• 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
• /
• 제51권
• /
• pp.213-239
• /
• 2011

This article examines two important issues of the demand for payment by the beneficiary and the payment by the guarantor to the beneficiary under the revised Uniform Rules for Demand Guarantee (URDG) published by ICC, which are called URDG 758 and effected on July 1, 2010. Here, after first briefly defining the concept and nature of the demand for payment, this article discusses various issues surrounding the demand: By whom, where and how the demand has to be made; which documents are required in demanding the payment; how much amount can be demanded and paid; when and where the payment has to be made and which currency has to be used for the payment. The demand for payment has to be made by the beneficiary to the guarantor on or before expiry of the guarantee at the place of issuance of the guarantee unless any other place is specified in the guarantee. The demand has to be made in paper form unless the guarantee requires an electronic form. Unless otherwise expressly stipulated in the guarantee, the demand must be supported by a statement by the beneficiary indicating the applicant is in breach of the underlying contract. Also the demand must identify the guarantee under which it is made, and the time for examination by the guarantor starts on the date of identification. The demand cannot be for more than the amount available under the guarantee. When the demand is complying the guarantor must pay the amount demanded. The payment has to be made at the branch or office of the guarantor that issued the guarantee unless any other place is indicated in the guarantee. The payment has to be made in the currency specified in the guarantee, unless the guarantor is unable to make payment in that currency due to an impediment beyond its control or any illegality under the law of the place for payment. In case of "extend or pay" or "pay or extend" demands, the demand is deemed to be withdrawn if the extension is granted. But if not, the demand has to be paid without any further demand by the beneficiary.

• 한국컴퓨터정보학회:학술대회논문집
• /
• 한국컴퓨터정보학회 2016년도 제54차 하계학술대회논문집 24권2호
• /
• pp.141-143
• /
• 2016

2016년 5월 19일 대법원은 전원합의체판결에서 부동산 매수자가 본인 명의로 소유권이전등기를 하지 않고 등기를 매도인에게서 직접 명의수탁자로 이전하는 제3자간 명의신탁(중간생략등기형 명의신탁)의 경우 명의수탁자가 신탁부동산을 임의로 처분하여도 형사처벌를 할 수 없다는 판결을 하였다. 본 논문에서는 민법과 형법의 교차영역인 명의신탁에서 민사사건의 형사화를 지양했다는 점에서 긍정적인 평가를 하지만 이에 따른 관련법의 정비를 통한 법개정을 제안한다. 즉, 명의신탁에 관한 법제 간 모순을 극복하기 위해 '부동산 실권리자명의 등기에 관한 법률'의 개정이 요구된다. 또한 부동산소유자가 그 등기명의를 타인에게 신탁하기로 하는 명의신탁약정을 맺고 그 등기명의를 명의수탁자에게 이전하는 소위 2자간 명의신탁의 경우도 비범죄화를 함으로써 법체계의 논리성과 통일성을 확보할 필요가 있다.

• 벤처창업연구
• /
• 제10권5호
• /
• pp.127-135
• /
• 2015

처음 창업을 하게 되면 성공과 실패의 순간을 맛보게 된다. 창업의 조건은 자신의 적성에 맞는 자금력 있는 입지선정과 강인한 창업가정신 등의 경영전략이 필요하다. 그런데 초보창업자는 부동산 거래에 있어서 이중매매와 같은 불의의 사고가 발생하는 경우가 있다. 우리나라 부동산거래 관행은 체계적인 도움을 받기 어려우며, 법률적으로 해결되었다고 하더라도 피해자의 피해는 그대로 남게 되는 어려운 문제가 발생하게 된다. 따라서 그동안 법률적으로 이중매매를 배임죄 등으로 가해자를 처벌하는 문제를 넘어서 이제는 피해를 입은 피해자에 대한 경영학적 접근을 통한 전략이 필요한 때이다. 부동산의 이중매매와 같은 거래사고에 대하여 초보창업자에게 부동산 거래사고 예방을 위한 경영전략은 어떠한지에 관하여 검토 해 보기로 한다.

