미국 계약법상 종전문언배제의 원칙에 관한 연구

The parol evidence rule bars admission of the evidence of both oral and written agreements allegedly made prior to the written agreement intended by the parties as the final expression of their agreement. The modern court adopted the concept of integration of an agreement, and definitions regarding this concept are well provided for in the Restatement (second) of Contracts as well as in the Uniform Commercial Code. An integrated agreement is a writing or writings intended by the parties as the final expression of their agreement. A completely integrated agreement is a wiring or writings intended by the parties as the final expression of their agreement and exclusive of any other terms not included in the written agreement. A partially integrated agreement is a writing or writings other than the completely integrated agreement. The implication of this distinction between the completely integrated and partially integrated agreement is to decide whether to allow any additional terms not included in the written agreement. Any parol evidence of any additional terms not included in a completely integrated agreement may not be admissible. On the other hand, parol evidence of any additional terms not included in the written agreement may be admissible in a partially integrated agreement if such terms are consistent with those of written agreement. Courts with the four corners approach consider only evidence within the four corners of the document without considering extrinsic evidence in order to determine whether an agreement is integrated whereas courts with the contextual approach look at extrinsic evidence as well as the contents of the document in order to determine whether an agreement is integrated. There are some exceptions to the parol evidence rule. Such exceptions include evidence of a collateral agreement, fraud, mutual mistake, duress, condition precedent required for the written agreement enforced. There is no parol evidence rule in Korean statutes. However, the rule may have some important implications to consider in that it may help prevent injustice and inefficiency by restricting false, irrelevant evidence in the court.