversial areas. In case the parties concerned have differing views about has performed toward whom, a contractual approach has a acid test in case of the contract for the benefit of the third parties. The main obstacle is the dogma of privity of contract which creates rights and duties only for and against the parties. The relationships of performance are decisive for the way in which enrichment is returned. On the reasoning, the legal theory of the contract of surety may be applied on the new type of the suretyship. But it is very controversial.

참고문헌 (19)

  1. 김도형, "정의로운 사법 : 이용훈대법원장재임기념" (2011), 사법발전재단
  2. 김병선, "제3자를 위한 계약의 실효와 부당이득반환관계 - 대법원 2005. 7. 22. 선고 2005다7566,7573 판결과 대법원 2010. 8. 19. 선고 2010다31860,31877 판결을 중심으로 -", 홍익법학, 13(2), pp.399~431 (2012), 법학연구소
  3. 김수일, "대법원판례해설 통권 제57호" (2006)
  4. 배호근, "대법원판례해설(통권 제57호)" (2006)
  5. 정태윤, "민사판례연구 29권" (2007), 박영사
  6. 제철웅, "보증보험에 적용될 보증의 법리: 그 전도된 이해에 대한 비판", 민사법학, (27), pp.403~429 (2005), 한국민사법학회
  7. 지원림, "保證保險 및 先給金의 法律關係대상판결: 대법원 2001.9.4. 선고 2001다13976 판결(공보 불게재)", 비교사법, 12(4)통권 : 31, pp.143~168 (2005), 한국비교사법학회
  8. 차영민, "민사판례연구 28권" (2006), 박영사
  9. 김형배, "사무관리·부당이득" (2003), 박영사
  10. 이은영, "채권각론" (2007), 박영사
  11. 정찬형, "상법강의(하)(제10판)" (2008), 박영사
  12. 곽윤직, "민법주해(10)" (1995), 박영사
  13. 곽윤직, "민법주해(13)" (1997), 박영사
  14. 곽윤직, "민법주해(17)" (2005), 박영사
  15. 양창수, "독일민법전" (2008), 博英社
  16. 谷口地平, "신판 주석민법(13)" (1996), 有斐閣
  17. 四宮和夫, "事務管理·不當利得·不法行爲, 上卷" (1981), 靑林書院
  18. G, Dannemann, "The German Law of Unjustified Enrichment: a comparatuive introduction" (2009)
  19. K. Zwigert, "Introduction to comparatuive law, 3rd ed" (1998), Oxford University Press

관련 논문AI추천

이 간행물의 다른 논문 (17건)