고등학교 수학과 교육과정에 대하여

김상만 한국수학교육학회 1963 수학교육 Vol.1 No.1

국제거래에서 수출환어음 매입의 법률관계 및 수출환어음 부도 시 매입은행의 권리에 대한 법적 연구

김상만 서울시립대학교 서울시립대학교 법학연구소 2011 서울법학 Vol.19 No.1

Account receivable itself is not a negotiable instrument in international transactions even if it may be legally transferred. However, a ‘bill of exchange’ in international trade, aka, ‘draft’, is a negotiable instrument that can be easily sold and transferred to be converted into cash by an exporter prior to payment date. It is vital for an exporter to turn over his account receivables as quickly as possible in order to make use of the money. Therefore an exporter draws a bill of exchange and negotiate it with a set of transport documents. A bill of exchange is normally negotiated to a bank with a set of transport documents, and an exporter receives cash from a negotiating bank before maturity. As a negotiating bank can suffer losses when a drawee(normally an importer or an issuing bank) dishonors a bill of exchange by non-acceptance or non-payment, a negotiating bank negotiates a bill of exchange within the credit line available for an exporter. As a negotiating bank can recover the losses suffered in the event of dishonour of bill of exchange under short-term export insurance(general) or export credit guarantee(post-shipment), an exporter can enhance the negotiability of a bill of exchange by purchasing export insurance or export credit guarantee(post-shipment). A negotiating bank may mitigate the risk of dishonour of a bill of exchange by an issuing bank through reasonable examination of the documents presented by an exporter(a beneficiary under a letter of credit). In conclusion, the enhancement of a negotiating bank's right is expected to contribute to the growth of Korea's export.

자국 중심의 글로벌 공급망 강화 전략 및 반도체지원법(CHIPS Act)의 통상법적 고찰

김상만 무역구제학회 2023 무역구제연구 Vol.0 No.69

1995년 WTO 출범으로 자유무역이 확대되고, 세계 무역은 크게 성장하였다. 그러나 최근 들어 강대국들은 국가안보를 사유로 다양한 보호무역조치를 추진하고 있다. 미중 전략경쟁 격화와 코로나 팬데믹으로 글로벌 공급망 위기가 불거졌고, 강대국들은 공급망 확보에 총력을 기울이고 있다. 특히 미국과 서방 국가들은 공급망 다변화를 위해 탈중국을 추진하며 중국 원자재 의존도를 줄이는 정책을 추진하고 있다. 세계 주요국은 글로벌 공급망 확보와 자국 전략산업 육성에 주력하고, 이를 위한 다양한 입법ㆍ정책을 추진하고 있는데, 미국의 인플레이션 감축법(IRA)과 반도체지원법(CHIPS Act), EU의 탄소중립산업법(Net-Zero Industry Act)과 핵심원자재법(CRMA), 독일의 성장기회법(Growth Opportunity Law), 프랑스의 녹색산업발전법(Green Industry Bill) 등이 대표적이다. 미국 반도체지원법은 미국에 투자한 반도체기업에 보조금을 지급하는 법으로 미국의 핵심 미래기술 산업의 경쟁력 강화를 위해 총 2,800억 달러를 투입하여 궁극적으로 미국의 국내 일자리 창출과 국가경쟁력 제고, 글로벌 리더십 강화를 추구하고 있다. 이 중 527억 달러는 반도체 분야에 투입되는데, 반도체 제조시설 건립을 위한 직접보조금과 첨단 반도체 연구개발 지원, 반도체 시설 및 장비 투자에 대한 세액공제 등을 내용으로 한다. 자국 중심의 공급망 재편의 입법ㆍ정책은 자유무역에 역행하고, 통상법상의 비차별원칙을 침해하고, GATT 제3조의 내국민대우, WTO 보조금협정 상의 보조금 규정, 영업기밀 유출 및 수출통제 등 다양한 쟁점을 초래할 수 있다. Strategic competition between the U.S. and China and the COVID-19 pandemic have brought global supply chain crisis, and powerful countries are making all-out efforts to secure stable supply chains. In addition, powerful countries are promoting various legislation and policies for this purpose. The typical examples are the U.S. Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) and the CHIPS Act, EU’s the Net-Zero Industry Act and CRMA, the German Growth Opportunity law, French Green Industry Bill, etc. The CHIPS Act was signed into law on August 9, 2022년 The act provides roughly $280 billion in new funding to boost domestic research and manufacturing of semiconductors in the United States. The act includes $39 billion in subsidies for chip manufacturing on US soil along with 25% investment tax credits for costs of manufacturing equipment, and $13 billion for semiconductor research and workforce training, with the primary aim of countering China. It is likely that the CHIPS Act will bring international trade law issues concerning national treatment (NT) of the GATT article 3, subsidies under the WTO SCM Agreements, export control, etc.

