Termination of an entrustment contract despite the agreed grounds

Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check

7 of 8 axes matched GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI, codex CLI) · 2026-10-24

A reader from another model family (GPT-6 Astra), given the official text but not the primary reading, agreed on 7 of the 8 axes; the readings differed on axis 8 (open question and revisit condition).

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 Suwon High Court, in its judgment of 23 October 2025 (2023Na20705), held that this business agency contract is analogous to an entrustment and that Article 13 of the contract conditions and Article 42 of the defendant cooperative's bylaws provide grounds, procedure and liability differing from Article 689(1) and (2) of the Civil Code, so the contract could not be terminated otherwise than through those agreed grounds, none of which the defendant had established. It nevertheless found that the plaintiff's employee had inflated the price of a promotion-hall construction contract between the defendant cooperative and A counterparty and received a KRW 90 million rebate, breaching the duty of care owed to the cooperative, so that the trust underlying the contract had broken down, the plaintiff's performance could no longer be expected and a serious change of circumstances made the contract impossible to maintain; the defendant's notice of termination therefore terminated the contract lawfully. On the money side it ordered the defendant to pay KRW 827,400,000 and interest, being 80% of the total agency fee plus value-added tax, less the sum the plaintiff admitted receiving, after setting off the defendant's KRW 90 million damages claim, and it rejected the claim to confirm the plaintiff's status as business agent.

Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court found no error. Even though Article 13 of the contract conditions and Article 42 of the bylaws provided grounds and procedure differing from Article 689 of the Civil Code, terminating the contract on the ground that the plaintiff's employee had taken an unlawful rebate and the trust had broken down was lawful, so the reasoning did not breach the rules on the termination of an entrustment and the breakdown of trust. It likewise upheld the ruling on the agency fee and the set-off, and dismissed both parties' appeals. The defendant's argument that there was no interest in confirming the plaintiff's status as business agent was not a proper ground of appeal, since the defendant had appealed only the part of the judgment where it was the losing party and had not appealed the dismissal of that confirmation claim.

Distinguishing conditions

• A case in which no contractual duty breach or other improper act has taken the trust underlying the contract to a state of breakdown.
• A case in which special circumstances exist, so that Article 689(1) and (2) of the Civil Code apply independently alongside the agreement rather than being displaced by it.
• A case in which the person invoking the breakdown of trust is not the counterparty under the contract, so that the right to terminate for the future is not that person's.

Record verification notes

Read Article 13 of the contract conditions and Article 42 of the cooperative's bylaws against Article 689(1) and (2) of the Civil Code first, since the whole construction turns on whether they provide different grounds and procedure and whether any special circumstance keeps the statute in play. Then collect what attributes the employee's rebate to the contracting party and what shows the trust could no longer be maintained. Finally check the money arithmetic: 80% of the total agency fee plus value-added tax, less the payments the plaintiff admitted receiving and the KRW 90 million set off.

From the official text

Points at issue

당사자가 위임계약을 체결하면서 민법 제689조 제1항, 제2항과 다른 내용으로 해지사유 및 절차, 손해배상책임 등을 정한 경우, 약정에서 정한 해지사유 및 절차에 의하지 않고는 계약을 해지할 수 없고 손해배상책임에 관한 당사자 간 법률관계도 약정이 정한 바에 의하여 규율되는지 여부(원칙적 적극) / 위와 같은 약정에서 정한 해지사유가 존재하지 않는다고 하더라도, 당사자 일방의 계약상 의무 위반이나 그 밖의 부당한 행위 등으로 인하여 위임계약의 기초가 되는 신뢰관계가 파탄상태에 이르러 계약관계를 그대로 유지하기 어려운 경우, 이를 이유로 계약관계를 해지할 수 있는지 여부(적극)

Summary of the holding

민법 제689조 제1항, 제2항은 임의규정에 불과하므로 당사자의 약정에 의하여 위 규정의 적용을 배제하거나 내용을 달리 정할 수 있다. 따라서 당사자가 위임계약을 체결하면서 민법 제689조 제1항, 제2항에 규정된 바와 다른 내용으로 해지사유 및 절차, 손해배상책임 등을 정하였다면, 민법 제689조 제1항, 제2항이 이러한 약정과는 별개 독립적으로 적용된다고 볼 만한 특별한 사정이 없는 한, 약정에서 정한 해지사유 및 절차에 의하지 않고는 계약을 해지할 수 없고, 손해배상책임에 관한 당사자 간 법률관계도 약정이 정한 바에 의하여 규율된다고 봄이 타당하다. 다만 위와 같은 약정에서 정한 해지사유가 존재하지 않는다고 하더라도, 당사자 사이의 특별한 신뢰관계를 기초로 하는 계속적 계약으로서 위임의 성격을 고려하면, 그와 같은 위임계약의 존속 중 당사자 일방의 계약상 의무 위반이나 그 밖의 부당한 행위 등으로 인하여 위임계약의 기초가 되는 신뢰관계가 파탄상태에 이르러 계약관계를 그대로 유지하기 어려운 정도에 이르렀다면 상대방은 이를 이유로 계약관계를 해지함으로써 장래에 향하여 그 효력을 소멸시킬 수 있다고 봄이 상당하다.

Order

상고를 모두 기각한다. 상고비용 중 원고의 상고로 인한 부분은 원고가, 피고의 상고로 인한 부분은 피고가 각각 부담한다.

Provisions referred to

민법 제2조, 제105조, 제680조, 제681조, 제689조