미국법상 이익구분론에 대한 기술적 분석(descriptive analyse)과 시사점

This paper is about the descriptive analyse of typical interest classification in USA act(contract). A different defense of this classification would rest on their description of what courts actually do. If restitution, reliance and expectation interests are what courts do in fact protect, it might be useful to classify remedies in that way eve if there is no normative significance to that classification. This paper is to show that three way classification is also unhelpful as a only descriptive matter. This claim requires qualification. Through the typical interest classification, it is incorrect to identify restitution and reliance damages as being among the remedies that courts regularly award. Today, this interest classification have attained such prominence that they are often assumed to be the only items on the menu or the only interests that courts might plausibly protect. These interests have also become accepted as the most useful way to classify various remedies, especially in the contract law. In this paper is argued that a large number of cases do not protect any of three interests and do not fir their classification. Moreover, any cases do award reliance damages and protect the reliance interest. These cases will often have little in common with one another and could be described as protecting the same interest is often of no significance. The typical three interest classification is no a useful descriptive tool. Finally, in this paper will be showed how this descriptive analyse of interest classification is affected in Korea law even if there are a little deferent points between the USA typical interest classification and Korea interest classification.