• 한국항만경제학회지
• /
• 제25권2호
• /
• pp.149-176
• /
• 2009

Count호 사건의 항해용선계약에서 선주는 양하항에서 Pongola호의 좌초사고에 의해 본선의 출항이 지연되었기 때문에 용선자의 안전항담보의무위반을 이유로 초과정박손해배상금을 청구하였다. 중재판정부는 양하항을 비안전항으로 보고 선주의 청구를 인정하였지만, 용선자는 중재판정에 다음과 같은 과오가 있다고 하여 영국 법원에 상소하였다. (1) 중재판정부는 Beira항이 안전하지 못하며 그 결과 용선자는 선주에게 초과정박손해배상금에 대해 책임이 있다고 판정한 것은 과오가 있으며, (2) 중재판정부는 Beira항에서 두 선박이 좌초했다는 사실과 관련하여 그 항이 안전하지 못하다고 판정한 것은 과오이며, (3) 선석에서의 양하를 종료하여 출항하려고 하였는데 거의 같은 장소에서 Pongola호가 좌초하여 항만당국에 의한 수로폐쇄에 의해 본선은 4일 후까지 출항할 수 없었다고 판정한 것 등이다. 본 연구에서는 항해용선계약과 관련하여 안전항담보의무위반에 따른 초과정박손해배상금의 청구에 대해 쟁점이 된 Count호 사건을 중심으로 분석하는데 목적이 있다.

• 산업노동연구
• /
• 제24권3호
• /
• pp.109-142
• /
• 2018

이 논문은 대표적인 불안정 노동자 직군에 속하는 건설 노동자에 대한 호주의 어워드 임금 체계와 사회보장제도를 분석하고 한국에 대한 시사점을 도출하는 데 그 목적이 있다. 호주는 19세기 후반 격렬한 노사분쟁을 겪은 후 노사갈등을 예방, 해결하기 위한 노사정 중심의 중재위원회를 구축하고 이를 토대로 어워드라는 고유한 임금 체계 및 사회보장제도를 운용하고 있다. 어워드는 공정노동위원회라는 중재위원회에서 결정되는 임금 체계로서 전후 자본주의의 황금기에 고임금을 유지하고 경제성장을 견인해 내는데 중요한 요소로 작용했다. 신자유주의 개혁 이후 그 역할이 축소되었지만, 호주의 건설 노동자들은 여전히 높은 수준의 최저임금을 유지하고 있고 어워드 임금 체계가 직업교육훈련과 숙련 관리체계와 연계되어 있다는 점에서 시사하는 바가 크다. 신자유주의 개혁과정에서 시장경쟁을 이유로 고임금=유효수요창출이라는 전통적 케인스주의적 정책적 목표가 수정되었고 그에 대한 반발을 누그러뜨리려 의무 퇴직연금과 공공 건강보험과 같은 보편적 복지제도가 도입되었다. 한편, 건설 노동자와 같이 이동성과 불안정성이 높은 노동자들을 위해 어워드 임금 체계를 통해 장기근속 유급휴가와 퇴직급여라는 이동식 급부가 제공되고 있다. 호주의 숙련 수준이 낮은 건설 노동자의 사회보장 부담률은 우리나라의 평균 건설 노동자의 사회보장 부담률과 비슷한데 노후소득의 소득 대체율이 월등히 높다는 점에서 우리에게 주는 시사점이 있다.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제57권
• /
• pp.3-34
• /
• 2013

In the international sales contract, long-term contracts often face hardship in fulfilling the original contract terms by relevant parties due to rapid change and uncertainty of political and economic circumstance. In this case, party who faces hardship of fulfillment terminates contract or demands adaptation to contract condition but if opponent doesn't accept this, it proceeds to commercial dispute needing legal interpretation. Generally it is wise to set forth governing law in contract between parties in the case of international contract, for legal stability. One of universal governing law which relevant parties select by agreement to solve economical hardship of fulfillment is PICC. PICC defines the hardship in detail for renegotiation on following hardship of fulfillment unexpected. In the case of failing renegotiation, Court(arbitral tribunal) conducts termination to contract or adaptation to contract condition through arbitration or mediation. In conclusion, when signing international long-term contract, it is desirous to handle dispute effectively by inserting provisions which can deal with economical hardship in contract or defining PICC as governing law in the case of hardship incurred. It is because it is realistic to handle dispute smoothly to the extent that both parties can be satisfied in the case of hardship incurred, though international contract should be fulfilled.

