債務不履行의 類型에 관한 硏究

In this study I reviewed the korean legal system of non-performance liability centering around ‘the default types’ or ‘the types of non-Performance of obligations’. Conventional opinions of korean academia about ‘non-Performance of Obligations’ have regarded ‘the types of non-Performance of obligations’ as three types such as ‘performance delay,’ and ‘impossibility of performance,’ ‘imperfect performance’. The default type of ‘imperfect performance’(in german legal terms ‘Schlechterfüllung’ or ‘positive Vertragsverletzung’) is what was influenced by the german law which has not comprehensive provision about non-Performance before 2002 and is what was settled in our academia of civil law. But Korean civil law has had an article 390 as a comprehensive provision about non-performance. So the notion of imperfect performance is useless. Furthermore, the imperfect performance means not a single default type and can have some default types as subtypes of whole default types. Therefore the notion of imperfect performance should be abrogated. and German law had revised article 280 as a comprehensive provision by using ‘Pflichtverletzung’. Classification of types about non-performance is efficient in discovering resonable remedy tool from non-performance and gives legal stability and forseeability. So, this article suggests that we reorganize the Korean Legal System of Non-Performance Liability in terms of type of default such as ‘performance delay,’ ‘impossibility of performance,’ ‘harm by performance,’ ‘anticipatory repudiation,’ and ‘performance with defect.’