A Critique of the Supreme Court Decision on Pre-contract Deposits: Supreme Court Decision 2022Da247187, delivered on September 29, 2022
1
조회
0
다운로드
0
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
This article presents a critical analysis of the Supreme Court’s approach towards pre-contract deposits. The focus is on the Supreme Court’s latest decision, Decision 2022Da247187, issued on September 29, 2022, which addresses the legal nature of pre-contract deposits in Korea. In this decision, the Supreme Court asserted that a pre-contract deposit constitutes earnest money only when the parties, upon entering into the contract, had mutually agreed that rescinding the contract would result in the party delivering the deposit forfeiting the money, the receiving party reimbursing double the deposit amount. This approach, however, presents challenges. First, it contradicts existing case law, which presumes deposits to be earnest money unless stated otherwise. Although deposit contracts are deemed to be substantial contracts, even a partial payment of a deposit is sufficient for the deposit contract to be valid. Crucially, this can serve as a basis for recognizing pre-contract deposits as deposits, and thus earnest money. Unfortunately, 2022Da247187 reaches the opposite conclusion. Second, established case law recognizes that a pre-contract can serve as a formal contract even without requiring explicit agreement to enter into a formal sale or lease. Regrettably, the Supreme Court’s latest decision in 2022Da247187 did not take this important principle into consideration. As a result, 2022Da247187 is inconsistent with many aspects of well-established case law.
Abstract
This article presents a critical analysis of the Supreme Court’s approach towards pre-contract deposits. The focus is on the Supreme Court’s latest decision, Decision 2022Da247187, issued on September 29, 2022, which addresses the legal nature of pre-contract deposits in Korea. In this decision, the Supreme Court asserted that a pre-contract deposit constitutes earnest money only when the parties, upon entering into the contract, had mutually agreed that rescinding the contract would result in the party delivering the deposit forfeiting the money, the receiving party reimbursing double the deposit amount. This approach, however, presents challenges. First, it contradicts existing case law, which presumes deposits to be earnest money unless stated otherwise. Although deposit contracts are deemed to be substantial contracts, even a partial payment of a deposit is sufficient for the deposit contract to be valid. Crucially, this can serve as a basis for recognizing pre-contract deposits as deposits, and thus earnest money. Unfortunately, 2022Da247187 reaches the opposite conclusion. Second, established case law recognizes that a pre-contract can serve as a formal contract even without requiring explicit agreement to enter into a formal sale or lease. Regrettably, the Supreme Court’s latest decision in 2022Da247187 did not take this important principle into consideration. As a result, 2022Da247187 is inconsistent with many aspects of well-established case law.
참고문헌 (16)
- 백명헌, "가계약 파기에 따른 가계약금 반환의 법률관계", 법조, 70(2), pp.307~333 (2021), 법조협회[DOI]
- 최창렬, "단순변심에 의한 계약결렬시 지급된 가계약금의 반환관계 - 대상판결 : 대법원 2022. 9. 29. 2022다247187 판결 -", 토지법학, 38(2), pp.149~196 (2022), 한국토지법학회[DOI]
- 엄동섭, "계약금(해약금)계약의 법적 성질 - 대상판결: 대법원 2015.4.23. 선고 2014다231378 판결 -", 저스티스, 152, pp.169~194 (2016), 한국법학원
- 한종현, "부동산 매매에서 해약금에 관한 고찰 - 거래 실무에서 통용되는 계약 조항과 판례의 입장을 중심으로 -", 인권과 정의, (515), pp.22~43 (2023), 대한변호사협회[DOI]
- 황태윤, "물권행위 개념에 대한 소고", 동아법학, (94), pp.121~160 (2022), 법학연구소[DOI]
- Jee, Won-Lim, "Lectures on Civil Law", pp.419~ (2019), Hong-Moon Sa
- 정병호, "요물계약 개념의 유래와 현행법상 요물계약설에 관한 비판적 고찰", 법사학연구, (53), pp.233~262 (2016), 한국법사학회[DOI]
- Kim, Je-Wan, "Chonse, a real property lease transaction unique to South Korea", Pravovedenie, 66(3), pp.276~289 (2022), St. Petersburg University Press
- Kim, Jae-Hyung, "Bestimmtheit des inhalts im Rechtsgeschäft", Seoul Law Journal, 41(1), pp.241~257 (2000), The SNU Law Research Institute
- 김선주, "부동산거래에서 가계약의 법적성격 고찰", 부동산법학, 23(2), pp.49~66 (2019), 한국부동산법학회
- Kwon, Young-Joon, "Litigating in Korea: A General Overview of the Korean Civil Procedure", Journal of Korean Law, 7(1), pp.109~143 (2007), BK 21 Law, Seoul National University
- 이제우, "가계약의 법적 성질과 입법론적 검토", 민사법학, 100, pp.619~641 (2022), 한국민사법학회
- 이성진, "계약금계약에 관한 연구 - 계약금의 성질과 계약금계약의 종속성을 중심으로 -", 동아법학, (86), pp.107~132 (2020), 법학연구소[DOI]
- 박동진, "Overview of the Korean Civil Law", 법학연구, 23(2), pp.29~64 (2013), 법학연구원
- 양미숙, "가계약에 대한 인식과 법적 성격에 대한 고찰", 동아법학, (93), pp.59~96 (2021), 법학연구소
- 양미숙, "사적자치와 공법적 제어의 조화 - 부동산 가계약을 중심으로 -", 원광법학, 39(1), pp.137~157 (2023), 법학연구소[DOI]