상대방에 의해 유발된 착오의 법리

Abstract

The Doctrine of ‘Induced Mistake by the Counterparty’ was created in the process of revising the problems of our law and applying them to reality, centering on the courts. However, it is not recognized as an explicit system, and its specific contents have not been properly discussed, which has led to the courts that have established this legal principle not being able to apply it as a single standard. Therefore, this paper properly sheds light on the form of this legal principle, and based on its legitimacy, discusses how to make its contents more specific so that it can be applied as a consistent standard in areas where mistakes are caused by the other party. Above all, by separating this legal principle from the existing Article 109 of the Civil Code and identifying it as the area of ​​Article 110 of the Civil Code, we were able to resolve the problem of deviating from the scope of legal interpretation in relation to Article 109 of the Civil Code despite its legitimacy, and we were able to establish a simple and unified standard. However, except in cases where the person who caused the mistake has intent, it seems that the specific judgment will still not be easy. As in other areas, ultimately, the process of balancing the interests of the two parties in the mistake will have to be carried out, but in this case, Article 110 of the Civil Code on fraud provides a more appropriate framework for thinking than Article 109 of the Civil Code. Above all, what makes the discussion in this paper more meaningful is that it shows that this problem can be solved through interpretation theory rather than legislative theory. Rather, this paper points out that establishing overly detailed criteria is not only difficult but also inappropriate. It may be necessary to appropriately revise the wording of the relevant system so that it can more clearly reflect these criteria, but it does not seem appropriate to attempt unreasonable legislation at this time. As of 2024, we are in the midst of the third comprehensive revision discussion of our Civil Code, and the revision discussion on the issue of expression of intent such as mistake is also a part of it, so I point this out in particular.