관세법상 후발적 경정청구 및 소액물품면세 관련 최근 판례 평석

김상만 한국관세학회 2022 한국관세학회 학술대회 Vol.2022 No.5

전자통신협약 관련 CLOUT Case No. 1546에 대한 고찰

김상만 경북대학교 IT와 법연구소 2018 IT와 법 연구 Vol.0 No.16

The United Nations Convention on the Use of Electronic Communications in International Contracts (the “Electronic Communications Convention”) was adopted on 23 November 2005, and entered into force on 1 March 2013. There are three CLOUT cases published on the Convention as of January 2018. CLOUT Case No. 1546, Australian case of 2015, deals with functional equivalence requirements between electronic and handwritten signatures, and deals with statute of fraud. The defendant owned a service station located on a highway in North Queensland, and appointed a third party to sell the service station’s freehold and business. Expressions of interest were sought and negotiations took place with representatives of the parties. Most of those negotiations were conducted by e-mail. The court found that the parties had concluded a contract for the sale of the service station. In that respect, the Court noted that the parties expressed agreement in informal terms due to their obvious desire to proceed quickly. The court found that the plaintiff had not demonstrated that it consented to the use of the chosen method in order to meet the signature requirement, the Court explained that, when parties engaged in negotiation by e-mail and, in particular, where an offer was made by e-mail, it was open to the Court to infer that consent had been given by conduct of the other party.

