Questions on the Civil Act Amendment Bill: How Far Does the Explanation That One Did Not Know of the Error Go?
These are PRO SE's editorial questions on the published amendment bill materials. They are not actual citizen comments or submitted legislative opinions. The full text of the attached bill as tabled has not been reviewed, and the content below addresses only the Government's summary of proposals that has been reviewed.
Four editorial questions raised in reading the Government's summary of proposals on mistake, contract interpretation, undue interference and change of circumstances.
Which stage's materials were read?
The Government Legislation Status page shows the legislative notice period as February 7, 2025 to March 19, 2025, and the last displayed stage as submission to the National Assembly (December 17, 2025, Bill No. 2215371). The National Assembly Library's proposal date for the same bill is shown as December 18, 2025. Dates belonging to different procedural items were not merged into one.
This is a record of the screen confirmed on September 30, 2026. Whether the bill was subsequently handled by the National Assembly, promulgated, or enforced was not confirmed in this article, so the proposed rule should not be read as a law currently in force. The registration date of this article differs from the date the amendment was published.
Sources for this section: National Participation in Legislation Center — Civil Act Government Legislation Status and Summary of Proposal · National Assembly Library — Bill on Partial Amendment to the Civil Act, Bill No. 2215371
Should even operations that do not read warnings be protected?
The basis is the Summary of Principal Contents, Da, Article 109 of the proposed Bill. The summary of the proposal explains the direction of permitting avoidance even where the declarant was grossly negligent, if the other party knew of the mistake or failed to know of it due to gross negligence.
For a company that operated automated purchase warnings so that people would not see them, by what records would one evaluate what could have been checked and why it was not checked? Is there not a need for a criterion distinguishing between the mere existence of one warning and serious neglect of verification?
Sources for this section: National Participation in Legislation Center — Civil Act Government Legislation Status and Summary of Proposal
An order read differently by two systems: whose meaning becomes the contract?
The Summary of Principal Contents, Na, Article 106 of the proposed Bill is a proposal seeking to codify the general standard for the interpretation of juristic acts.
If the sales screen referred to a single sensor while the purchase-linked specification referred to a bundle, where is the meaning shared by the parties to be found? Can it be said, on the basis of one side's internal settings alone, that the other party also accepted the same meaning?
Sources for this section: National Participation in Legislation Center — Civil Act Government Legislation Status and Summary of Proposal
Where is the boundary between solicitation exploiting dependency and ordinary persuasion?
The Summary of Principal Contents, Ra, Article 110-2 of the proposed Bill addresses psychological vulnerability and undue interference arising from relationships of dependency and trust.
Can the mere fact that a client repeatedly consented to an authority contract explain the undueness? Among the disadvantages upon refusal, the explanation of alternatives, and the opportunity for deliberation, what should be examined further so as not to chill even legitimate assistance?
Sources for this section: National Participation in Legislation Center — Civil Act Government Legislation Status and Summary of Proposal
When can a failure of price prediction be turned into a matter of contract modification?
The Summary of Principal Contents, Beo, Article 538-2 of the proposed Bill proposes contract modification and the like, premised on circumstances that were difficult to foresee and a material imbalance of interests.
Can a case in which a purchasing AI wrongly predicted raw material prices and a case in which imports were prohibited after the contract be regarded as the same risk? To distinguish the risks the parties originally agreed to assume, what explanations should remain from the time of contracting?
Sources for this section: National Participation in Legislation Center — Civil Act Government Legislation Status and Summary of Proposal
Sources and verification notes
- National Participation in Legislation Center — Civil Act Government Legislation Status and Summary of Proposal ↗
The Na, Da, Ra, and Beo items of the Summary of Principal Contents and the legislation status in the official HTML body were confirmed. The full text of the attached proposed bill is unverified. The page is displayed up to submission to the National Assembly on 2025-12-17 (2215371). The page's own initial posting date could not be confirmed, and 2025-02-07 is the displayed start date of the legislative notice.
Checked 2026-09-30 - National Assembly Library — Bill on Partial Amendment to the Civil Act, Bill No. 2215371 ↗
Metadata for the government proposal, the proposal date 2025-12-18, and Bill No. 2215371 was confirmed. It was not used as material confirming the outcome of the National Assembly's handling or promulgation or enforcement.
Checked 2026-09-30
General information and research commentary, not legal advice. Each entry identifies its facts, assumptions and sources.
↑ Back to the title