Author:

1. Breach

• Non-performance of contractual obligation, or a performance which is not in accordance with the contract, would constitute an instance of breach.

Wrongfulness of a breach

• 2000Da47361 (dated 27 December 2002; an agreement to donate concluded under duress was not performed; non-performance was held to be prima facie 'wrongful'): Breach of contract is in itself assessed to be 'wrongful'. Only in exceptional, extraordinary circumstances, it may be possible that the breach can be found to be 'justified'. (re-affirmed in 2011Da85352; land owners challenging the housing re-development project and - erroneously - refused to convey the lands. The refusal was held to be wrongful and the land owners judged to be 'at fault')
• 2011Du2477: A pension fund withheld some portion of pension payments to some of the retired public servants in accordance with a statutory provision which required withholding of a portion of pension payments if the retiree has other incomes (Public Servants Pension Act, Article 47). But the statutory provision was later declared unconstitutional by the Constitutional Court. The retirees brought lawsuits to claim withheld portions together with delay damages. The Supreme Court held that since the relevant provision is retroactively invalidated, the pension fund who withheld the portion of payments must, in principle, be found to be in wrongful breach of the pension contract (even if it only did what the statute required it to do at the relevant time). The Supreme Court, however, ruled that the delay damage (delay interest) need only be paid after the date the statute was declared unconstitutional as the breach was exceptionally "not wrongful" because i) the unconstitutionality of the provision was not self-evident; ii) the pension fund was required by law to abide by the statutory provision while it was not struck down; and iii) the pension fund had no power to influence the legislative process.

Fault

• The party committing a breach is presumed to be at fault. (Art. 390. The party in breach must argue and prove that its act was neither intentional nor negligent.)
• In practice, other than force majeure, the court rarely accepts the defence of no fault.  2001Da1386: (천재지변이나 이에 준하는 경제사정의 급격한 변동 등 불가항력으로 인하여 목적물의 준공이 지연된 경우에는 수급인은 지체상금을 지급할 의무가 없다고 할 것이지만, 이른바 imf 사태 및 그로 인한 자재 수급의 차질 등은 그와 같은 불가항력적인 사정이라고 볼 수 없다.)
• 대법원 2007. 12. 27 선고 2006다9408 판결: 채무불이행으로 인한 손해배상액이 예정되어 있는 경우에는 채권자는 채무불이행 사실만 증명하면 손해의 발생 및 그 액을 증명하지 아니하고 예정배상액을 청구할 수 있고, 채무자는 채권자와 채무불이행에 있어 채무자의 귀책사유를 묻지 아니한다는 약정을 하지 아니한 이상 자신의 귀책사유가 없음을 주장ㆍ입증함으로써 예정배상액의 지급책임을 면할 수 있다. 그리고 채무자의 귀책사유를 묻지 아니한다는 약정의 존재 여부는 근본적으로 당사자 사이의 의사해석의 문제로서, 당사자 사이의 약정 내용과 그 약정이 이루어지게 된 동기 및 경위, 당사자가 그 약정에 의하여 달성하려고 하는 목적과 진정한 의사, 거래의 관행 등을 종합적으로 고찰하여 합리적으로 해석하여야 하지만, 당사자의 통상의 의사는 채무자의 귀책사유로 인한 채무불이행에 대해서만 손해배상액을 예정한 것으로 봄이 상당하므로, 채무자의 귀책사유를 묻지 않기로 하는 약정의 존재는 엄격하게 제한하여 인정하여야 한다.
• Sale, contract for a work, lease: if a breach is committed, the breaching party's fault is almost always recognised.
• Contract to treat a patient: if the physician applied procedures which are within the bounds of acceptable practice, fault is not recognised. It is not even clear whether a 'breach' can be recognised in the first place.
• For the purpose of termination, fault is mostly irrelevant. (하경효, "채무불이행과 계약 해제의 요건", 고려법학, 2003)
  • Fault is relevant only when the breaching party proves that the performance was rendered impossible by causes attributable to the other party or to none of the parties. (Art 546, 537, 538)

