• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.19 no.3
• /
• pp.179-198
• /
• 2009

This paper aims at assessing reasonableness for restraining the independence principle in the operation of documentary credit in case of the illegality appeared in the underlying transactions. It has been a major rule under the independence principle to keep the credit operation free from the defences made by the issuing bank and/or credit applicant with a view to prevent the payment as specified under the credit. And also, it is generally accepted in the international commercial community to examine a presentation to determine, on the basis of the document alone, whether or not the documents appear on their face to constitute a complying presentation. Even though these two essences are major rules in the credit operation, if a presentation is made with the documents forged or materially fraudulent, the issuing bank can refuse to pay the documents in respect of fraud rule based on fraud exception for which a court of appropriate jurisdiction would enjoin such honour. Now we have newly come to another situation to determine whether or not we have to apply the same as fraud rule which is applicable to the illegality in the underlying contract under the new conception of illegality principle based on illegality exception. English Commercial Court handled the illegality case under the case of Mahonia Ltd., v. JP Morgan Chase Bank in 2003 and Justice Colman decided that issuing bank can rely on illegality affecting a letter of credit as an excuse for failure to pay. This judgement brought about the acceptance of illegality principle based on illegality exception as a defence to payment under a letter of credit as far as the illegality concerned in the underlying transactions. It is noticeable that this case will affect our international commercial community more to rely on the illegality in the underlying transactions as a good issue to stop payment for the issuing bank in the L/C operation.

• The Korean Journal of Franchise Management
• /
• v.2 no.1
• /
• pp.119-133
• /
• 2011

The objective of this study is to establish the basic concepts for franchise agreements in consideration of both theoretical and practical conditions, to set the parameters for the discussion regarding the practical business matters pertaining to franchise agreements, and to analyze the criteria for determining the illegality of unfair trade practices based on research into actual practices in franchise transactions and on case studies of the implementation of laws by the Fair Trade Commission. The study aims to thereby contribute to the stabilization of laws in franchise transactions, benefiting all parties including franchise-related institutions, participants in franchise transactions, and related consumers. In conclusion, even in cases where regulatory exceptions are applied within the Fair Franchise Transactions Act when determining the illegality of franchised businesses, it is impossible to eliminate illegality unless all necessary and sufficient conditions have been included, and even if the procedure for evading illegality has been undertaken, illegality may not be eliminated unless the contents thereof are legitimate.

• Proceedings of the Korean Society of Computer Information Conference
• /
• 2020.07a
• /
• pp.187-188
• /
• 2020

형사소송법 제106조에서 '범위를 정하여 출력 또는 복제하는 방법이 불가능하거나 압수의 목적을 달성하기에 현저히 곤란하다고 인정되는 때에는 정보저장매체 등을 압수할 수 있다'의 규정과 제122조에서 '급속을 요하는 때'의 예외 규정을 근거로 스마트폰 압수·수색과정에서 범죄혐의와 관련성에 대한 구분 없이 정보가 무분별하게 탐색 복제되는 등 기본권을 침해하고 있으며, 영장주의 원칙에 반하는 위법한 집행이 되고 있는 실정이다. 이에 본 연구에서는 긴급압수 후 사후영장 발부 전에 별건의 범죄혐의를 확인하거나 증거로 활용한다면 위법한 압수에 해당할 수 있는 디지털증거 압수·수색 원칙의 문제, 디지털정보의 검색과 추출과정에서 참여권 보장의 문제, 스마트폰 정보에 대한 무결성 확보 등을 문제점으로 도출하였다. 이러한 문제점을 개선하기 위해 사전영장 없는 범죄사실과 관련성이 없는 정보의 탐색이나 추출 금지, 정보검색이나 추출과정에서 피압수자의 참여권 보장 및 디지털증거 분야 전문가로부터 조력을 받을 권리 보장, 무결성 확보를 위한 절차적·실체적 적법절차 준수 등 개선방안을 제시하였다.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.33 no.1
• /
• pp.121-146
• /
• 2018

In traditional international law, a state was internationally responsible only for its activities. With the diversification of the subjects of international law and with the expansion of state's activities, however, bearing international responsibility by the state for its nationals or private enterprises has been recognised in international case law and states practices. Also, this was codified in 2001 by International Law Commission, finishing Draft articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts. Yet, international responsibility of state for private entities carrying out space activities including launching of satellites and space launch vehicles has been dealt with as an exception from state responsibility in general international law. As we have seen the successful launching of 'Falcon Heavy' by SpaceX which is an american private entity, the private activities in outer space are expanding to even as far as deep space such as Mars. In other words, the scope of the private activities is too enormous to deal with the activities, irrespective of general theories on state responsibility in international law. Therefore, it will be significant to see the constituent elements of state responsibility for private activities in outer space from the point of general international law, without prejudice to provisions related to international space law.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.20 no.1
• /
• pp.211-253
• /
• 2005

