2022년 민법(채권법) 중요 판례 평석

Abstract

In this paper, among the major precedents of the Supreme Court on civil matters in the year 2022, I analyzed the meaning and contents of 8 important decisions (focused on the claims) that I arbitrarily selected. The majority opinions in the Supreme Court’s all-collegial decision maintained the previous precedent by stating that the Article 398, Paragraph 2 of the Civil Act cannot be applied to the penalties for breach of contract and the amount of the penalties cannot be reduced by the court according to the above-mentioned clause. However, in my personal opinion, I agree with the opposing opinions in the Supreme Court’s all-collegial decision interpreting that the penalty for breach of contract can be reduced by analogy with Article 398, Paragraph 2 of the Civil Act. In exercising the obligee's right of subrogation prescribed in the Article 404 of the Civil Act, the majority opinions in the Supreme Court’s all-collegial decision enacted a judgment to the effect that in recognizing the necessity of preservation, if the debtor is solvency, a more rigorous examination should be taken in the monetary claim. With this ruling, it is noteworthy whether the different rulings of the Supreme Court will come out in the future on issues where the 'necessity of preservation' has been recognized in previous precedents. In 2022 there have been two precedents regarding the invasion of opportunity to recoup the business investment under the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act and it is expected that there will be more Supreme Court decisions in this regard in the future. The first Supreme Court precedent has been issued regarding the lessor’s right to refuse renewal for the purpose of actual residence, which has been controversial since it was newly implemented on July 31, 2020. In the meantime, there was difference of opinions in the practice of lower court trials regarding the meaning of the Article 6-3, Paragraph 1, Item 6 of the Housing Lease Protection Act, and this Supreme Court decision dispelled such confusion. Unlike the rulings of the lower courts, the Supreme Court clearly declared that the franchiser shall be liable for any operating loss to the franchisee caused by the franchiser’s providing false or exaggerated information. Also the significant judgments were made by the Supreme Court regarding the problem that would occur in practice when creditors concurrently exercise the right to revoke the fraudulent act and monetary compensations, and regarding whether or not the bank may make a set-off to the extent of the amount corresponding to that of its obligation to return the mistaken remittance