2. Effect of a breach

• The aggrieved party may compel the performance in so far as it is possible to do so (Article 389 of KCC);
• Alternatively, the aggrieved party may, if the breach is material, terminate the contract, usually with retroactive effect (Articles 543-553);
• Additionally, the party may seek compensation for any foreseeable loss incurred as a result of the breach (Article 390 of KCC).
• The victim of a breach may choose between a reliance measure of damages and a performance measure of damages. Supreme Court Judgment 2002Da2539, dated 11 June 2002; Supreme Court Judgment 2001Da75295, dated 23 October 2003.

3. Materiality of a breach

• Supreme Court Judgment 2005Da53705, dated 25 November 2005
• In order to terminate a contract, the breach must be about an obligation which is indispensable to achieve the purpose of the contract. A breach of an incidental obligation which has little importance would not be a ‘material breach’. In order to be ‘material’, the breach must be about an obligation which is important enough so that without its proper performance the purpose of the contract cannot be achieved and the parties would not have entered into the contract.
• This is a question of fact which must be assessed in light of the parties’ intention which was expressed or reasonably inferred from objective circumstances existing at the time of entering into the contact.
• While a particular obligation may not, in itself, be of great value, if its discharge is of critical importance to the parties, the breach thereof will be judged to be a material breach.
• The content and the purpose of the contract, the consequences of non-performance of the obligation in question should all be taken into account in this assessment.
  

Further reading:

• 김상호, "부수적 채무의 불이행과 계약의 해제 (1994.12.22 선고, 93다2766 판결)", 대법원 판례 해설, 재판연구관 세미나 자료 1994년 하반기 (통권 제22호) 제176면-  (매도인인 반야암 주지의 계약 해제 시도를 배척)
• 2005Da53705 (painting booth)

1. Simultaneous performance

• Unless the parties agree otherwise, obligations arising from a synallagmatic contract ought to be performed simultaneously
• Obligations to restore the thing sold and money received must also be performed simultaneously. Art. 549
• Where it is fair and equitable to require simultaneous performance:
  • 95Da1521 (construction of a three-storey house, top floor and 1/3 ownership of the land to be conveyed to the builder as a payment in kind for the construction work. Owner refused to convey arguing that the builder owes him money which was advanced by the owner to the builder)
  • 2001Da27784 (payment withheld until attachment is canceled)
  • 98Da13754: If the thing sold is attached (or an injunction banning its disposal is issued), the purchaser is entitled to refuse (=postpone) payment of the purchase price (until the attachment is cancelled or the injunction is discharged).
  • 2010Da11323: 동시이행관계에 있는 채무를 부담하는 쌍방 당사자 중 일방이 먼저 현실의 제공을 하고 상대방을 수령지체에 빠지게 하였다고 하더라도 그 이행의 제공이 계속되지 아니하였다면 과거에 이행제공이 있었다는 사실만으로 상대방이 가지는 동시이행의 항변권이 소멸하지 아니하고( 대법원 1993. 8. 24. 선고 92다56490 판결, 대법원 1995. 3. 14. 선고 94다26646 판결 등 참조), 또한 동시이행의 관계에 있는 쌍방의 채무 중 어느 한 채무가 이행불능이 됨으로 인하여 발생한 손해배상채무도 여전히 다른 채무와 동시이행의 관계에 있다고 할 것이다( 대법원 2000. 2. 25. 선고 97다30066 판결 등 참조).

