부산대학교 도서관

The purpose of this study is to compare the provisions on fundamental breach of contract in the CISG and Chinese Civil Law, identify their differences, and provide implications for future improvement by examining specific cases of the problems with the provisions on fundamental breach of contract in Chinese Civil Law. Through an analysis of the CISG and Chinese Civil Law, this study identifies the following differences. First, the CISG clearly defines the scope and standards of breach of contract when a legal international trade agreement is made, whereas Chinese Civil Law defines breach of contract based on the rights and obligations of the parties to the contract. Second, the CISG provides compensation for damages, contract performance, and contract cancellation as possible solutions when a breach of contract occurs, whereas Chinese Civil Law allows not only for compensation for damages but also for compulsory contract performance. Third, in the CISG, it is important to recognize a fundamental breach of contract, which allows the other party to cancel the contract. However, in Chinese Civil Law, the party usually demands performance rather than cancellation when a breach of contract occurs.Additionally, this study has identified the problems with Chinese civil law by comparing and analyzing the provisions of the CISG and Chinese civil law regarding fundamental breach of contract through specific cases. First, the issue that the concept of fundamental breach of contract is missing from the CISG is significant. While Article 563 of Chinese civil law deals with similar content to fundamental breach of contract, a standardized definition or interpretation has yet to be fully established. If the content of Article 563(4) of Chinese civil law does not provide a clear definition of fundamental breach of contract, the completeness of Chinese civil law is compromised. Second, the ambiguity of the criteria for judging fundamental breach of contract arises from the ambiguity in judging the purpose of the contract in Article 563 of Chinese civil law. Therefore, determining the purpose of the contract is an important prerequisite for judging fundamental breach of contract. However, Chinese civil law does not provide a clear definition of the purpose of the contract, causing difficulties in practical application.To address these issues, this study proposes the following implications. First, the concept of fundamental breach of contract should be added to Chinese civil law to clearly distinguish it from non-fundamental breaches of contract. Currently, there is ongoing discussion in the Chinese academic community regarding the definition of this concept. Second, as Chinese civil law Article 563 only encompasses breaches of contract where "the purpose of the contract cannot be achieved," more detailed and specific criteria for determining the purpose and type of breach of contract should be established. Through these improvements, it is important to develop China's contract law system into a more established and reliable one.