2026년 제14회 행정사2차 민법(계약) 기출해설특강 #오수현변호사 #가장빠른해설 #합격의법학원

Overview

Attorney Woo Su-hyeon reviews the 2026 Administrative Agent second-stage Civil Law (Contracts) exam. He says the overall difficulty was similar to the previous year, but criticizes the exam’s quality: some familiar 20-point material was split into two 10-point questions, creating time-management pressure, while other questions tested less common issues.

His central message is that examinees need more than memorized conclusions: they must know the statutory provisions, understand the reasoning behind precedent, and apply both to the facts.

Main Ideas and Question-by-Question Analysis

Question 1: Contract Formation, Earnest Money, and Subsequent Impossibility

1-1 — Liability for Negligence in Concluding a Contract (Civil Act Article 535)

• The building had already been destroyed before the sale contract was made, so performance was originally impossible.
• Article 535 concerns original, objective, and total impossibility. The lecturer says the key question is whether the party who would have performed the obligation knew, or could have known, of that impossibility.
• Because neither party knew of the destruction and neither was negligent, the required basis for liability was absent. Article 535 was relevant to discuss, but it did not give the buyer a claim for reliance damages on these facts.
• For a 10-point question, the lecturer recommends a concise, structured answer: state the rule, identify the type of impossibility, apply the knowledge requirement, and give the result.

1-2 — Partial Payment of Earnest Money and Cancellation by Paying a Penalty

• A deposit or earnest-money agreement is a real contract: it is generally formed when the agreed money or property is actually delivered. Paying only part of the agreed deposit therefore does not, as a rule, establish the contract needed to cancel by forfeiting or returning the deposit.
• The lecturer says that even if cancellation by penalty were available, the relevant amount should be calculated by reference to the agreed deposit, not simply the portion actually paid.
• The precise amount required to cancel was unsettled in the discussion. In the stated example, the lecturer describes a practical approach requiring 150 million won, while another view would require 200 million won. The Supreme Court had not definitively resolved that calculation, so the important exam skill was to state the governing principles and acknowledge the competing positions.
• The question also illustrated why examinees should distinguish the underlying rule from the disputed calculation rather than assert an uncertain figure as settled law.

1-3 — Destruction After Contracting and the Debtor’s Risk (Civil Act Article 537)

• Unlike Question 1-1, the building was destroyed after the contract was concluded. This is subsequent impossibility.
• Because a third party caused the fire and neither contracting party was at fault, Article 537, which addresses the debtor’s risk in a bilateral contract, applies.
• The party whose performance became impossible cannot demand counter-performance. The parties’ reciprocal obligations are extinguished, and any performance already received must be returned.
• The creditor may also claim the benefit that substitutes for the lost subject matter—for example, insurance proceeds or a claim against a third party—under the doctrine of a claim to substitute performance.
• Since the question asked for the parties’ legal relationship, a strong answer would also address whether there was breach-of-contract liability or a basis to rescind for impossibility, rather than discussing only whether counter-performance could be claimed.

Question 2: Fire in a Leased Building and the Tenant’s Liability

The question required separating the leased first and second floors from the non-leased third floor.

First and Second Floors — The Leased Premises

• A lease gives the tenant use and enjoyment of the property, while the landlord has duties connected with keeping it fit for that use, including repair and maintenance duties.
• The tenant must preserve the leased property and return it when the lease ends. If a fire makes return impossible, the landlord may claim damages under Article 390 unless the tenant can establish an absence of fault.
• An unexplained fire does not automatically excuse the tenant. The tenant needs to show, for example, that the cause arose in an area managed by the landlord or resulted from a defect the landlord was obliged to repair.
• Here, the fire began in the first-floor kitchen, an area apparently managed by the tenant. On the facts given, the lecturer considered the tenant potentially liable for the loss of the leased floors.

