2022년 민법(채권법) 중요 판례 평석
Analysis of the Supreme Court Cases in 2022: The Law of Claims
강혜림(경희대학교)
58권 1호, 93~150쪽
초록
본고에서는2022년한해동안민사에관한대법원의주요판례중에필자가임의로선정한, 채권법쟁점위주의8개판결을대상으로하여, 그의미와내용을분석해보았다. 대법원은전원합의체판결로써위약벌에대해서는민법제398조제2항을유추적용하여감액할수없다고 하여 종전 판례를 유지하였지만, 사견으로는 위약벌에 대해서도 민법 제398조 제2 항을 유추하여 감액할 수 있다고 해석하는 반대의견에 찬성한다. 또한 채권자대위소송에서대법원 전원합의체 다수의견은 채권자인 보험자가 채무자인 피보험자에 대한 보험금 상당의 부당이득반환채권을 보전하기 위하여 채무자를 대위하여 요양기관(의료기관)의 채무자에 대한 임의 비급여 진료행위가 무효임을 이유로 제3채무자인 요양기관을 상대로 진료비상당의 부당이득반환을 청구한 사안에서, 피보전채권이 금전채권인 경우 채무자가 자력이있다면 보전의 필요성을 인정함에 있어서 보다 엄격하게 따져봐야 한다는 취지의 판시를하였다. 기존의 판례에서 ‘보전의 필요성’이 인정되었던 사안들에 대해서도 향후 다른 판단이나오게될지대법원판결의귀추가주목된다. 이밖에2021년도에이어2022년도에도상가건물 임대차보호법상 권리금 회수 방해행위에 관한 판례가 2개나 나왔고, 앞으로도 계속나올것으로기대된다. 2020. 7. 31. 새롭게시행된이래논란이많았던집주인(임대인)의실거주목적의갱신거절권에관한첫판례가나왔다. 그동안주택임대차보호법제6조의3 제1 항제6호의의미에관하여하급심재판실무에서의견이엇갈렸는데, 동대법원판결로써그러한 혼란을불식시키게 되었다. 종래하급심 판결과 다르게, 대법원은 가맹본부의 허위·과장의 정보제공행위로 인하여 가맹점사업자가 입은 영업손실도 가맹본부가 배상해야 할 손해배상액에 포함된다고 명확히 선언하였다. 이 밖에도 수개의 사해행위취소소송이 제기되어 수개의 가액반환판결 나온 경우 실무상 문제되어 왔던 부분, 착오송금 시 은행의 상계가능 여부 등에 관하여 의미 있는 판결이 나왔다.
Abstract
In this paper, among the major precedents of the Supreme Court on civil matters in the year 2022, I analyzed the meaning and contents of 8 important decisions (focused on the claims) that I arbitrarily selected. The majority opinions in the Supreme Court’s all-collegial decision maintained the previous precedent by stating that the Article 398, Paragraph 2 of the Civil Act cannot be applied to the penalties for breach of contract and the amount of the penalties cannot be reduced by the court according to the above-mentioned clause. However, in my personal opinion, I agree with the opposing opinions in the Supreme Court’s all-collegial decision interpreting that the penalty for breach of contract can be reduced by analogy with Article 398, Paragraph 2 of the Civil Act. In exercising the obligee's right of subrogation prescribed in the Article 404 of the Civil Act, the majority opinions in the Supreme Court’s all-collegial decision enacted a judgment to the effect that in recognizing the necessity of preservation, if the debtor is solvency, a more rigorous examination should be taken in the monetary claim. With this ruling, it is noteworthy whether the different rulings of the Supreme Court will come out in the future on issues where the 'necessity of preservation' has been recognized in previous precedents. In 2022 there have been two precedents regarding the invasion of opportunity to recoup the business investment under the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act and it is expected that there will be more Supreme Court decisions in this regard in the future. The first Supreme Court precedent has been issued regarding the lessor’s right to refuse renewal for the purpose of actual residence, which has been controversial since it was newly implemented on July 31, 2020. In the meantime, there was difference of opinions in the practice of lower court trials regarding the meaning of the Article 6-3, Paragraph 1, Item 6 of the Housing Lease Protection Act, and this Supreme Court decision dispelled such confusion. Unlike the rulings of the lower courts, the Supreme Court clearly declared that the franchiser shall be liable for any operating loss to the franchisee caused by the franchiser’s providing false or exaggerated information. Also the significant judgments were made by the Supreme Court regarding the problem that would occur in practice when creditors concurrently exercise the right to revoke the fraudulent act and monetary compensations, and regarding whether or not the bank may make a set-off to the extent of the amount corresponding to that of its obligation to return the mistaken remittance
- 발행기관:
- 법학연구소
- 분류:
- 비교법학