2008년 민사(채권법) 판례 연구

The important issues of the precedents analyzed in this paper are as follows. The Korean Supreme Court has properly applied Section 544 of the Korean Civil Code on cancellation of a continual contract through analogical construction in Judgment 2005DA69458 relating to termination of a lease contract by the lessee. The attitude of Judgment 2005DA63337 that the damages arising out of anticipatory repudiation by a debtor should be calculated on the basis of the price at the time of repudiation manifestation is maintained in Judgment 2007DA37721. In Judgment 2007DA64471, the court has properly held that the third debtor’s defense based on the expiration of an obligation should be accepted after the debtor had contested the creditor’s claim pursuant to the statute of limitations. The analyzer criticized the attitude of Judgment 2007DA74874, where the court held that the transfer of land title from the title trustee to the title truster is a fraudulent preference against the creditors. The majority rule in Judgment 2005DA37154 has properly held that the guarantee insurer is a co-guarantor with the other guarantors, so they have a right to claim reimbursement from each other. In Judgment 2007DA73611, the court has properly reversed its original judgment conferring the partners a right to rescind the contract before payment of deposit even after its conclusion. In Judgment 2006DA45459 relating to a sublease case, the court has properly ruled that the sub-lessee could contest the original landlord’s claim by earlier payment of the rent to the original lessee made after the payment date. In the case of land tile trust between the three parties, the analyzer criticized Judgment 2008DA55290/55306, where the court reversed the original judgment entertaining the claim of the tile truster to restitute the title directly from the title trustee. In Judgment 2005DA65579 relating to the conglomerate’s window dressing of accounts, the court held that the bank’s damages compensated by the company officers or managers is the difference between the amount borrowed from the bank and the amount collected through the assignment of the obligation. The analyzer suggested that deficiency inevitably suffered by the bank even without the window dressing should be subtracted from the damages. In the case of a building obstructing the sunshine, the majority rule in Judgment 2006DA35865 has properly held that compensation for damages should be claimed before the expiry of 3 years from the first day when the victim became aware of the fact of obstruction of sunshine and the right of compensation for the damages unless the builder is obligated to remove the obstacles.