2024년도 채권법 분야 대법원 주요 판례 평석

This commentary examines five Supreme Court decisions in the field of the law of obligations in 2024 that require critical review. First, the decision that allowed a claim for substitute compensation when the duty to deliver a substitute object as restitution for a Creditor’s Revocation was granted but became unenforceable raises concerns. It essentially acknow- ledges a claim for monetary compensation due to the non-performance or unenforceability of the restitution claim, which in substance is no different from allowing a re-litigation for monetary compensation. Although the decision formally limits such claims to exceptional cases, there are concerns that this may be broadly applied in practice. Second, two rulings related to the expiration of renewed lease agree- ments were reviewed. In the first case, under the Housing Lease Protection Act, where the tenant initially requested renewal but later sought to terminate the contract, the Court held that the lease is renewed when the renewal request is received, and the termination becomes effective three months after notice, regardless of whether the renewed lease period has commenced. However, this interpretation confuses the effectuation of the renewal request with the timing of its legal effect. In the second case, under the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act, the Court held that even if a tenant notifies of non-renewal between one month before and the lease's expiration, the lease does not automatically renew, and thus ends on the original expiration date. This conclusion is reasonable, given that there is no legal restriction on the timing of a tenant's non-renewal notice. Third, in a case concerning the duty of explanation of a licensed realtor, the Court held that explaining the legal nature of the assumption of debt in a real estate transaction constitutes legal work, which lies beyond a licensed realtor’s duties. However, since the licensed realtor is required by law to explain rights related to the property (such as ownership, enforceable lease rights, and senior security rights), and these are inherently legal matters, this judgment may conflict with the current practical expectations placed on real estate agents. Finally, in a case where surplus proceeds were erroneously distributed to the pledgee of a claim secured by a revolving mortgage, the Supreme Court held that the party obliged to return the unjust enrichment was the pledgor, not the pledgee. This ruling lacks substantive legal justification, as it effectively recognizes the extinguishment of the secured obligation through the exercise of the pledge beyond the scope of the pledged claim. Furthermore, the Court's approach to viewing the unjust enrichment resulting from erroneous distribution in the execution and allocation process as a problem of unjust enrichment arising from a triangular legal relationship is also problematic.