수급인의 하자담보책임과 채무불이행책임의 경합에 관한 일고

Contention between Contractor’s Liability for Default of Obligation and Liability for Warranty against Defects

본 연구의 대상판결은 수급인의 담보책임과 채무불이행책임의 경합을 인정해 온 종래대법원의 입장을 그대로 유지하고 있다. 연구자는 여전히 해석상 논쟁의 대상이 되고 있는 담보책임의 성질, 배상범위, 경합 인정 여부 등을 매매하자담보책임과 도급하자담보책임을 비교・검토하면서 이에 관한 논쟁을 입법에 의해 해결한 외국의 입법례도 함께 살펴 보았다. 민법이 하자담보책임과 채무불이행책임의 요건과 효과를 구분하여 규정한 입법취지나 규정내용에 비추어 볼 때, 현재로서는 양 책임을 균질화하는데는 한계가 있다고 판단된다. 따라서 대상판결의 판지와 판결이유는 정당성을 확보하고 있다. 다만 지금과 같은 계약책임의 이원적 구조 아래서는 하자담보책임을 둘러싼 해석론상의 다툼을 해소하기 어려울 것이므로 민법 개정을 통해 궁극적인 해법을 찾는 것이 바람직할 것이다. 계약책임법의 국제적 동향, 우리 민법과 책임구조나 규정내용 면에서 그 궤를 같이 해온 독일과 일본의 채권법 개정은 우리에게 많은 시사점을 주고 있고 또한 중요한 입법 자료로 기능할 것이다. 양 책임의 일원화를 위한 논의가 진전되어 입법으로 연결된다면 해석상의 혼란은 상당 부분 해소될 것이고, 국제적 입법 동향에 부응하는 책임법체계를 완성할 수 있을 것이다.

The Korean Civil Law provides a dual definition of liability for warranty against defects (hereinafter ‘Warranty ) and liability for default of obligation (hereinafter ‘Default ), and the two responsibilities differ in their requirements and effectiveness. As the two responsibilities are not uniformly disciplined, there has been a lot of interpretation disputes over the legal nature of the liability for warranty and the scope of compensation for damages. The Judgment of Supreme Court Da2000126 delivered on June 11, 2020, which was the subject of the study, determines that it is a warranty from the perspective of the theory of legal policy liability. And, in principle, it takes the position that the scope of compensation for damages is limited to loss of confidence profit. Therefore, if both responsibilities are contested, the contractor may optionally exercise the contractor s liability for warranty and default (ie liability for incomplete performance). In this regard, the theory that the legal nature of the contractor s liability for warranty is considered to be the liability for default is becoming a strong one. It is clear that the view is persuasive in light of the nature of the contract for work. However, it is not an easily acceptable interpretation in light of the legislative intent of the Korean Civil Law or the structure of contract liability. From this point of view, the object judgment is justified in that it recognizes the contest between the contractor s liability for warranty and the liability for fault while maintaining the theory of legal policy liability. However, under the current dual contract liability structure, it will be difficult to end the interpretation debate over the seller s or contractor s liability for warranty. The ultimate solution to this problem can be found through the revision of the civil act. International legislative trends toward unifying contract liability, and the implications of revising the German and Japanese civil laws, which shared the same track in terms of Korean civil law, responsibility structure and regulations, will be important legislative materials. It should be a future task to realize the unification of the two liabilities by making them an important revision agenda in the field of property law.