2. "Substantive Defence"

• If the relevant facts (that the counterpart has not tendered the performance) are presented, the court may not ignore them. The party shall not be held liable for late performance and shall not be required to pay the delay damage.
• 97Da54604 (Donga Construction): Donga (Construction company) appointed an agent (K) to negotiate land acquisition. K concluded the contract on behalf of Donga but the price was 1.5 times higher than authorised by Donga. Moreover, K received money from Donga and embezzled, rather than deliver it to the seller. Seller sues Donga and demand payment of purchase price plus delay interest on the partial payment. Donga denies liability and argues that the sale contract is not binding upon Donga. The court ruled that the sale contract is valid and binding. But Donga's liability for late payment damage in respect of the partial payment (which must be performed before the closing) shall only be payable until the closing date (when both parties' performances begin to be subject to the defence of simultaneous performance). From the closing date onward, no late payment damage is claimable. (The court took into account the relevant facts to determine the quantum of the damage, i.e., delay interest.)
• But where the defendant does not plead the defence of simultaneous performance, the court will order the performance without mentioning the counter-performance. 90Daka25222

3. No right

• The defence, if successful, would allow the party to delay the performance without incurring liability for late performance.
• It does not create a right to enjoy the thing which is in possession of the party who has to return it. 89Daka4298
• Art 536, Para. 2 (Defence of feared risk of counter-performance)
  • 2011Da93025: The “manifest circumstances which make it difficult for the other party to perform” refer to a situation where there is a change of circumstances after the contract is concluded such as deterioration of the obligee’s creditworthiness, level of wealth or other circumstances which render the obligee’s counter-performance unlikely and, as a result, it is against fairness and against good faith to require the obligor to perform its obligation as originally agreed. Whether or not there are such circumstances must be assessed taking account of all attendant circumstances of the two parties in a comprehensive manner. The circumstances which give rise to the [obligor’s] defence of feared risk of counter-performance need not be limited to the occurrence of an event which has the objective or general nature such as deterioration of the obligee’s creditworthiness or level of wealth.

4. Comparative perspective

Concurrent condition: when the parties undertake to perform simultaneously, neither performance becomes due unless one is ready and willing to perform one's own obligation.
Delivery and payment are concurrent conditions: Sale of Goods Act 1979, s 28

Mutuality of remedy: The court will not compel a defendant to perform his obligations specifically if it cannot at the same time ensure that any unperformed obligations of the plaintiff will be specifically performed. If, however, damages can be adequate remedy for plaintiff's default, plaintiff may seek specific performance while he has not himself performed. Price v Strange [1978] Ch. 337 at 367-368.

1. Time of performance

• Where 'uncertain' time is specified
  • performance is due when the promisor knows that the time has come. Art. 387(1)
• Where the time is not specified at all
  • Performance is due upon demand (on the day the demand is made)
  • a "reasonable time" is allowed when a demand is made for repayment of a loan of money or fungibles. Art. 603(2)
• Where the time of performance is specified
  • If the time is of the essence, delay would lead to impossibility of performance, damage in lieu of performance, termination (in addition to delay damage, if any)
  • If the time is not of the essence, delay would only lead to delay damage, if and to the extent the loss caused by the delay is proven. In order to seek termination, damage in lieu of performance, further and additional demand (providing a reasonable extension) must be made (and no performance is done). While the obligee does not decline to accept the performance, the obligor is entitled to delayed performance (as it must be accepted, with a delay damage).

2. The effect of a delay

• The party in delay shall be held liable for all losses regardless of fault (Art. 392)
• If, however, the loss would have occurred even if timely performance had been made, the party in delay will only need to compensate for the delay.
• What if, while the obligor repudiates before the due date (thus not in delay, presumably) and the obligee does not accept the repudiation, the performance becomes impossible for reasons inattributable to the parties (force majeure)?
• Where time is of the essence, delay of performance would justify the other party's immediate termination. Alternatively, the obligee may decline (irrevocably) to accept the performance and seek damage in lieu of performance (Art 395).
• Where the obligee seeks to compel the delayed performance and the obligor refuses. The obligor would argue that, due to the delay, the performance is now impossible or no longer compliant with the parties' agreement.
• Where the obligor insists that the obligee accept the delayed performance and the obligee refuses to receive the performance: In such a case, the obligee would argue that the delayed performance is of no benefit and therefore it is 'entitled' to decline without giving any extension for performance.

