Open Decision Ledger · Civil obligations & remedies
Article 689(1) of the Civil Code as a default rule on mandate termination
Supreme Court, Apr. 8, 2021, 2017Da286003 (judgment)
No holding summary · checked against points at issue. The official text publishes no summary of the holding for this decision. The quotation and factors in this record are copied verbatim from the points at issue; the evidence for each axis is taken from the points at issue, the order and the reasons.
Case name: 손해배상(기)
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Is Article 689(1) of the Civil Code a default rule which the parties may exclude or vary by agreement, and where they agreed termination grounds and procedures different from that article, may the contract be terminated other than through the grounds and procedures they agreed?
Holding
It is a default rule, and in principle the answer to the second question is yes. Article 689(1) of the Civil Code may be excluded or varied by agreement, and where the parties agreed termination grounds and procedures different from that article, the contract may not, absent special circumstances, be terminated except through the grounds and procedures they agreed. The Supreme Court found no error in the court below rejecting the defendant's argument that it could terminate at any time under Article 689(1), and dismissed the appeal.
Points at issue, verbatim
당사자가 위임계약의 해지사유와 절차 등에 관하여 민법 제689조 제1항과 다른 내용으로 약정한 경우, 약정에서 정한 해지사유와 절차에 의하지 않고는 계약을 해지할 수 없는지 여부(원칙적 적극)
Unofficial English translation
Where the parties have agreed on grounds and procedure for termination of the contract of mandate that differ from Article 689 paragraph (1) of the Civil Act, whether the contract may not be terminated except by the grounds and procedure for termination prescribed in the agreement (affirmative in principle)
Disposition
Dismissed Stated in the decision
상고를 기각한다. 상고비용은 피고가 부담한다.
Unofficial English translation
The appeal is dismissed. The costs of the final appeal shall be borne by the defendant.
Form of the test
Elements stated Stated in the decision
민법 제689조 제1항은 당사자의 약정으로 그 적용을 배제하거나 그 내용을 달리 정할 수 있는 임의규정이다.
Unofficial English translation
Article 689 paragraph (1) of the Civil Act is a default provision whose application may be excluded or whose content may be otherwise determined by the parties' agreement.
Factors
- 당사자의 약정으로 적용을 배제하거나 내용을 달리 정할 수 있는 임의규정인지 여부(적극)
- 당사자가 위임계약의 해지사유와 절차 등에 관하여 민법 제689조 제1항과 다른 내용으로 약정한 경우
- 약정에서 정한 해지사유와 절차에 의하지 않고는 계약을 해지할 수 없는지 여부(원칙적 적극)
Unofficial English translation
• Whether it is a default provision whose application may be excluded or whose content may be otherwise determined by the parties' agreement (affirmative)
• Where the parties have agreed on grounds and procedure for termination of the contract of mandate that differ from Article 689 paragraph (1) of the Civil Act
• Whether the contract may not be terminated except by the grounds and procedure for termination prescribed in the agreement (affirmative in principle)
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 2019. 5. 30. 선고 2017다53265 판결(공2019하, 1300)
Unofficial English translation
Supreme Court Decision 2017Da53265 decided May 30, 2019 (Gong 2019 Ha, 1300)
Decisions referred to
대법원 2019. 5. 30. 선고 2017다53265 판결(공2019하, 1300)
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
What circumstances count as special circumstances allowing termination outside the agreed grounds and procedures?
A later Supreme Court decision defining the special circumstances under Article 689(1) of the Civil Code, or an amendment to that article, would require this entry to be read again. So would a judgment treating a termination clause of this kind as merely precatory.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
8 of 8 axes matched GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI, codex CLI) · 2026-10-25
A reader from another model family (GPT-6 Astra), given the official text but not the primary reading, agreed on all 8 axes.
