유럽서비스계약법원칙의 일반규정상 채무불이행책임

Abstract

PELSC deals with in its general provisions the problem of which of the parties is responsible for a disappointing output of the service process. PECL contains sets of principles that regulate the problem. But the latter provide only general rules of the problem. Service contracts need more specific rules in order to provide the parties with a reasonable degree of legal certainty. PELSC give a good opportunity to examine the obligations of the parties who try to conclude service contracts or have concluded them. The Korean Civil Code has not good enough provisions of the ancillary obligations in service contracts. It caused the court to make unclear decisions, which could not persuade the service contract parties. And They want to know what obligations or rights they have in the service process and what remedy they may resort to. PELSC will be a good reference, on the assumption that it was studied profoundly. But PELSC is lately published and is not made a profound study. For example, The Comment said that the client's failure to warn will prevent him form invoking the service provider's non-performance in the sense of Art. 8:101 (3) PECL. In my opinion, this situation was dealt with regarding the individual circumstances. The client may in principle resort to any remedy under Chapter 9 PECL. In exceptional circumstances his remedy is excluded, because non-performance of the duty to warn did not cause the non-performance of the service-provider's main obligation. These explanations can be found in the non-performance of the duty to co-operate.