• 한국콘텐츠학회논문지
• /
• 제17권7호
• /
• pp.487-497
• /
• 2017

우리나라도 기술이나 영업비밀이 유출되는 사례가 빈번히 발생하면서 분쟁해결 시스템의 정비도 필요하게 되었다. 첫째, 관련 개별 법률을 제정 시행하면서 다양한 법률이 분산되어 제정 시행되어, 중복성의 문제, 개별 법률 간의 충돌, 포괄성 통합성 연계성 저하의 문제가 되고 있다. "기술유출방지 및 보호지원에 관한 법률"(가칭)체계로 독립적인 법체계가 필요하다. 이렇게 함으로써 현재, 중소기업청, 산업통상자원부, 특허청, 공정거래위원회, 무역위원회, 경찰청, 국정원 등 정부부처별로 분산되어 있는 기술보호지원제도를 제도적으로는 통합화 일원화하되, 기능적으로 분담을 통하여 정책을 추진할 필요성이 있다. 둘째, 특허법상의 '특허심판원', 발명진흥법상 '산업재산권분쟁조정위원회', 산업기술의 유출방지 및 보호에 관한 법률상의 '산업기술분쟁조정위원회', 중소기업기술보호지원에 관한 법률상, '중소기업기술분쟁조정 중재위원회'가 설치되어 있으나, '기술유출방지 및 보호 지원에 관한 법률'(가칭) 통합법을 제정하면서 중소기업청, 혹은 산업통상자원부 산하에 '기술분쟁심판조정위원회'(가칭)로 통폐합 설치 운영 두는 방안이 바람직하다.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제47권
• /
• pp.129-156
• /
• 2010

Since the 1970s, international construction employers have commonly requested first demand guarantees upon their contractors as a form of security for due performance of their works. Contractors prefer the greater protection offered by more traditional forms of security requiring presentation of an arbitral award or other evidence of the caller's entitlement to compensation. Many contractors nonetheless feel that they have no alternative but to provide these unconditional guarantees in order to compete. However, these unconditional first demand guarantees are controversial and have given rise to numerous disputes both in arbitration and litigation. Disputes arising from first demand guarantees can be broken down into a) applications to prevent a perceived fraudulent or otherwise unfair or improper calling of a guarantee, b) claims arising from such abusive calls and c) claims relating to the consequences of such calls even if the call itself may not be abusive as such. The contractors should carefully assess the risk of an abusive call being made bearing in mind the difficulties he may face in seeking to prevent such a call. He should also bear in mind the difficulties, delays and cost he is likely to encounter in seeking to recover any monies wrongfully called. One option would be to provide that the call can only be made once and to the extent that the employer's damages have been assessed or even incurred or even for the default to have been established by an arbitral tribunal or court. Another option would be to provide that any call be accompanied by a decision of a competent and impartial third party stating that the contractor is in breach. For example, such a requirement could be incorporated into a construction contract based on the FIDIC Conditions by submitting this decision to a Dispute Adjudication Board. Another option would be to provide for the "ICC Counter-Guarantee Scheme". In sum, there would appear to be room for compromise between the employer and the contractor in respect of first demand guarantees by conditioning the entitlement to call such guarantees to the determination of a competent and impartial third party.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제69권
• /
• pp.261-301
• /
• 2016

Recently the abusive calls on on-demand bonds have been a critical issue among many engineering and construction companies in Korea. On-demand bond is referred to as an independent guarantee in the sense that the guarantee is independent from its underlying contract although it was issued based on such underlying contract. For this reason, the issuing bank is not required to and/or entitled to look into whether there really is a breach of underlying contract in relation to the call on demand-bonds. Due to this kind of principle of independence, the applicant has to run the risk of the on demand bond being called by the beneficiary without due grounds. Only where the call proves to be fraudulent or abusive in a very clear way, the issuing bank would not be obligated to pay the bond proceeds for the call on on-demand bonds. In order to prevent the issuing bank from paying the proceeds under the on-demand bond, the applicant usually files with its competent court an application for injunction prohibiting the beneficiary from calling against the issuing bank. However, it is in practice difficult for the applicant to prove the beneficiary's call on the bond to be fraudulent since the courts in almost all the jurisdictions of advanced countries require very strict and objective evidences such as the documents which were signed by the owner (beneficiary) or any other third party like the engineer. There is another way of preventing the beneficiary from calling on the bond, which is often utilized especially in the United Kingdom or Western European countries such as Germany. Based upon the underlying contract, the contractor which is at the same time the applicant of on-demand bond requests the court to order the owner (the beneficiary) not to call on the bond. In this case, there apparently seems to be no reason why the court should apply the strict fraud rule to determine whether to grant an injunction in that the underlying legal relationship was created based on a construction contract rather than a bond. However, in most jurisdictions except for United Kingdom and Singapore, the court also applies the strict fraud rule on the ground that the parties promised to make the on-demand bond issued under the construction contract. This kind of injunction is highly unlikely to be utilized on the international level because it is very difficult in normal situations to establish the international jurisdiction towards the beneficiary which will be usually located outside the jurisdiction of the relevant court. This kind of injunction ordering the owner not to call on the bond can be rendered by the arbitrator as well even though the arbitrator has no coercive power for the owner to follow it. Normally there would be no arbitral tribunal existing at the time of the bond being called. In this case, the emergency arbitrator which most of the international arbitration rules such as ICC, LCIA and SIAC, etc. adopt can be utilized. Finally, the contractor can block the issuing bank from paying the bond proceeds by way of a provisional attachment in case where it also has rights to claim some unpaid interim payments or damages. This is the preservative measure under civil law system, which the lawyers from common law system are not familiar with. As explained in this article, it is very difficult to block the issuing bank from paying in response to the bond call by the beneficiary even if the call has no valid ground under the underlying construction contract. Therefore, it is necessary for the applicants who are normally engineering and construction companies to be prudent to make on-demand bonds issued. They need to take into account the creditability of the project owner as well as trustworthiness of the judiciary system of the country where the owner is domiciled.