Open Decision Ledger · Civil obligations & remedies
Main and subsidiary obligations as the test for rescission
Supreme Court, June 16, 2022, 2022Da203804 (judgment)
Case name: 분양대금반환청구의소[휴양 콘도미니엄 수분양자가 분양계약상 고압선 지중화 의무가 불이행되었다는 이유로 계약을 해제하고 분양대반환 등을 구하고 있는 사안]
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Under Article 544 of the Civil Act, may a contract be rescinded for non-performance of an obligation that is not indispensable to achieving the contract's purpose, and how is a main obligation distinguished from a subsidiary one?
Holding
No. Rescission under Article 544 of the Civil Act requires the breached obligation to be indispensable to the contract's purpose, such that without it the purpose fails and the creditor would be thought not to have contracted at all; breach of a subsidiary obligation alone does not suffice. Which obligation is main is decided by the parties' rational intention, expressed at the time of contracting or objectively clear from the situation then, weighing the contract's content, purpose and the consequences of the breach, and independently of the separate value of the performance. The Court held that treating the developer's obligation to bury the high-voltage line as not a main obligation was reached without the necessary examination.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
민법 제544조에 의하여 채무불이행을 이유로 계약을 해제하려면, 당해 채무가 계약의 목적 달성에 있어 필요불가결하고 이를 이행하지 아니하면 계약의 목적이 달성되지 아니하여 채권자가 그 계약을 체결하지 아니하였을 것이라고 여겨질 정도의 주된 채무이어야 하고 그렇지 아니한 부수적 채무를 불이행한 데에 지나지 아니한 경우에는 계약을 해제할 수 없다.
Unofficial English translation
In order to rescind a contract on the ground of non-performance under Article 544 of the Civil Act, the relevant obligation must be a principal obligation that is indispensable to achieving the purpose of the contract and such that, if it is not performed, the purpose of the contract cannot be achieved and the obligee would not have concluded the contract; where the non-performance amounts to no more than a failure to perform an ancillary obligation that is otherwise, the contract cannot be rescinded.
Disposition
Reversed and remanded Stated in the decision
원심판결을 파기하고, 사건을 광주고등법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Gwangju High Court.
Form of the test
Elements stated Stated in the decision
계약을 체결할 때 표명되었거나 그 당시 상황으로 보아 분명하게 객관적으로 나타난 당사자의 합리적 의사에 의하여 결정하되, 계약의 내용·목적·불이행의 결과 등의 여러 사정을 고려하여야 한다.
Unofficial English translation
it must be determined by the reasonable intention of the parties that was expressed at the time the contract was concluded or that was clearly and objectively manifested in light of the circumstances at that time, taking into account various circumstances such as the contents and purpose of the contract and the consequences of non-performance.
Factors
- 특약사항이 수기로 분양계약서에 명시되어 있는 점
- 위 계약의 목적물은 구체적인 동호수로 특정되어 있고
- 그 전부를 을이 분양받아 을 단독 소유로 소유권이전등기가 마쳐졌고
- 부동산의 사용·수익은 물론 처분에서도 특정된 목적물이 갖는 의미가 결코 가볍지 않은 점
- 갑 회사의 고압선 지중화 의무가 주된 채무가 아니라고 단정하기 어려운데도
Unofficial English translation
• the fact that the terms of the special agreement were set out by hand in the sale contract;
• the fact that the object of the above contract is specified as a particular unit number, and
• the fact that B purchased the entirety thereof and ownership registration was completed in B's sole name; and
• the fact that, in the use and profit of the real property as well as in its disposition, the significance of the specified object is by no means slight;
• the fact that, notwithstanding that it cannot be readily concluded that A Corporation's obligation to place the high-voltage power line underground is not a principal obligation,
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 2005. 11. 25. 선고 2005다53705, 53712 판결(공2006상, 30)
Unofficial English translation
Supreme Court Decision 2005Da53705, 53712 decided November 25, 2005 (Gong 2006 Sang, 30)
Decisions referred to
[1] 대법원 1997. 4. 7. 자 97마575 결정(공1997상, 1525), 대법원 2005. 11. 25. 선고 2005다53705, 53712 판결(공2006상, 30)
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
If a facility use agreement does give the purchaser the right to use other units of the leisure condominium, how does that change whether the burial obligation was indispensable to the contract's purpose?
