불공정한 법률행위의 성립 요건에 관한 검토 - 대법원 2024. 3. 12. 선고 2023다301712 판결 -

This article examines the implications and legitimacy of a Supreme Court decision, which ruled that a lessor’s agreement to pay a lessee a substantial amount for delivery settlements and moving expenses, as compensation for the lessee’s delivery of the leased object to the lessor (who sold the leased object to a third party during the lease term), did not constitute an unfair juristic act under Article 104 of the Civil Act. The ruling clarified that to determine whether there is a significant imbalance between performance and compensation, both must be explicitly established in advance. It further held that disadvantages avoided by a party claiming strained circumstances in a contractual relationship with a third party should not be considered part of the compensation for the other party. The determination of unfairness under Article 104 of the Civil Act should rely solely on the performance and compensation explicitly outlined in the juristic act in question. Anexceptional case exists where performance, in effect, serves as compensation tied to property gains, particularly when multiple contracts are executed as part of a single transaction. In such instances, the performance must be identified and confirmed as compensation under the juristic act. The Supreme Court’s decision is valid because the disadvantage avoided by the party claiming strained circumstances in its dealings with a third party is irrelevant to the other party’s gains under the juristic act. Considering that including such a disadvantage in the other party’s performance would typically fail to meet the objective requirements of an unfair juristic act, the ruling appropriately excluded it. The decision also addressed situations involving "self-inflicted hardship," where a party anticipates and accepts a disadvantage arising from a breach of contract with the other party. The Court held that self-inflicted hardship should not easily qualify as strained circumstances. Recognizing such hardship as desperate could create scenarios where the law unjustly protects parties who fail to fulfill existing contracts in pursuit of economic gains. In cases where the party experiencing self-inflicted hardship does not lack information, judgment, or bargaining power relative to the other party, such hardship cannot be considered strained circumstances. This reasoning further supports the legitimacy of the Court’s conclusion.