‘계약수정권’에 대한 민법과 판례의 태도

The courts are generally hesitant to interfere with contracts made between parties due to the principle of private autonomy, which is fundamental to both the Civil Code and market practices. Without specific provisions in the Civil Code, it is rare for courts to modify the terms of a contract. However, recent discussions have emerged about incorporating the 'right to reform contracts' alongside the principle of 'change of circumstances' in Civil Code amendments, aiming to give courts a legal basis to intervene in contract terms when necessary. Recent case law has shown that courts might allow the unilateral termination or rescission of contracts in the absence of statutory provisions when unforeseen circumstances make contract terms impracticable. This is based on the principle of 'change of circumstances,' which is rooted in good faith. The principle of contractual frustration is applied when unexpected events prevent the achievement of the contract's original purpose, thus exempting parties from their obligations. There has been legislative consideration of introducing the 'Right to Reform,' allowing for contract modification before termination to ensure fairness and economic efficiency. However, this proposal is criticized for potentially undermining party autonomy and fairness. In common law, the right to reform is limited to correcting mistakes in contract content, with courts intervening to uphold the original intentions of the parties rather than rewriting contracts. In some cases, contingent fee agreements are invalidated due to excessive rates or amounts, with courts sometimes reducing payment amounts in response to client requests. Courts have shown a willingness to modify contract terms without specific statutory provisions, believing they have the authority to do so. This readiness to reform contracts indicates a broader interpretation of judicial discretion in balancing fairness and contractual obligations. Finally, while the Right to Reform could theoretically offer a way to address imbalances in contracts, it raises concerns about infringing on private autonomy. Courts have the ability to convert invalid contracts into valid ones under certain conditions, but exercising this power should be approached with caution. The principle of private autonomy should remain paramount, and the Right to Reform should not be exercised based on hypothetical intentions but rather on the actual intentions of the parties involved.