The Gwangju High Court's remand judgment on whether the burial obligation was a main obligation will show how the test is applied to these facts. A later decision changing the criterion for distinguishing main and subsidiary obligations, or an amendment to Article 544 of the Civil Act, would require this entry to be read again.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
6 of 8 axes matched GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI, codex CLI) · 2026-10-26
A reader from another model family (GPT-6 Astra), given the official text but not the primary reading, agreed on 6 of the 8 axes; the readings differed on axis 4 (form of the test), axis 8 (open question and revisit condition).
Axis 4 (Form of the test): Primary “Elements stated” vs Independent “Circumstances weighed”
The holding states an indispensability threshold and also a comprehensive assessment of intent and circumstances so one reading highlights the threshold and the other highlights the comprehensive assessment.
계약의 내용·목적·불이행의 결과 등의 여러 사정을 고려하여야 한다.Axis 8 (Open question and revisit condition): Primary “If a facility use agreement does give the purchaser the right to use other units of the leisure condominium, how does that change whether the burial obligation was indispensable to the contract's purpose?” vs Independent “Will further examination on remand establish that the power-line burial obligation was a principal obligation permitting rescission?”
The primary asks how a right to use other units would affect indispensability while the independent asks whether remand will establish the term as a main obligation so they point to different issues.
민법 제544조에 의하여 채무불이행을 이유로 계약을 해제하려면, 당해 채무가 계약의 목적 달성에 있어 필요불가결하고 이를 이행하지 아니하면 계약의 목적이 달성되지 아니하여 채권자가 그 계약을 체결하지 아니하였을 것이라고 여겨질 정도의 주된 채무이어야 하고 그렇지 아니한 부수적 채무를 불이행한 데에 지나지 아니한 경우에는 계약을 해제할 수 없다.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 Gwangju High Court, Jeju Panel, in its judgment of 22 December 2021 (2020Na10222), held that the breach did not meet the agreed rescission ground in Article 6(1)(ii) of the contract. It reasoned that the purchaser's main purpose in contracting was to obtain the right to stay and reside in the Republic of Korea, that breach of the special clause was not within that agreed ground, that the purchaser registered sole ownership on 15 July 2014 and occupied the property without objection for over five years until suing on 8 October 2019, and that the non-performance did not affect the residence or residence qualification. It therefore held the burial obligation was not indispensable and refused rescission.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court found error. A 154,000 volt transmission tower stands right next to the building, and the special clause requiring the line to be buried by 31 December 2016 was written by hand into the sale contract, while the object was a specified unit which the purchaser took in full and registered as sole owner, so the specific object carries no light meaning in use, benefit and disposal. That the property is a leisure condominium offered for tourists' lodging and recreation does not by itself give the purchaser the right to use other units, and no materials concerning a facility use agreement had been submitted. The Court therefore held the court below had misread the law on statutory rescission, the exercise of the statutory rescission right and the construction of the juristic act, and had not made the necessary examination; it found no error in the ruling on the first appeal ground, concerning the agreed rescission ground.
Distinguishing conditions
- A case in which the special clause was not written into the sale contract and so was not objectively clear from the situation at the time of contracting, since the Court relied on its handwritten entry.
- An ordinary condominium sale in which the purchaser takes only a shared share of one unit, where the object's meaning in use, benefit and disposal is correspondingly lighter.
- A case where a facility use agreement does give the purchaser the right to use other units, so that the object's limits matter less than the Court assumed.
Record verification notes
Keep the two appeal grounds apart. The Supreme Court left untouched the finding that the breach did not fall within the agreed rescission ground of Article 6(1)(ii) of the contract, so this decision speaks only to statutory rescission under Article 544 of the Civil Act. Then collect the file on the object itself: the handwritten special clause, the unit number, the ownership registration, the distance to the 154,000 volt line, and any facility use agreement, since the remand turned on those.