Third Floor — Not Part of the Lease

• The lecturer explains that earlier case law could impose contractual liability where leased and non-leased parts of a building formed an inseparable structural whole.
• He says the newer Supreme Court approach rejects liability for damage to the non-leased part merely because of that structural connection. The landlord must establish:
  1. A breach of duty or other wrongful conduct by the tenant relating to the fire;
  2. A substantial causal connection between that conduct and the damage to the non-leased part; and
  3. That the damage falls within the recoverable scope under Article 393.
• This reasoning resembles the requirements for tort liability under Article 750, which is why the lecturer urges students to understand tort principles as well as contractual non-performance.
• Exam method: Organize the answer by area, explain the earlier and changed precedent, and keep the rules for the leased and non-leased portions distinct.

Question 3: Seller’s Warranty Liability for Loss of Ownership (Article 576)

• Article 576 addresses a buyer’s loss of ownership due to the enforcement of a mortgage or a leasehold right (jeonse right) on the property sold.
• Although the provision expressly names those rights, precedent applies it by analogy when the buyer loses ownership because a final registration is completed on the basis of an earlier provisional registration. The lecturer also mentions provisional attachment as another related extension.
• The lecturer emphasizes that this is not simply a sale of another person’s rights under Article 570: at the time of purchase, the seller had ownership, but the buyer later lost it through the effect of the provisional registration.
• A good answer should state Article 576’s rule and then explain why precedent extends it to the provisional-registration situation.
• The lecturer highlights distinctive consequences of this warranty:
  • Damages may be claimed regardless of whether the buyer knew about the risk.
  • The buyer may terminate if the purpose of the contract can no longer be achieved.
  • A special agreement in which the buyer assumes the secured debt or related burden may affect the result.
• The question’s short-answer format did not make it an easy issue: the examinee needed to recognize a less frequently tested extension of the statute.

Question 4: Contractor’s Payment and Right to Demand a Mortgage

Payment for the Work (Article 665)

• Under a contract for work, the client must pay the contractor’s remuneration when the work is completed.
• The order of payment is:
  1. Follow any special agreement.
  2. If there is none, follow custom.
  3. If neither applies, payment is generally due when the completed work is delivered.
• Where delivery is not required, payment is due without delay after completion. The lecturer notes that delivery may involve the client’s inspection and approval, not merely transfer of physical possession, and that delivery and payment can be simultaneous obligations.

Contractor’s Right to Demand Establishment of a Mortgage (Article 666)

• A contractor constructing a building may demand that the client establish a mortgage on the real estate to secure the remuneration.
• The mortgage is not created automatically just because the contractor completed the work or because the client originally acquired ownership of the building. It is a contractual right requiring the client’s cooperation and registration.
• If the client refuses, the contractor may sue for performance of the procedure to register the mortgage.

Possessory Lien

• The lecturer also notes that a contractor may have a possessory lien under Article 320 when its requirements are met, including possession of the property and a due claim connected with it.
• The mortgage claim and the lien are separate forms of security, with different requirements. An answer should not treat either as automatically arising from non-payment.

Study Lessons Emphasized by the Lecturer

• Master statutory provisions and past questions first. Revisit the wording and structure of the relevant articles, including provisions that seem obscure or unlikely to be tested.
• Learn precedent as reasoning, not just a conclusion. Be prepared to explain what facts trigger a rule and how the rule has changed or been extended.
• Identify the legal category immediately. For example, distinguish original from subsequent impossibility, partial from full earnest-money payment, and leased from non-leased property.
• Apply the rule to the facts in an organized way. For divided premises, analyze each area separately; for disputed precedent, state both the rule and the disagreement.
• Answer the question actually asked. If asked for the legal relationship between parties, address performance, damages, restitution, and substitute claims where relevant—not merely one isolated issue.
• Practice concise answers under time pressure. Splitting a familiar issue into shorter questions still requires disciplined time and answer-length management.

Speakers and Sources Featured

• Attorney Woo Su-hyeon — the sole speaker and lecturer.
• Legal sources discussed: Korean Civil Act Articles 320, 390, 393, 535, 537, 546, 576, 665, and 666; Supreme Court precedents on the lease-fire issue and on Article 576’s application to provisional-registration cases; and High Court decisions or practice mentioned in connection with the disputed earnest-money calculation.
• Professor Yang Chang-soo is mentioned in passing in the discussion of the contractor-work issue but does not speak in the video.