自然債務論에 관한 一考察

A Study of the Theory of Natural Obligations

  It can"t be said that it is always reasonable to distinguish between law and morals, because both law and morals are of a same character as a norm of social life and most parts of their contents and missions coincide with each other.   The inherent motive of legislation of the law that authorize a receiptor to keep a benefit is finally nothing but the reason why the law do not allow to enforce a payment by lawsuit but left the problem to regulations of social norms, moral and so forth.   If it is so, in order to obtain a systematic arrangement and understanding of the theory, it cannot be regard as unnecessary to grasp all cases uniformly in which the law authorize a receiptor to keep a benefit by the concept of Natural Obligations including moral obligations.   In consideration of the character of Civil Law as so-called "Morals Law", it is reasonable and necessary to recognize moral obligations as Natural Obligations and to grant a fixed effect to moral obligations.   It is too manifold to enumerate examples that codifies morals.   One of the typical examples which codify morals, the Article §103 of the Korean Civil Code that invalidate legal transaction of which contents violate "good customs and social order and so forth" meaning of morals and ethics.   And the Article §746 of the Korean Civil Code that forbid a person to demand the return of unjust enrichment(" condictio ob iniustam causam") indicate that the civil law is moral law.