2024년 민법 판례 동향

Abstract

In this article, decisions rendered by the Supreme Court of Korea in 2024 are selected and analyzed from an academic perspective, focusing on aspects worthy of discussion. This article concentrated on eleven decisions, including two related to general provisions of civil law, three related to property law, four related to the law of obligations, and two related to family law. Firstly, the two decisions on general principles of civil law addressed issues such as whether an unfair juristic act could be asserted even for situations where the party sustaining disadvantage caused the distress or risk, and whether external circumstances should be prioritized in distinguishing between the agent (Vertreter) and messenger (Bote), as opposed to focusing on internal legal relationships. Next, the three decisions on property law dealt with the following issues; 1) whether the resolution of the management committee meeting is necessary for unit owners of a collective building to claim the distribution of profits generated from the common areas, 2) whether the amount to be allocated to concurrently ranked claims should be deducted when estimating the auction proceeds per Article 368(1) of the Korean Civil Code regarding joint mortgages, and 3) whether the seller retains a right of separation or a right of reclamation when bankruptcy proceedings are initiated against the buyer in a sale with a retention of title. Following that, the four decisions related to the law of obligations addressed the following issues; 1) whether a creditor could claim compensation in lieu of performance for delay of performance according to Article 395 of the Korean Civil Code if the beneficiary fails to fulfill the obligation to deliver substitute goods under a final ruling that avoided a fraudulent act, 2) whether a custodian in the rehabilitation procedure can assert the defense of set-off as a bona fide third party on behalf of a debtor that waived set-off rights through an agreement prohibiting set-off, 3) how to judge whether a payment without obligation conforms to the sense of morality, and in this judgment whether the blameworthiness of the recipient of the benefit is a significant factor and 4) whether the theory of substantial benefit exemplified by the Supreme Court provides a useful framework to make conclusions in cases involving the transfer of money and unjust enrichment. Lastly, the two decisions on family law addressed disputes regarding whether extinctive period for past child support claim should not run if there has been no agreement between the parties or a ruling from the family court, and whether a child can file an affiliation claim upon reaching adulthood, even if the child's legal representative did not file an affiliation claim after becoming aware of the legal father's death. By elucidating each of the above decisions and analysing the implications of the decisions, this article aimed to promote a deeper understanding of these decisions.