The majority view on the infringement of obligation classify the types as infringement on the reversion of the obligation itself, infringement on the payment of the obligation’s purpose (i.e., both obligation is being extinguished and obligation is not being extinguished), and decrease debtor’s general assets. Above types are too ideological to know and can not reflect various dispute pattern in the real world, and the analysis of the category also is not sufficient for the recognition of torts. In addition, there are some arguments that the researcher drive a conclusion without sufficient examinations regarding the relativity of obligation, the honoring the debtor’s free will, the equal treatment of the creditor, the principles of free competition.
In Japan, a new approach challenged in the 1980s induced more appropriate typology at the realistic transactions against traditional aspect and tried to expand the possibility of the infringement of obligation by the third person. In Korea, there are little appeared the marks of attempting to categorization of the claims but these testings were so comprehensive and no concrete study advanced. In order to overcome this point at issue, I suggest new classification of the obligation infringement considering expansion of the diverse contract relationships as well as many sided realistic agreements and included not only mere claims but also whole contractual interest for the grouping. Moreover, the future contractual relations were also incorporated in this proposal package.
Accordingly, a subjective aspect of the third person within the types and requirements of the torts are argued and Korean court cases also covered in this work. Hopefully, this piece will contribute new understanding on the classification of the complex infringement of obligation to the practice and learned circles.