Incoterms 2010이 적용되는 국제물품 매매거래에서 CISG 상 매도인의 물품인도의무 및 서류인도의무에 대한 고찰

김상만 법무부 2011 통상법률 Vol.- No.102

The United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (the "CISG”) is a convention that contains uniform legal rules to govern international sale of goods. Where the CISG governs a transaction under its rules of applicability, the rules of the Convention bind the parties to the transaction. Incoterms is a widely used international rules for the sale of goods. ICC published newly revised Incoterms("Incoterms 2010"), which began to be used as of 1 January, 2011. Therefore both CISG and Incoterms 2010 may be applied in international sale of goods, in which case Incoterms shall prevail CISG. CISG provides seller's primary obligations such as obligation to deliver the goods, obligation to transfer the property in the goods, obligation to hand over documents, etc. Incoterms, also, specifies seller's obligations to deliver the goods, and to hand over documents. Therefore, seller's obligation to deliver the goods and to hand over documents must be determined by reference to the relevant provisions in CISG and those in Incoterms 2010. Delivery under CISG is a limited concept, relating to transfer of possession or control of the goods. Under CISG, the seller must deliver the goods on the fixed date if a date is fixed by or determinable from the contract, and must deliver at any time within that period if a period of time is fixed by or determinable from the contract. Under the seller must deliver goods which are of the quantity, quality and description required by the contract and which are contained or packaged in the manner required by the contract. Incoterms 2010 provides that the seller must provide the goods and the commercial invoice in conformity with the contract of sale and any other evidence of conformity that may be required by the contract. Under Incoterms 2010 any document may be provided in an equivalent electronic record or procedure if agreed between the parties or customary. Previous version of Incoterms rules specified those documents that could be replaced by EDI messages. Incoterms 2010, however, now give electronic means of communication the same effect as paper communication, as long as the parties so agree or where customary. CISG, however, does not provide anything regarding EDI. Thus with regard to EDI, Incoterms 2010 must be referred rather than CISG. If a seller breaches any of its obligations, a buyer has remedies of specific performance, avoidance of the contract, and action for damages. Specific performance is preferred at civil law, and action for damages is preferred at common law. CISG permits buyer's remedy of avoidance of the contract only if there has been a fundamental breach by seller. 국제물품매매거래에 적용되는 가장 대표적인 통일규범은 CISG와 Incoterms이다. 대부분의 국제물품매매거래에는 Incoterms가 적용되고, 우리나라 및 우리나라의 3대 교역국인 중국, 미국, 일본이 모두 CISG에 가입하게 되어 CISG의 적용가능성은 매우 높아졌다. 그리고 새로 개정된 Incoterms 2010이 금년 1월 1일부터 시행되고 있으므로 Incoterms 2010에 대한 이해도 필요하다. CISG와 Incoterms 2010이 모두 적용되는 국제물품매매거래가 많으며, 양자 모두 매도인의 물품인도의무 및 서류인도의무를 규정하고 있다. CISG에서는 물품인도의무, 소유권이전의무, 서류이전의무, 물품의 계약합치의무 등을 매도인의 주요의무로 규정하고 있으며, Incoterms 2010에서는 매도인과 매수인의 의무를 10개의 항목을 서로 대칭적으로 규정하고 있는데, 물품인도의무 및 서류인도의무를 매도인의 주요의무로 규정하고 있다. 매도인의 물품인도의무 및 서류인도의무는 국제물품매매거래에서 매우 중요하며, CISG는 국제협약으로서 국제적 통일규칙인 Incoterms 2010 보다 권위가 높다고 볼 수는 있으나, 대부분의 국제물품매매거래에서 Incoterms 2010가 적용되고, 이 경우 Incoterms 2010은 CISG 보다 우선 적용되는 바, 매도인의 물품인도의무 및 서류인도의무에 대해서는 CISG 외에 Incoterms 2010에 대한 이해도 필요하다. CISG에서는 ‘인도’의 개념에 대해 별도로 규정하지 않은 반면, Incoterms 2010에서는 각 규칙에 따라 ‘인도’의 개념을 규정하고 있어 ‘인도’의 개념은 Incoterms 2010을 따라야 할 것이다. 소유권이전의무에 대해서는 CISG에서는 그 존재에 대해서만 규정하고 있고, Incoterms 2010에서는 전혀 규정하고 있지 않은 바, 이는 계약의 준거법에 따라 해석해야 한다. 물품인도장소에 대해서는 Incoterms 2010의 각 규칙에서 구체적으로 규정하고 있는 바, Incoterms 2010에 따라 해석되어야 한다. 물품의 인도시기에 대해서는 Incoterms 2010에서는 합의된 일자 또는 합의된 기간 내에 인도해야 한다고만 규정하고 있으나, CISG에서는 세부적으로 규정하고 있어 CISG에 따라 해석해야한다. CISG에서는 서류인도의무를 규정하고 있으나, 구체적인 내용은 규정하고 있지않은 반면, Incoterms 2010에서는 상업송장은 모든 규칙에서 공통적으로 요구되고 기타 서류는 각 규칙에서 상세히 규정하고 있는 바, 인도할 서류에 대해서는 Incoterms 2010를 살펴보아야 한다. 물품의 계약합치의무에 대해서는 Incoterms 2010에서는 계약합치의무의 존재만 규정하고 구체적인 내용은 규정하고 있지 않으므로, CISG에 따라 해석해야 한다. Incoterms 2010에서는 계약위반의 효과에 대해서는 규정하고 있지 않은 바, 이는 각 계약의 준거법에 따라 해석할 사항이므로 CISG에 따라 해석해야 한다. CISG에서는 매도인이 물품인도의무, 서류인도의무, 물품의 계약적합의무 등을 위반한 경우 매수인은 특정이행청구권, 계약해제권, 대금감액청구권, 손해배상청구권을 행사할 수 있다. 계약해제청구권은 매도인의 의무위반이 본질적인 경우에만 행사할 수 있으며, 대체물 인도청구도 물품의 계약부적합성이 본질적인 경우에만 행사할 수 있다.

