일체성 있는 계약의 일부 무효와 잔부 유효에 대한 가정적 의사 - 대법원 2023. 2. 2. 선고 2019다232277 판결 -

Abstract

In urban improvement projects, construction companies often lend funds to associations. This case involves a steering committee selecting a construction company, signing a contract, and borrowing money from the company before such practices were prohibited. When the company selection was later invalidated, it raised questions about the loan agreement's validity. The Supreme Court ruled that although a construction contract and a loan agreement were separate, they should be treated as one due to their economic unity. The Supreme Court focuses on the parties' true intentions rather than the terminology or form of contracts when distinguishing legal acts. While the two contracts share an economic goal, they are not considered principal and ancillary contracts. The concept of economic unity includes the ultimate economic objective that the parties aim to achieve through the contractual relationship. The Supreme Court ruling in question explored the hypothetical intentions of the parties and concluded that the loan agreement remains partially valid under Article 137 of the Civil Act. The court recognized the hypothetical intentions by considering the circumstances of the contract formation and the fact that the principal debtor or joint guarantor provided a separate notarized document even after the loan agreement was signed. Given the general background of how urban improvement projects are typically carried out, the conclusion of The Supreme Court ruling seems reasonable.