신의칙 위반의 효과

Abstract

In South-Korea Civil Code article 2, which stipulates the principle of good faith and principle of banning abuse of rights, there is no provision of that violation effect. In the case of contract associated with interpreting the contract's contents and implementing its obligations, the effects will be treated as the effect of the contract or default, so there is no major problem with the interpretation in this part. However, other domains may require further interpretation of the effects of the other kinds of violations or abuse of rights. Most of the theories and precedents have been silent so far. Whether the right nullifies, or just be denied. When one party is in violation of the Good faith principle, the other party may therefore benefit from the result. Is that equitable? In this research paper, First, I reviewed the foreign countries’ theories, their court cases and the contents of the international treaties on the effect of violating good faith principle. And then, those of our country’s academies and court cases. Lastly, I warned some important cautions and suggested some concrete ways about applying Good faith principle. As a conclusion, my opinion is as follows. Good faith principle is a temporary protest, weaker than a plea of simultaneous performance and a right of retention. Another absurdity can occur when applying Good faith principle in bond relationships, so a more careful and comprehensive protective consideration is required. In addition, in relation to proprietary rights, a person, restricted with principle of banning abuse of rights, should have selective rights of selling or leasing the property. Finally, it is necessary to be very careful (also called a strong legislative recommendation) in relation to the effects of applying Good faith principle because of significant impact on another rules.