From the official text
Points at issue
[1] 부수적 채무를 불이행한 경우, 민법 제544조에 의하여 계약을 해제할 수 있는지 여부(소극) 및 주된 채무와 부수적 채무를 구별하는 기준 [2] 갑 주식회사가 을에게 휴양 콘도미니엄을 분양하는 계약을 체결하면서 인근에 있는 고압선을 지하로 매립하기로 하는 내용의 특약을 하였으나, 갑 회사가 이를 이행하지 못하자, 을이 갑 회사를 상대로 계약의 주된 의무가 불이행되었다는 이유로 계약의 해제 등을 구한 사안에서, 제반 사정에 비추어 갑 회사의 고압선 지중화 의무가 주된 채무가 아니라고 단정하기 어려운데도, 이와 달리 보아 계약 해제를 인정하지 아니한 원심판단에 심리미진 등의 잘못이 있다고 한 사례
Unofficial English translation
[1] Whether a contract may be rescinded under Article 544 of the Civil Act where an ancillary obligation is not performed (negative), and the criteria for distinguishing principal obligations from ancillary obligations [2] In a case where, at the time of concluding a contract with B for the sale of a resort condominium, A Corporation entered into a special agreement to the effect that a nearby high-voltage power line would be buried underground, and where, upon A Corporation's failure to perform this obligation, B sought rescission of the contract and other relief against A Corporation on the ground of non-performance of the principal obligations of the contract, holding that, in view of all the circumstances, it cannot be readily concluded that A Corporation's obligation to place the high-voltage power line underground is not a principal obligation, the judgment of the court below, which held to the contrary and did not recognize rescission of the contract, is erroneous, including for failure to exhaust deliberations
Summary of the holding
[1] 민법 제544조에 의하여 채무불이행을 이유로 계약을 해제하려면, 당해 채무가 계약의 목적 달성에 있어 필요불가결하고 이를 이행하지 아니하면 계약의 목적이 달성되지 아니하여 채권자가 그 계약을 체결하지 아니하였을 것이라고 여겨질 정도의 주된 채무이어야 하고 그렇지 아니한 부수적 채무를 불이행한 데에 지나지 아니한 경우에는 계약을 해제할 수 없다. 또한 계약상의 의무 가운데 주된 채무와 부수적 채무를 구별함에 있어서는 급부의 독립된 가치와는 관계없이 계약을 체결할 때 표명되었거나 그 당시 상황으로 보아 분명하게 객관적으로 나타난 당사자의 합리적 의사에 의하여 결정하되, 계약의 내용·목적·불이행의 결과 등의 여러 사정을 고려하여야 한다. [2] 갑 주식회사가 을에게 휴양 콘도미니엄을 분양하는 계약을 체결하면서 인근에 있는 고압선을 지하로 매립하기로 하는 내용의 특약을 하였으나, 갑 회사가 이를 이행하지 못하자, 을이 갑 회사를 상대로 계약의 주된 의무가 불이행되었다는 이유로 계약의 해제 등을 구한 사안에서, 갑 회사가 을에게 고압선을 지하로 매립하기로 하는 내용의 특약사항이 수기로 분양계약서에 명시되어 있는 점, 위 계약의 목적물은 구체적인 동호수로 특정되어 있고, 위 계약은 일반적인 콘도미니엄 분양계약과 달리 콘도미니엄의 한 호실의 공유 지분이 아니라 그 전부를 을이 분양받아 을 단독 소유로 소유권이전등기가 마쳐졌고, 이와 같은 소유관계에서는 콘도미니엄이라는 점을 고려하더라도 부동산의 사용·수익은 물론 처분에서도 특정된 목적물이 갖는 의미가 결코 가볍지 않은 점, 위 부동산이 휴양 콘도미니엄에 해당하여 관광객의 숙박과 휴양 등의 시설 이용에 제공된다고 하더라도 이로써 당연하게 을이 위 부동산 이외에 다른 호실을 이용할 수 있는 권리를 갖게 되는 것은 아닌 점 등에 비추어, 갑 회사의 고압선 지중화 의무가 주된 채무가 아니라고 단정하기 어려운데도, 이와 달리 보아 계약 해제를 인정하지 아니한 원심판단에 심리미진 등의 잘못이 있다고 한 사례.
Order
원심판결을 파기하고, 사건을 광주고등법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Gwangju High Court.
Provisions referred to
[1] 민법 제544조 [2] 민법 제105조, 제544조
Read 2026-10-26 · Cross-read 2026-10-26. 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