3. Termination on the ground of delay

• Not allowed in principle, unless time is of the essence (Art. 545).
• Termination is possible when a reasonable extension for the performance is provided and yet no performance is made. (Art. 544)
• If the obligor repudiates (ahead of the due date, or after the due date), the obligee may terminate forthwith without providing an extension. (Art. 544, proviso seem to be interpreted by the court to refer only to repudiation while the obligor is already in delay.)
• Replacement damage (damage in lieu of performance) is available if (and only if) the delayed performance is pointless or no performance was done after the obligee demanded performance providing a reasonable extension. In order to seek replacement damage, the obligee MUST decline (irrevocably) to accept the performance. Art 395 of the KCC.
• If the obligor repudiates its own obligation while he fails to accept performance of the other party (thus in mora creditoris), the obligee may terminate forthwith. (93Da11821)
• 94Da35930: Even where a reasonable extension was not explicitly granted, the termination is valid when it was done after the lapse of a reasonable period of time after the performance was demanded. A termination notice (invalid because no extension had been given) can still be regarded as a demand for performance. Termination becomes valid after the lapse of a reasonable period from such a notice. 89Daka11685
• 79Da1859: In a sale of real estate, the payment of balance was due on 20 April. Buyer did not pay. On 24 April, seller tendered all necessary documents needed for completion and demanded buyer's payment by 26 April.  Seller terminated the contract on 27 April. Termination valid.

4. Delay interest in a sale contract

• … The purchaser shall pay interest on the purchase price from the date the thing sold was delivered. However, this does not apply if there is a due date for the payment of the purchase price. (Art. 587)

• Purchaser not required to pay interest until the thing sold is actually delivered (Art 587 of KCC; 96Da14190): “even where the purchaser fails to make timely payment of the purchase price, the purchaser need not pay interest on the purchase price until the thing sold is delivered."
• However, if partial payment is delayed, interest is payable only on the partial payment until the closing date. 대법원 1991. 3. 27 선고 90다19930 판결
• Where the parties agreed upon the due date for the simultaneous performance of the delivery and the payment, if neither party performs on the due date, the respective obligations of the parties shall become obligations ‘without a due date’. See Supreme Court Decision 73Ma969, dated 11 December 1974.

5. Where delay is 'exceptionally' not wrongful

• 2011Du2477,2484 dated 27 November 2014 (a provision of the Public Servants Pension Act which stipulated a reduced entitlement for pension payment for those who have additional income was declared unconstitutional with retroactive effect). The Supreme Court held that the delay of payment (to the extent which had been statutorily prohibited to be paid) is "not wrongful" and the delay interest need only be paid after the statute was declared unconstitutional.

5. Mora creditoris in a sale contract

• The party in mora creditoris is normally responsible for the obligor's added costs of safekeep of the object and the added costs of performance. Art 403
• However, in a sale contract, the purchaser is not responsible for the seller's costs of maintenance and preservation of the thing sold until it is delivered (even if the purchaser is in mora creditoris). 80Da211 (Even when the Purchaser is in breach of its own obligation, Seller still has the duty to maintain and preserve the thing sold until delivery anyway. Art 374.)

1. Manner of discharge

86Daka1755
Parties agreed that in lieu of money payment, the debtor shall convey a property. They registered the agreement to convey the property. The debtor subsequently paid money. The registered agreement to convey the property is null and void.

2. Accord executed is satisfaction

• Only when there is an accord that the substitute performance is in lieu of the original obligation, will the substitute performance fully discharge the original obligation.
• If the substitute performance is towards satisfaction of the original obligation, any shortfall after the substitute performance still remains.

3. Accord without satisfaction is

• of no effect to the creditor
• debtor may discharge the debt either by providing the performance as originally agreed (ignoring the according the alter the manner of performance) or by providing the altered performnace as agreed by the accord to provide the alternative performance in lieu of the original performance.