Raw responses and comparison record: Protocol · Blind readings (JSONL) · Axis comparison (JSONL) · SHA-256 (JSON)
Lower-court contrast & scope of application
Lower-court reading vs. Supreme Court holding
Lower-court context: The Daegu District Court, in its judgment of 15 November 2017 (2017Na309805), rejected the defendant's argument that, even without any of the termination grounds in Article 19(1) of the contract, it could terminate at any time under Article 689(1) of the Civil Code. It held that the contract excluded the Civil Code's provisions on mandate, so the default rule did not apply to this contract, and that none of the termination grounds listed in Article 19(1) existed. The defendant had given notice of termination on 15 June 2016 by a resolution of the residents' representative meeting, citing excessive personnel costs claimed by the plaintiff and a refusal to explain and disgorge them, and had deducted KRW 3,566,190 as duplicated personnel and labour costs from the fees already accrued.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court held that Article 689(1) is a default rule which the parties may exclude or vary, enacted so that neither party is bound to a mandate contract indefinitely. Where the parties agreed otherwise on termination grounds and procedures, that agreement clarifies the legal relations between them and protects transactional security and mutual trust, so it should not easily be treated as merely precatory, and absent special circumstances the contract may not be terminated except through the agreed grounds and procedures. It found no error in the court below's rejection of the defendant's argument or in its assessment of damages, being KRW 6,625,340 in fees lost for the remaining term and KRW 3,566,190 improperly deducted, totalling KRW 10,191,530 with interest, and dismissed the appeal with the unanimous agreement of the Justices.
Distinguishing conditions
- A mandate contract in which the parties did not exclude or vary Article 689(1), so each party may terminate at any time.
- Special circumstances that make termination outside the agreed grounds and procedures proper, since the rule applies only absent such circumstances.
- An agreement on termination grounds and procedures that is merely precatory in character, which the Court said should not be assumed lightly.
Record verification notes
Read the contract's termination clause and any clause excluding the Civil Code's mandate provisions together with the parties' correspondence, since the rule turns on whether they agreed grounds and procedures different from Article 689(1). Gather anything that would show special circumstances, such as a refusal that makes the agreed procedure impossible, before relying on the exception. Keep the damages claim apart from the termination question, and support each figure with the fee records for the remaining term and the deductions said to be duplicative, since the court below fixed KRW 10,191,530 plus interest by free evaluation.
From the official text
Points at issue
민법 제689조 제1항은 당사자의 약정으로 적용을 배제하거나 내용을 달리 정할 수 있는 임의규정인지 여부(적극) 및 당사자가 위임계약의 해지사유와 절차 등에 관하여 민법 제689조 제1항과 다른 내용으로 약정한 경우, 약정에서 정한 해지사유와 절차에 의하지 않고는 계약을 해지할 수 없는지 여부(원칙적 적극)
Unofficial English translation
Whether Article 689 paragraph (1) of the Civil Act is a default provision whose application may be excluded or whose content may be otherwise determined by the parties' agreement (affirmative), and whether, where the parties have agreed on grounds and procedure for termination of the contract of mandate that differ from Article 689 paragraph (1) of the Civil Act, the contract may not be terminated except by the grounds and procedure for termination prescribed in the agreement (affirmative in principle)
Summary of the holding
The official text publishes no summary of the holding for this decision. The quotation and factors in this record are copied verbatim from the points at issue; the evidence for each axis is taken from the points at issue, the order and the reasons.
Order
상고를 기각한다. 상고비용은 피고가 부담한다.
Unofficial English translation
The appeal is dismissed. The costs of the final appeal shall be borne by the defendant.
Provisions referred to
민법 제689조 제1항
Read 2026-10-25 · Cross-read 2026-10-25. All quotes matched against the official text. The Chinese-character placeholders the court used for anonymised parties are given in their Korean readings, and parenthetical Chinese-character glosses are omitted.
Every entry is published only after all quotes have been matched character by character against the official text, and audited by an independent second reading from a different model family across all eight axes. Both agreed axes and text-grounded interpretive divergences are recorded openly. The ledger is a research record, not an assessment of the court or advice on any matter.
Back to the ledger