2024년 민법개정안 중 ‘매도인의 하자담보책임’에 관한 검토

According to the current civil law, it was necessary to first examine whether the defect in question was a defect in the right, a defect in the product, a defect in quality, a quantitative defect, or a sale of a specific product, and apply the remedy according to the specific requirements specified in the legal text for each type. Relief measures were also different for each defect. The attitude of these current civil laws has never changed since the civil law was enacted. However, Germany and Japan, which had similar systems to ours, succeeded in revising the civil law and simplified the security liability regulations. International and model laws provide various remedies for default after simply embracing the situation caused by contract failure in one type of default. In line with this, the amendment also fundamentally changed the regulatory method while maintaining the system of security liability, simplifying the right to claim additional performance and the right to claim a reduction in payment as general and priority remedies. However, the amendment adopted a method of applying mutatis mutandis to the right to cancel and claim damages stipulated in the liability for default in the liability for security for the purpose of emphasizing the relationship between the liability for default and the liability for security, even though it does not fully integrate the liability for default and the liability for security. As a result, the right to claim damages under the liability for security has been changed from non-fault liability to negligence liability, and the scope of compensation has been extended to performance gains and extended damages. However, poor integration with liability for default eventually increases the complexity of liability for security and contradicts the current precedent attitude for the right to claim damages due to liability for security.