论韩国《民法》中契约法定解除权事由

On the Cause of the Legal Rescission of Contract in the Korean Civil Law

韩国《民法》中契约法定解除事由可分为两种:一是韩国《民法》第543条第1项规定的约定解除事由,二是韩国《民法》第544条(迟延履行)、第545条(定期行为)、第546条(履行不能)规定的法定解除事由。此外,根据韩国《民法》的"债务不履行"体系及民法学界的通说观点,当发生拒绝履行、不完全履行和债权人受领迟延时等情形时,契约的一方当事人也可通过解除契约的方式对上述情形进行救济。但由于韩国法律中"债务不履行"的发生以存在可归责于债务人的事由为前提,当发生不可归责于债务人的事由时,债权人就无法通过解除契约的方式对已无继续履行之必要的契约进行救济。为解决上述问题,韩国可通过引进英美法系的"救济进路",将"根本违约"作为契约是否需要解除的唯一判断标准,不再考虑是否存在可归责于债务人的归责事由,以更好地实现契约解除制度的功能及价值。

In the Korean Civil Law,there are two kinds of reasons for the legal rescission of the contract.Firstly,the reasons for rescission of agreement stipulated in Article 543(1)of the Korean Civil Law,and secondly,the legal reasons for rescission stipulated in Article 544(delay in performance),545(Periodic Act)and 546(Impossibility of Performance)of the Korean Civil Law.In addition,according to the"nonperformance of debts"system of the Korean Civil Law and the general view of the civil law community,when a refusal to perform,incomplete performance or delay in the receipt of creditors occurs,aparty to a contract may also remedy the above situation by removing the contract.However,since the occurrence of"non-performance of debts"in Korean law presupposes the existence of a cause that can be attributed to the debtor,when something that cannot be imputed to the debtor occurs,creditors will not be able to remedy contracts that are no longer necessary for further performance by way of rescission of the contract.In order to solve the above problems,Korea can adopt the"relief approach"of Anglo-American law system and regard"fundamental breach"as the only criterion to judge whether a contract needs to be terminated,and no longer consider whether there is any imputation to be attributable to the debtor,so as to better realize the function and value of the contract termination system.