Earticle

초록

영어

Jhering’s “Culpa in contrahendo oder Schdensersatz bei nichtigen oder nicht zur Perfection gelangten Verträgen"(1861) seriously affected legislation Germany Civil Code(1900). Germany Civil Code included Initial impossibility et cetera in the title of Culpa in contrahendo, but Korean Civil Code included only Initial impossibility in the title of Culpa in contrahendo. So more complicated controversy (than Germany) last in Korea. Complicated controversy was originated from the theory of Culpa in contrahendo. Before the legislation Germany Civil Code(1900), German common law that was based on Actio system of the Roman law applied in Germany. So, numerous cases that are not included Actio are rejected. Jhering developed the theory of Culpa in contrahendo for surpassing the Actio system, but he can’t overcome it because the theory of Culpa in contrahendo applied to individually specified cases.(If Jhering extrated his theory from Thomasius’s proposition of ‘Non turbabis alios, nec impedies in usu iuris sui’, so his theory had the concept of 「general」 negligence, Complicated controversy maybe didn’t arise.) Anyway, Rivision of the Law of Obligations of German Civil Code(2002) revised widely Articles that were controverted subjects – especially, normal Duty of Providing Information -. So, controversy in Germany is ended to some degree. therefore it is necessary for legislators of Korea to refer to Revision of German Civil Code(2002) in connection with rivision of Korea Civil Code § 535(Culpa in contrahendo).

목차

Ⅰ. 머리말
 Ⅱ. 계약체결상의 과실 제도의 연혁
 Ⅲ. 원시적ㆍ객관적 불능은 무효?
 Ⅳ. 결론
 참고문헌
 ABSTRACT

키워드

저자

• 김학웅 [ Kim, Hak-Woong | 원광대학교 법학전문대학원 조교수, 법학연구소 연구위원, 법학석사, 변호사. ]

참고문헌

발행기관

간행물

표지보기 관심저널 등록

• 간행물명

  원광법학 [Journal of Law research]

• 간기

  계간

• pISSN

  1598-429X

• eISSN

  2508-4526

• 수록기간

  1962~2026

• 등재여부

  KCI 등재

• 십진분류

  KDC 360 DDC 340