4. Interpretation

• accord
• novation
• Agreement to provide a security

Art 607:

• 91Da25574: If the debt has already fallen due, when the accord was made, then the accord and satisfaction between the debtor and the creditor is not regulated by Art. 607

Act Regarding Registered Option to Secure a Debt

97Da43543
Building contractor had a money claim against the owner. The contractor and the owner agreed that the owner's property shall be transferred to the contractor in lieu of the payment of the money. The contractor's creditor attached the contractor's money claim. The validity of the attachment? (accord or novatio). If the agreement between the owner and the contractor was an accord which was not yet satisfied, the owner may not perform to the contractor (as the debt was attached). The owner has a defence against the contractor's creditor (owner may rely on the validity of the accord) and the owner can insist on handing over the property, rather than the money. If the agreement was novation, the attachment is void (as it is in respect of an claim which no longer existed.)

1. Who has the 'power' to receive?

• creditor, his agent, receiver (when the creditor is in bankruptcy)
• pledgee (where credit is offered as a pledge)
• (apparent or true) possessor of a negotiable instrument, documentary credit
• possessor of a receipt issued by the creditor: Art. 471
• those who have the appearance of an agent (distinct from ostensible authority)
• appearance of an assignee
• invalid collection order or assignment order
  • 96Da44747 (assignment order)
  • 94Da59868 (Yonhap Comm.)
  • 무효의 전부채권자에 대한 변제의 효력

2. Protecting the debtor

• Debtor who performed in good faith and without negligence shall be absolved. Article 470.
• Debtor may seek recovery of payment made in error (Arts. 742, 744)
  • 2000Da23006: The debtor who paid negligently (upon erroneous advice of lawyers) successfully claimed (alleging its own negligence) return of the payment from the recipient.

3. Protecting the creditor

• creditor may sue either the recipient who received the performance (which was validly done by the debtor in good faith) or the debtor who made the invalid payment to the recipient.
• the debtor who paid in good faith will be discharged as long as he was not negligent
• Creditor suing the recipient: 98Da61593 (survivors of a car accident received the insurance payment and then received an additional payment of 42 million KRW from the aggressor) The insurer sues the survivors. Insurer alleges unjust enrichment or, alternatively, tort:
• For the Insurer's claim to be successful, the Insurer must prove that
  • 1) the aggregate total amount received by the survivors exceeded the loss sustained or inherited by the survivors
  • 2) the aggressor made the payment in good faith and without negligence. In order to prove this, the plaintiff must show either that the aggressor did not know that the insurance payment was made to the survivors or that the aggressor believed that the insurance payment did not fully compensate and his 'additional' payment would not be over-compensation.
  • 3) (for a tort claim to succeed) the survivors were at fault (either deliberately received the money knowing that they were not entitled or that they were negligent in believing that they were entitled to receive the additional payment)
• If the Insurer fails to prove the validity of the aggressor's payment, the Insurer's claim against the Insured will fail (because, in that case, the Insurer would have sustained no loss as the aggressor's payment does not discharge the aggressor's obligation to the insurer).
• If the insurance company had sued the agressor (debtor) rather then the survivors who received the payment, would it have had a better chance of recovering?
• Creditor suing the debtor in tort: 87Daka546
  • A and B are competing creditors who have claims against C.
  • C has 5.8 million KRW credit claimable from D.
  • A attached C's claim against D. B also attached C's same claim.
  • B applied for and got an assignment order purporting to transfer C's claim (against D) to B. B sued D on relyng on the invalid assignment order. D did not contest the validity of the assignment order. Upon judgment in favour of B, D promptly paid to B, purporting to discharge its debt to C.
  • A sued D for payment of the debt (relying on an assignment order, which is equally invalid). When it emerged that the assignment order was invalid, A modified the claim and sued D in tort and sought damage (resulting from the loss incurred by D's collusive discharge of debt).
  • The court allowed A's tort damage claim.
• Query:
  • If the assigment order is invalid, does A have any ground to allege a "loss"?
  • In theory, however, if D was negligent in discharging its debt or if D was in bad faith, D's payment would not have the effect of extinguishing D's debt and thus it cannot be said that A suffered any 'loss'.
  • A could have freshly applied for a collection order (authorising A to claim against D) and bring a claim against D with the proceeds to be divided up between attachment creditors.
  • But the court apparently ignored these theoretical niceties and allowed A's tort claim against D probably on the weight of the evidence showing collusion between B and D.