글로벌 공급망 위기와 재편에서 IPEF 공급망 협정의 주요 내용과 전략적 의의 분석

김상만 한국무역상무학회 2023 貿易商務硏究 Vol.100 No.-

On 23 May 2022, the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework for Prosperity (IPEF) was launched. IPEF aims to advance resilience, sustainability, inclusiveness, economic growth, fairness, and competitiveness for the 14 IPEF partners. IPEF also will provide tangible benefits that fuel economic activity and investment, promote sustainable and inclusive economic growth, and benefit workers and consumers across the region. IPEF includes Pillar I (Trade), II (Supply Chains), III (Clean Economy), and IV (Fair Economy). On 27 May 2023, Ministers of the 14 IPEF countries announced the substantial conclusion of negotiations on Pillar II (Supply Chains), and on 7 September 2023, the text of the IPEF Supply Chain Agreement was published. The IPEF Supply Chain Agreement aims to increase the resilience, efficiency, productivity, sustainability, transparency, diversification, security, fairness, and inclusivity of their supply chains through both collaborative activities and individual actions taken by each IPEF partner. The Supply Chain Agreement is designed to enable IPEF partners to work together collaboratively to make supply chains more resilient, efficient, transparent, diversified, secure, and inclusive, including through information exchange, sharing of best practices, business matchmaking, collective response to disruptions, and supporting labor rights. It is also designed to facilitate a reliable supply of critical goods during a time of crisis.

무역거래에서 국제물품매매계약에 관한 유엔협약(CISG)의 적용범위로서 당사자자치의 원칙 및 그 한계에 대한 고찰

김상만 법무부 2012 통상법률 Vol.- No.105

당자자자치의 원칙(principle of party autonomy)이란, 법률행위 또는 계약의 준거법을 당사자의 합의로 결정할 수 있다는 국제사법상의 원칙을 말한다. 주요 준거법 협약 및 우리 국제사법에서도 당사자자치의 원칙을 규정하여 당사자가 선택한 법을 준거법으로 인정하고 있다. CISG는 강행규정이 아니므로 당사자들은 CISG의 일부 또는 전부를 배제할 수 있다. 따라서 달리 정한 바가 없다면 CISG가 적용되는 거래의 경우에도 당사자들은 CISG의 적용을 전부배제하거나 일부 배제할 수 있으며, 일부의 규정을 변경할 수 있다(제6조). 그리고 명문조항은 없지만, 당사자는 합의로 CISG를 적용시킬 수 있다고 본다. CISG의 적용배제에 있어서 명시적 적용배제 외에 묵시적 적용배제도 가능한 것으로 이해되며, 묵시적 적용배제를 인정하는 법원이 많다. 다만, 일부 법원판결 및 중재판정에서는 묵시적 적용배제를 인정하지 않은 사례가 있으므로 CISG의 적용배제를 원하는 경우 CISG의 적용배제를 계약서에 정확하게 명시하는 것이 바람직하다. CISG의 적용을 배제하는 경우에는 일정한 제한이 따른다. 우선 당사자들은 CISG 제12조의 적용을 배제하거나 그 효과를 변경할 수 없다. 다시 말해, 당사자가 계약의 서면성 등을 요구하지 않는 조항의 적용에 대해 제96조에 의거 유보선언을 한 체약국에 영업소를 가지고 있는 경우에는 서면성을 요구하지 않는 조항이 적용되지 않으며, 당사자들도 이를 변경할 수 없다. 또한, CISG 조항 중 국제공법적인 조항(제89조~제101조)의 효과도 변경할 수 없다. 그리고 CISG의 적용범위 밖의 사항에 대해서도 당사자자치의 원칙을 충분히 반영하여 당사자의 적용합의를 인정하는 것이 타당할 것이다. 다만, 그 중 공서양속에 반하는 사항은 적용시킬 수 없을 것이다. The United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods ("CISG") allows the parties to exclude its application (totally or partially) or to derogate from its provisions under article 6. The parties can expressly exclude application of CISG in two ways; exclusion with and exclusion without indication by the parties of the applicable law. CISG does not have any provision which clearly states implicit exclusion. Many courts, however, admit the possibility of an implicit exclusion. The parties can implicitly exclude CISG by choosing the law of a Non-contracting State as the applicable law. There are some restrictions to the party autonomy with regard to CISG. Where one party to a contract governed by the Convention has its place of business in a State that has made a reservation under article 96, the parties may not derogate from or vary the effect of article 12. And the parties cannot derogate from the public international law provisions of the Convention (i.e. articles 89-101). CISG does not state whether the parties choose CISG when it would not otherwise apply. It is understood that the principle of party autonomy is sufficient to allow the parties to choose CISG as the applicable law.

