민법상 조건성취 방해 법리에 관한 소고- 대법원 2022. 12. 29.선고 2022다266645판결을 중심으로 -

Abstract

When reading Article 150 (1) of the Civil Act, it is easy to think that what the right holder has is a conditional right and that he or she can be protected under this Article. However, the target judgment concluded that the plaintiff’s rights are conditional rights, but they cannot be protected through Article 150 (1) of the Civil Act.If so, the question arises as to what the so-called “qualification of rights” for conditional rights to be protected through Article 150 of the Civil Act. Recognizing that Articles 147-152 of the Civil Act on conditional rights are provisions enacted based on discussions on “Wartrecht,” this question is resolved by first examining the status of conditional rights holders with the lens of “right to expect.” In this paper, it is revealed that our civil law seeks to protect the “right to expect” not just “anticipation” by discussing the criteria for what the right to expect is and how the simple state of legal interest is distinguished from the legally protected “anticipation.” Social approval is required to be recognized as a “right to expect,” and there are two signs: ①whether there is an important content preference to sufficiently characterize the content of full rights, ②and whether the debtor of conditional rights cannot unilaterally interfere with the acquisition of full rights.It can be understood that the target judgment stipulates that the Plaintiff does not deserve protection through Article 150 (1) of the Civil Act because the Plaintiff’s conditional rights did not meet the above two signs. In addition, in relation to Article 150 (1) of the Civil Act, there are conflicting views on the necessity of the hypothetical causal relationship that “a causal relationship that conditions would have been achieved without interference is required.” However, since conditional acts essentially have a characteristic of fluke, it is revealed that it is not appropriate to prove them to the conditional right holder due to the purpose of this article and Article 148 of the Civil Act. In the end, cases discussed as causal issues in the case of obstruction of condition achievement are actually so-called “qualification of rights” issues, such as the case of this target judgment, and it is argued that separating them from the “causal relationship” problem that is difficult to prove is the way for law users to secure predictability.