1. Requirements

• Exact compliance is required with regard to time, place and mode of performance
• Actual tender is required; verbal communication of readiness and willingness is not enough
• Tender of partial performance is not enough:

84Daka781: The plaintiff owes to the Defendant an outstanding balance of KRW1,213,809. On 1 July 1983, the Plaintiff tendered an amount of payment but the Defendant refused to accept the payment. The Plaintiff paid into the court KRW510,000. Lower court held that the debt was partially repaid to the extent of the the amount paid into the court. Supreme Court overturned the decision, holding that given that it is not established how much was tendered, the payment into the court cannot have an effect of (even a partial) repayment of the debt.

2. Non-acceptance of the tender (mora creditoris)

• Art. 400 - Art 403, Art 538(1)
• Relaxed duty of care (obligor is liable for intentional breach or gross negligence only) Art 401 2010Da11323: in an exchange contract, party A tendered the performance (offered to transfer the title of a property to B, as agreed) and party B failed to accept it. B was therefore in mora creditoris. A subsequently disposed of the property to a third party. Supreme Court held that A shall be liable for the non-performance.
• Interest stops to accrue (Art 402)
• Increased costs of performance due to mora creditoris must be compensated. Art 403
• If the obligor's performance becomes impossible during the obligee's mora creditoris due to reasons not attributable to any party, the oblgor's obligation shall be discharged but the obligee's counter-performance obligation survives. Art 538(1).
• Art 403 Inapplicable to a sale contract.
  • Art 374: Seller must bear the costs of maintaining and preserving the thing sold until it is delivered (even while the buyer is in mora creditoris and in delay, or in repudiatory breach of its obligation to pay the purchase price). 80Da211
  • Art 587: Seller is entitled to keep the fruits from the thing sold until it is delivered. Purchaser not required to pay interest until delivery (or deposit into court) of the thing sold (i.e., while the seller retains the possession of the thing sold) even if the Purchaser is in delay (95Da14190) or in repudiatory breach.

3. Tender in a sale contract where the parties agreed upon simultaneous performance

• One party's tender will put the other party in breach (if the other party does not perform its obligation)
• However, the breach will not continue unless the tender continues. 94Da26646, 2010Da11323
• In a sale contract, the purchaser need not pay delay interest, need not bear the seller's costs of safekeep or the increased costs of performance until the delivery of the thing sold (See Art. 587. N.B. Art 403 inapplicable). 96Da14190, 80Da211. This is because the seller not only has an obligation to maintain and to preserve the thing sold until it is delivered (Art. 374) but, more importantly, the seller (unlike a lessee who has to return the object of lease) may fully benefit from the undelivered thing while it remains undelivered and also because the seller is entitled to keep the fruit from the thing while it remains undelivered.
• The seller could, if it so chooses, deposit the thing sold into court (= equivalent to the delivery to the purchaser). From then on, the seller shall be entitled to delay damage in respect of unpaid purchase price.

 4. Does non-acceptance constitute a breach (a repudiatory breach) of contract?

• May the debtor terminate the contract?
• Indefinitely bound by the contract?
• Payment into Court
• Refusal to accept v. Refusal to perform
• 2019Da293036: In principle, mora creditoris is not a breach of contract. But in exceptional cases, it may constitute a breach of a contractual obligation which may be recognised on the ground of good faith principle. In such a case, the other party may terminate the contract if the purpose of the contract cannot be achieved without cooperation of the obligee.
• (cf.) English law: Sale of Goods Act 1979, section 37 (Buyer's neglect to take delivery may hold him liable to compensate for the seller's loss. Seller is discharged.)

