계약교섭의 일방파기와 손해배상책임 - 대상판결 : 대법원 2003. 4. 11. 선고 2001다53059 판결

One-Side Break-Off of Contract Negotiation and Liability for Damages

&nbsp;&nbsp;The case being reviewed dealt with liabilities of a party who broke off negotiation of product supply contract one-sidedly. The existence and scope of responsibilities of compensation for damages caused by one-side breaking-off of contract negotiation are at main legal issue.<BR>&nbsp;&nbsp;The defendant had requested some artists to make a tentative plan of sculpture respectively on condition that the defendant would select finally one plan out of tentative plans and get a contract of product/supply/installation of sculpture with a selected artist. Thereafter the defendant selected the plaintiff&quot;s tentative plan of sculpture and notified the plaintiff of the fact in reality.<BR>&nbsp;&nbsp;In this case have a definite product supply contract been concluded? If not, what reason does justify liabilities of a party who broke off negotiation of product supply contract one-sidedly? If the liability of one-side breaking-off of contract negotiation is admitted, how far extend limits of compensation for damages?<BR>&nbsp;&nbsp;The Korean Supreme Court denied the conclusion of definite contract because the plaintiff&quot;s request, selection and notification of selection couldn&quot;t be regarded as a expression of subscription. The request and selection of tentative plans in the case are nothing but arrangements or negotiation for conclusion of contract.<BR>&nbsp;&nbsp;One party oughts to be faithful to another party in good faith while arranging or negotiating of contracts which last from beginning of negotiation to conclusion of contract. If a party neglect duties of care, he ought to compensate for damages caused by negligence. The court admitted tort liability of the defendant because the plaintiff&quot;s had just expectation or reliance that definite contract would be concluded surely. However, it would be reasonable that responsibilities of compensation for damages is constructed on the basis of not tort liability but contractual liability(Culpa in contrahendo) in case that plaintiffs acquire rights of exclusive contract negotiation.<BR>&nbsp;&nbsp;With regard to the scope of liabilities caused by one-side breaking-off of contract negotiation, liabilities amount to compensation of reliance interest commonly. The court decided on the case that the plaintiff could claim consolation money for mental injuries in case of infringement of personal benefits.