민법 제587조에 대한 재검토

According to Article 587 of the Civil Act, if the subject matter of a sale which has not yet been delivered produces fruits after a contract of sale has been entered, such fruits shall vest in the seller, and the buyer shall pay interest on the purchase price from the day of the delivery. Provided that if a time-limit has been stipulated for payment of the purchase price, this shall not apply. In relation to Article 587, the Supreme Court ruled that the seller is not liable for the buyer’s damages claims for delay of delivery if the purchase price is not fully paid.Butif a seller, in whom the fruits that are produced from the subject matter during the time of delay of delivery vest, is not liable for the delay, it means that the seller gets an ill-gotten profit when we compare him with a seller who abides by the contract. Therefore, I cannot agree to the court’s ruling. In addition, the Supreme Court ruled that in order that a seller demands compensation for delay of payment, all the two requirements are met : one is the seller’s delivery of the subject matter ; and the other is the buyer’s delay for the payment of purchase price. I cannot be for the Supreme Court in this issue. According to the ruling, the buyer need not pay the interest in spite of taking delivery of the subject matter from the seller if he did not delay for the payment of purchase price. But under this situation, the buyer have a double advantage of making a profit by using the purchase price and taking the fruit from the subject matter. That goes against Article 587, the purpose of the provision is in prohibition of such a double advantage.