1. Art. 108

• Contract and its uses
• Hidden purpose
• Contravention

2. The 'true' intent?

• Sham transaction -- a comparative approach, ICC/KCAB/KOCIA Conference on "EAST ASIA and INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION", 2006.10.26

3. Null and Void

• Protection of third party in good faith

1. Non-genuine representation

• Binding
• Not binding if the counterpart ought to have been aware that it was non-genuine

2. Null and void

• No need to rescind
• free from the limitation period affecting rescission

3. Wide (perhaps too wide) ranging application

• 92Da3670 (Busan Fish Market)
• 92Da41528 (Forced donation)

1. Fundamental unfairness

• laesio enormis
• usury (Regulation of Interest Act)
• Consumer Contract
• Art. 339
• Arts. 607, 608
• Art. 652

2. Art. 104

• unfairness of the bargain
  • imbalance of exchange
  • At the time of the contract
  • But, see 65Da610: Contract upheld if it is not unfair at the time of performance (The case was about an accord and satisfaction. Court ruled that unfairness must be determined not at the time of the accord, but at the time of the satisfaction)
• circumstances affecting the party
  • dire circumstances
  • rashness
  • inexperience

3. Causal connection and intention

• Intention to use the circumstances affecting the party as a leverage.

4. Null and void

• Restitution
• Ob turpem, iniustam causam?

5. Cases

• 94Da34432 (Art 104)(Kukche Group)

  (In a case where a borrower company’s shares were sold by the shareholders themselves at the nominal price of 1 KRW per share to the purchaser who is designated by the lender, the Supreme Court ruled that the price may not be viewed as excessively low and that the transaction was not “manifestly unfair” under Article 104 of the Korean Civil Code. In making the ruling, the Supreme Court referred to, among others, the fact that the company’s total liabilities exceeded its assets and thus the net worth of the company was in the negative. The case was not about a pledgee’s disposal of the pledged property. It was the shareholders themselves who decided to sell their own shares when the company was on the verge of bankruptcy and the trading of the company’s shares was suspended by the Korea Stock Exchange and the government was announcing drastic measures aimed at corporate restructuring of the group of companies in question.

  The case was about whether the sale contract voluntarily concluded by the shareholders themselves should be declared null and void on the ground of “manifest unfairness” under Article 104 of the Korean Civil Code, which is based on the Roman legal rule of laesio enormis.)

• 93Da49482 (Duress)(Shinhan Investment Financing, owned by a son-in-law of KukChe Group's Mr. Yang)
• A pledgee has a duty of care in the disposal of the collateral. If, however, the pledge agreement stipulates a method of disposal, then there is no 'general' duty to sell the collateral at a reasonable price. As long as the pledge agreement is abided by, the reasonableness of the disposal price is not an issue (2007Da11996) or unreasonableness of the price alone is not a ground to invalidate the exercise of the pledge right (2018Da304007).

채권법 총론 (법학과)

채권자 취소권 [2009.5.21.제출]

채권양도의 효력/대항력 [2009.6.4. 제출]

대물변제 [2009.6.18 제출]

분량은 A4 용지 두면을 넘지 않도록 하시기 바랍니다. 보고서 제출은 http://lawlec.korea.ac.kr/essay 에서 하시기 바랍니다. 링크를 클릭하기 전에 저의 서버 인증서를 먼저 내려받아 설치하셔야 합니다. http://lawlec.korea.ac.kr/keechang_kim.crt 에 있습니다.

Law of obligations 1 (Law School)

Discuss the legal effect of a contract tainted with "Illegality". [by 21 May]

Defence of simultaneous performance [by 4 June]

Measure of damages under Korean contract law [18 June]

Your written works should not exceed 2 A4 size sheets. Completed works should be uploaded direct at http://lawlec.korea.ac.kr/essay

(You must FIRST install my server certificate, which you can download from http://lawlec.korea.ac.kr/keechang_kim.crt)