AI 시대의 계약법리 - UNCITRAL 자동화된 계약 모델법과 귀속의 법리를 중심으로 -

This article examines the UNCITRAL Model Law on Automated Contracting (2024) and explores its legal implications for the Korean Civil Act, electronic transactions law, and consumer protection regulations in the age of AI-driven automation. As automated systems increasingly perform contractual actions without the necessary review or intervention of natural persons, traditional doctrines grounded in human intent face growing uncertainty, particularly regarding the explainability and traceability of non-deterministic AI systems. The Model Law responds to this challenge by shifting the core legal inquiry from the subjective search for intent to an objective doctrine of attribution. Under Article 7 o f the M odel L aw, actions performed b y an a utomated s ys tem are attributed primarily to the party agreement, or, in its absence, to the person who uses the system for that purpose. Crucially, attribution cannot be denied merely because the outcome was unexpected, thereby establishing a normative basis for allocating automation-related risks to the system user. The optional provision in Article 8 further refines the protection of reasonable expectations by combining a foreseeability test with the counterparty’s knowledge of the unexpected nature of the action. Furthermore, the Model Law enhances predictability by recognizing the legal effects of automated contracts (Article 5) and code-based contractual content (Article 6), while preserving existing disclosure duties (Article 9) and prohibiting the evasion of legal consequences through automation (Article 10). Based on this regulatory framework, this study proposes several directions for the modernization of Korean law. First, regarding the doctrine of mistake (Article 109 of the Civil Act), it suggests a transition from a rigid focus on the declarant’s “gross negligence” toward a framework that controls opportunistic reliance and safeguards reasonable expectations. Second, it argues for updating the attribution rules in the Electronic Documents and Electronic Transactions Framework Act from a “dispatch-and-authentication” model to a “use-for-purpose” model. Additionally, it explores legislative remedies for smart contract immutability through value-based restitution or counter-transactions. Finally, in the field of consumer law, the article contends that disclosure duties should be redefined around “actionable information”-information that empowers consumers to avoid, correct, or seek redress for disadvantages-rather than a comprehensive disclosure of algorithmic logic.