ScholarWorks@숙명여자대학교

초록

Legislative work is being carried out in each country in line with the changing trend of the times in the field of contract law. With the aim of reflecting international trends in the background of these legislations, the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sales of Goods(CISG), the UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contract(PICC), and the Principles of European Contracts Law(PECL) are being implemented. They have a direct and indirect effect on not only international transactions but also on each country's domestic contract laws. Among them, the CISG's avoidance of the contract model was counted on PICC or PECL, and it became an important reference for recent civil law revisions made in each country, starting with the revision of the German Civil Code in 2002, for example, the revision of the French Civil Code in 2016 and the revision of the Japanese Civil Code in 2017. In short, it is not an exaggeration to say that the CISG's contract termination regulation system and regulations-although they are limited to sales contracts-converged in various ways in each country's legislation. This also gives implications to the ongoing revision of our civil law. Therefore, this article seeks to explore implications for our law by analyzing the contents of the CISG's rules regarding the effect of contract termination and examining how this has been accepted and transformed in the revision of laws in France, Germany, and Japan by comparison. The issues covered in this paper relate to the effect of termination of the court by the buyer's expression of intention as a responsibility in the event of the seller's default. Specifically, the following matters are reviewed. (1) The issue of retroactive and future effects is dealt with as the effect of contract cancellation. In fact, this issue is not a legal issue, but rather a matter of legislative policy. The CISG recognizes this issue in terms of earnings management, which we look at. (2) When the buyer cancels the contract, it examines whether the benefits that have not yet been fulfilled are extinguished and the obligation to restore the benefits that have already been fulfilled, as the content of specific legal relations between the parties. The legal nature of the obligation to restore the original state may be questioned by whether or not there is a prestigious regulation for the liberation effect in the case of non-fulfillment benefits and how to view the effect of the cancellation of the contract for pre-fulfillment benefits. (3) As the specific content of the obligation to restore the original state, our Civil Law only provides for the return of payments and interest. However, in the case of the CISG, there are regulations on cases in which the return of goods and original goods is impossible, and the recent legislation of each country tends to reflect this and make clear regulations as possible. Furthermore, the problem of restoration of goods includes the return of negligence and profit in use, and the repayment of expenses. Regarding each issue related to the above contract cancellation, this article examined the regulations of the CISG (II), compared and analyzed the recent revisions of Germany, France, and Japan that referred to the CISG (III), and derived implications for our law (IV).

키워드