부실기재선하증권을 발행한 해상운송인의 포장당 책임제한조항 적용가능성에 대한 연구-미국 Berisford Metals Corp. v. S/S Salvador, and A/S Ivarans Rederi(1985) 판례를 중심으로-

김상만 국제거래법학회 2010 國際去來法硏究 Vol.19 No.2

It has been widely acknowledged that a carrier’s liability shall be limited to certain amount per package or per an accident. In this respect, the Hague Rules,which was adopted in 1924, limits a carrier’s liability to 100 pounds per package. Numerous countries including U.S.A, Korea, accepted the Hague Rules. Nevertheless, it has been criticized that a carrier’s liability is limited even though the damage is caused by its willful or gross negligent conduct. The Hague-Visby Rules, which is an amendment to the Hague Rules, provides some an exception to the package limitation of a carrier’s liability. Korea accepted the Hague-Visby Rules, but U.S.A. didn’t. However, U.S. federal courts recognized some exceptions in case of vacant B/L, or misrepresented B/L. In Berisford case regarding misrepresented B/L, the federal court concluded that carrier must held responsible for full value of the lost cargo and cannot invoke the $500 package limitation of liability provision of COGSA. The court applied a higher standard in the event that a carrier makes a representation in a B/L with respect to its own conduct since it is reasonably expected to be aware of its own actions, including whether or not it has loaded cargo. Furthemore, the court held that the carrier’s misrepresentation amounted to a fundamental breach going to the very essence of its contract and precluding it from invoking those package limitation of liability provision.

프로젝트 파이낸스방식 수출거래에서 수출보험의 역할

김상만 국제거래법학회 2008 國際去來法硏究 Vol.17 No.2

Project finance is a financing scheme in which a lender is satisfied to look initially to the cash flows as the source of funds from which a loan will be repaid. The key to a successful project finance is structuring the financing of a project with as little recourse as possible to the sponsor while at the same time providing sufficient credit support through undertaking of a sponsor and other security mechanisms. To avoid direct liability, project sponsor establish a project company for the sole purpose of carrying out that project. A project company borrowes fund required for that project, and is liable for the debt. Project finance has several features compared to corporate finance. The major risks in project finance are completion risk, operation & management risk, raw material supply risk, sales risk, legal risk, country risk, etc. As a project company is a newly established without creditworthiness, the lender requires numerous securities. The most prefered security is export insurance cover by an export credit agency. Global project finance volume in 2007 increased by 20% to U$273 billion from 656 projects compared to U$227 billion from 589 transactions in 2006. Project finance marked the fifth consecutive year all-time high in both volume and deal count. The export insurances which can be used to cover risks involved in project finance are medium and long term export insurance(buyer credit), export bond insurance, and overseas investment insurance. Medium and long term export insurance(buyer credit) covers non-recovery risk of financial proceeds by a financial institution in a medium and long term loan agreement, the repayment of which exceeds two years. Export bond insurance is an export support scheme to indemnify losses of the financial institution which issued performance type guarantee. Overseas investment insurance covers investor’s(project sponsor in project finance) losses which incurred by war, expropriation, restriction on the transfer of money in a host country.