미국법상 구두증거배제의 원칙에 관한 연구 - 처분문서의 증명력 법리와의 비교를 중심으로 -

This article studies parol evidence rule and the doctrine of document of disposition. These two legal rules (or doctrines) seem highly disparate. Parol evidence rule, which renders agreements made prior to final written agreement unenforceable, is rule of substantive law, excluding parol evidence and extrinsic evidence. The doctrine of document of disposition, which gives high probative value to the document of disposition, is rule of procedural law, not necessarily excluding relevant evidence other than the document. The two rules, however, function in very much similar ways. Parol evidence rule limits the subject of contract interpretation to final written contract; the doctrine of document of disposition suggests the court give much more weight to the text of written contract when interpreting the contract. As such, the two rules regard the text of written contract as decisive evidence. Furthermore, the two rules give similar answers to the questions of contract interpretation, contract supplementation, and contract contradiction. (a) Suppose the parties argue for different interpretation of the term included in written contract, and the term is not deemed ambiguous; parol evidence rule excludes parol and extrinsic evidence from the subject of interpretation, while the doctrine of document of disposition confirm the meaning of the term as it is written. (b) Suppose the written contract has a gap, omitting a certain term; parol evidence rule renders parol and extrinsic evidence inadmissible, and the court would fill the gap with the parties’ hypothetical expectation and default rules. The doctrine of document of disposition, on the other hand, allows the parties to submit evidence other than written contract. If other evidence seem to have only low probative value, court would fill the gap by studying the parties’ expectation from normative and objective perspective. (c) Suppose one party attempts to contradict some terms of the written contract; parol evidence rule precludes the party from making such argument based on parol or extrinsic evidence. The doctrine of document of disposition does not exclude such evidence, but the court is not likely to confirm such contradiction solely on the ground that the evidence outside the document suggests otherwise.