http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.
변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.
국제물품매매협약(CISG)의 본질적 계약위반과 신용장 개설의무위반
이헌묵(LEE HUN MOOK) 법무부 국제법무정책과 2014 통상법률 Vol.- No.119
The first Supreme Court ruling (Supreme Court 2013.11.28. ruling 2011da103977) applying the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (“CISG”) is concerned with fundamental breach of contract under Article 25 of the CISG and the seller’s right to avoid the contract under Article 64 of the CISG. According to this ruling, a buyer adding conditions to a documentary credit that were not previously agreed to by the seller constitutes fundamental breach of contract and, therefore, the seller is entitled to avoid the contract under Article 64. I agree with the court’s ruling because adding conditions that were not previously agreed to eventually burdens the seller. Considering the significance of the CISG, however, the Supreme Court should have suggested specific elements for the fundamental breach of contract. It is important that legal status of opening documentary credits in CISG which are often used in the international sale of goods should be precisely stipulated. On the other hand, the Supreme Court stated that the mere delay in opening documentary credits did not constitute a fundamental breach of contract. However, it did not specify the reason for that result. In my opinion, different conclusions may be drawn from specific cases rather than only one conclusion such as the Supreme Court’s ruling. In short, documentary credits must be opened within a certain time before the shipment date; otherwise, it constitutes a fundamental breach of contract because documentary credits are a precondition for shipment preparation by the seller.
Interpretation of Mutual Agreements in Internet Commerce
Suh Kyung-Lim(서경림),Se Il Ko(고세일) 법무부 국제법무정책과 2005 통상법률 Vol.- No.64
새로운 미디어인 인터넷은 산업혁명 이후에 또 다른 혁명으로서 여러 곳에서 인류에게 새로운 변화상을 보여주고 있다. 또한 인터넷은 법률영역에서도 새로운 문제를 발생시키고 있다. 따라서 이런 영역에서 어떠한 규율과 법적 대응이 필요한지가 관심 대상이 되고 있다. 필자는 이 논문에서 지적재산권법과 계약법 양 영역에서 문제되고 있는 인터넷 약관계약에 대해서 검토하고자 한다. 현재 많은 인터넷 사이트에서 서비스 이용과 물건의 구매에 있어서 자사의 사이트를 통해서, 자신의 계약규범을 현재와 미래의 계약근거로써 사용하고 있다. 그런데 컴퓨터 모니터 화면에 보여지고 있는 약관 규범을 몇 가지 버튼을 누름으로써 계약 당사자가 그 규범에 그대로 구속되는 것이 타당한가라는 의문이 생긴다. 그러면 이런 상황에서 발생하는 “인터넷 계약에서의 진정한 당사자 합의를 어떻게 찾을 것인가?”라는 문제가 발생한다. 인터넷 내에서는 국경과 법역의 의미가 반감되기 때문에, 이는 대륙법과 영미법을 통틀어 새롭게 제기되는 계약법적 문제라고 할 수 있다. 이러한 문제에 대해서, 본 논문은 한국과 미국의 실정법과 판례를 비교함으로써 인터넷 약관계약의 법적 문제를 고찰하고자 한다. 특히 미국의 최신 동향을 파악함으로써, 한국법에 가능한 시사점을 살피고자 한다. 논문은 첫째, 인터넷 약관계약에서 당사자의 진정한 의사의 합의가 있었는지의 여부 둘째, 비록 당사자의 진정한 의사 합의가 있었다고 하더라도, 그 계약의 구속력을 인정하는 것이 공평에 어긋난 경우에 그러한 인터넷 약관계약의 무효와 취소가 고려되어야 하는 경우 세째, 인터넷 약관계약에서 당사자 합의를 기존 계약 규범 해석과는 어떻게 조화할 것인가의 문제에 초점을 두고 있다.
오수근(OH SOO GEUN),송희종(Heejong Song) 법무부 국제법무정책과 2009 통상법률 Vol.- No.88
The opening of multiple insolvency proceedings in more than one country generally may cause difficulties in terms of efficiency and cost. Cooperation and coordination between proceedings is necessary in order to prevent and resolve any conflicts that may arise. The issue was addressed by the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) and accordingly set out in the UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross‐Border Insolvency cooperation and coordination as the guiding principle and further laid down examples of forms of cooperation in Article 27. Under this general framework, attention to cross‐border insolvency agreements, as a form of cooperation and coordination, was brought by the Maxwell case in 1991. A Cross‐border Insolvency Agreement is an oral or written agreement intended to facilitate the coordination of cross‐border insolvency proceedings and cooperation between the courts, between the courts and insolvency representatives and between insolvency representatives. In 2005, UNCITRAL first adopted cooperation and coordination in insolvency proceedings as one of its items. In 2009, the Commission was presented with the draft UNCITRAL Practice Guide on Cross‐Border Insolvency Cooperation, which was subsequently adopted. The objective of this paper is to introduce the UNCITRAL Practice Guide on Cross‐Border Insolvency Cooperation. It shall provide an account of examples of cooperation between courts in past cases. Furthermore, as well as presenting sample clauses this paper will look into various issues with regard to cross‐border insolvency agreements such as the necessity of entering cross‐border insolvency agreements, the right of parties to enter such an agreement, its form and content. The reason why such an agreement is reached is to maximize the benefit of the parties by minimizing conflicts and duplication of proceedings. The aim of this paper is to provide an introduction of the practice guide so that courts or practitioners may utilize it as a stepping stone for coordination and cooperation in cross‐border insolvency proceedings.
UN의 온라인분쟁해결(ODR)에 관한 국제규범정립을 위한 논의 및 전망과 그 향후 과제
남유선(Nam You-sun),윤민섭(Yun Min-seop) 법무부 국제법무정책과 2016 통상법률 Vol.- No.127
With the rise of the internet, cross-border e-commerce transaction endowed both businesses and consumer convenience; however, it also triggered various issues as well. Despite the various problems, there is no set procedural rule to solve such online disputes. Indeed, general methods to resolve disputes such as negotiation, facilitated settlement, arbitration, trials may also be used for international dispute resolution. However, general dispute resolution procedures are focused on offline, and there are many problems regarding online trade disputes such as jurisdiction and cost. Therefore, it is not suitable for resolving cross-border e-commerce transaction disputes dealing with low-value transactions. Especially the cost is the issue. Dispute resolution cost becoming larger than the transaction cost is the problem. To solve these kinds of issues, in 2010 UNCITRAL (United Nations Commission on International Trade Law) commission conference, Working group III (WG III) received the duty to set the international rule (standard) for Online Dispute Resolution Procedural (ODR). From December 2010, 22nd session, WG III started the session to make the ODR regulations. Currently, the session has been held to the 32nd session and the final results for the ODR are projected to come out in the February 2016 33rd session. Due to the characteristic of international conferences, along with the specific contents of the regulations, the entire system may be modified during the discussion. Although there is only one session left (the 33rd session) for the WG III, the contents may be altered anytime. Therefore, in this study, we will look at the discussion changes so far, and the contents of the technical notes (UNCITRAL guideline) proposed by the United States of America on the 32ndsession.