Recently, the Korean Supreme Court released two important decisions concerning damages for the pain and suffering from Aircraft noise. The local people who are living near the Air Force practice site at Maehyang-ri and the Kimpo International Airport brought lawsuits against the Korean government requesting damages for their financial loss from the severe noise and the damages for their pain and suffering. Plaintiffs alleged that they suffered physical malfunctions, extreme disturbances and the reduction of property values from the extreme noises which were daily repeated. District Court of Seoul Province did not allow plaintiffs all but the damages for pain and suffering. Plaintiffs could not prove the causation between their financial loss and the noise. The Supreme Court confirmed the lower court's decision. Article V of the National Compensation Act (analogous to the Federal Tort Claims Act of the USA) reads, "the government shall be liable for any loss caused by the defect on establishment or maintenance of public facilities." In the two cases, the major issue was whether the government's establishment or maintenance of Air Force practice site and the airport was defective because they caused serious noise to surrounding neighbors. Previously, the Supreme Court interpreted the clause "defect on establishment or maintenance of public facilities" as failure of duty to provide safety measures to the degree generally required to ordinary manager. However the Court at this time interpreted differently that the defect could be found if the facility caused to any person loss to the degree intolerable. In the two cases the Court confirmed the lower court's finding that noise level at the site was severe enough to be intolerable. This standard is based on the severity of the loss rather than the failure of duty. It became easier for plaintiffs to prove the cause of action under this interpretation. The consequence of the ruling of these two cases is 'rush to the courtroom' by the local people at similar situations. The ruling of these two cases was not appropriate both in theory and in consequence. The Korean tort system is basically based on the theory of negligence. Strict liability is exceptional only when there is special legislation. The Court created strict liability rule by interpreting the Art. V of the National Compensation Act. This is against the proper role of the court. The result of the cases is also dismal. The government was already sued by a number of local people for damages. Especially the Department of Defense which is operating many airports nationwide has financial hardship, which will cause downsizing military practice by the Air Force in the long run, This is no good to anyone. Tens of millions of dollars which might be used for compensation might be better used to prevent further noise problem surrounding airports.

• KDI Journal of Economic Policy
• /
• v.13 no.2
• /
• pp.141-161
• /
• 1991

Resale price maintenance has long been employed in book distribution, perhaps longer than for any other product. Another unusual practice in the book trade that has proven to be quite durable in spite of its substantial cost in real resources is the returns policy. Publishers typically grant the right to return unsold books within a stipulated time for full credit against future orders. This paper investigates the functions and effects of resale price maintenance in the book trade, and argues that resale price maintenance and returns are substitute methods of providing the same economic function. Resale price maintenance can be used to compensate booksellers for initially stocking books with uncertain prospects and for providing a conduit through which manufacturers acquire information about consumer demand (market testing services). Permitting the return of unsold books for full credit places a floor under retail prices and transfers a considerable portion of the cost of introducing a new product line back to the publisher. Both reflect publishers' needs to have their books displayed. In the U.S. returns privileges were first proposed in 1913, roughly coincident with the Macy decision outlawing RPM. Publishers slowly granted return privileges, which become nearly universal by 1970. The decline in margins in recent years has been accompanied by an increase in returns as the return policy served to substitute for lost margins on successful titles as a methods of compensating full-line booksellers. In contrast, returns privileges are unusual in countries where price maintenance in books has been practiced. These observations are consistent with our analysis. In Korea, resale price maintenance of books is practiced under an exception to Korean antitrust law. The availability of effective price maintenance is likely to reduce the use of returns programs. Since consumers prefer to obtain books at outlets where they know the books are likely to be stocked rather than taking a chance on stores that carry a more limited line, it also provides a strong incentive for booksellers to expand. But the privilege of resale price maintenance should be confined to books which publishers want to be price maintained. Resale price maintenance and returns system differ in the transactions costs associated with inventory holding, and publishers' judgement on the comparative advantage of the two schemes should be honored. Publishers should also remain free to authorize sales at discount at any time not to impair the ability of booksellers to dispose of product variants that prove unpopular.