• 의료법학
• /
• 제15권2호
• /
• pp.227-251
• /
• 2014

In current law, the premium medical treatment system gives patients the right of choice between normal medical treatment service and premium medical treatment service. Only the doctors having a career more than a certain period of time fixed in the law are eligible for providing the premium medical treatment service. So, the premium medical treatment system is highly related to the patients' right to know and the right of self-determination. The system is also relevant to the so-called 'economic explanation' notion because patients should pay additional fee when they want to use this system. Meanwhile, the situation as follows is problematic as to this system. Although a patient applied for using the premium medical treatment system and the patient also chose his or her own doctor specifically, another doctor who was not selected as premium doctor could make a medical accident. Then, is the another doctor liable for damages because the accident was a medical malpractice or a breach of medical contract? In this study, we are going to examine the problems related with the premium medical treatment system. First, we examine the current law related to the system. Second, we look into the economic explanation duty and its application to the premium medical treatment system. Finally, we examine a real judgment case about a medical practice against the premium medical treatment system and we propose our solution to this case.

• 무역학회지
• /
• 제43권6호
• /
• pp.25-50
• /
• 2018

국제비즈니스에서 구상보증제도는 제도적 특성과 그 간편성으로 그 청구과정에서 많은 문제점에 노출되고 있으며, 또한 이와 관련하여 실제로 많은 분쟁이 발생되고 있는 것이 현실이다. 특히 보증은행 또는 그 보증수혜자의 부당한 또는 사기적 청구, 또는 그 과정에서의 사기의 공모 또는 묵인 등이 있다. 한편 특별한 사유없이 보증은행의 지급거절 또는 법원의 지급금지명령을 통하여 거래당사자 간의 분쟁해결의 수단으로도 악용될 수 있다. 본 연구는 구상보증제도상 보증은행의 부당한 지급거절과 그 관련 쟁점에 대해 사례를 중심으로 분석하였다. 또한 본 연구는 비즈니스 관점에서 그 시사점과 적법한 대응방안을 제시하였다.

• 노동경제논집
• /
• 제23권2호
• /
• pp.1-37
• /
• 2000

1998~99년의 경제위기 상황에서 '경영상 이유에 의한 해고의 제한' 이 입법화되었다. 이 법은 이름 그대로 경영상 해고를 제한하기 위한 것이 아니라 계약상의 고용조정 제한을 완화시켜 노동시장 유연화를 달성하자는 취지에서 입법화되었다. 본 연구의 이론모형은 '코즈정리'의 관접에서, 이러한 공식 제약(formal constraint) 이 민간계약에 미치는 효과를 살펴본다. 즉 법의 고용보호 정도가 변화해 감에 따라 민간 주체들이 맺는 '암묵적 계약(implied contract)'의 경제효율성과 계약의 기회주의적 파기가 어떻게 변화하는가를 분석한다. 본고의 이론모형은 공식 제약의 변화가 민간 주체들의 암묵적 계약 비용을 최소화하는 방향으로 이루어지지 않는다면, 제약의 과도 혹온 과소함을 우회하기 위해 민간 주체들은 추가척인 암묵적 계약을 맺게 되고 이는 결국 계약의 경제효율성을 훼손시킬 수 있다는 합의를 제시한다. 이러한 이론모형의 합의를 한국 노동판결 자료를 통하여 검토해 본다. 사용자의 기회주의를 반영하는 대리변수로서 부당해고 사건의 원고승소율 혹은 근로자의 평균 근속연수의 시계열상 추이를 살펴봄으로써 공식 제약의 변화 이전과 이후에 기회주의적 계약파기의 변화를 실증적으로 살펴본다.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제19권2호
• /
• pp.95-126
• /
• 2009

One of the controversial issues in investor-state investment arbitration is the interpretation of "umbrella clause" that is found in most BIT and FTAs. This treaty clause requires on Contracting State of treaty to observe all investment obligations entered into with foreign investors from the other Contracting State. This clause did not receive in-depth attention until SGS v. Pakistan and SGS v. Philippines cases produced starkly different conclusions on the relations about treaty-based jurisdiction and contract-based jurisdiction. More recent decisions by other arbitral tribunals continue to show different approaches in their interpretation of umbrella clauses. Following the SGS v. Philippines decision, some recent decisions understand that all contracts are covered by umbrella clause, for example, in Siemens A.G. v. Argentina, LG&E Energy Corp. v. Argentina, Sempra Energy Int'l v. Argentina and Enron Corp. V. Argentina. However, other recent decisions have found a different approach that only certain kinds of public contracts are covered by umbrella clauses, for example, in El Paso Energy Int'l Co. v. Argentina, Pan American Energy LLC v. Argentina and CMS Gas Transmission Co. v. Argentina. With relation to the exhaustion of domestic remedies, most of tribunals have the position that the contractual remedy should not affect the jurisdiction of BIT tribunal. Even some tribunals considered that there is no need to exhaust contract remedies before bringing BIT arbitration, provoking suspicion of the validity of sanctity of contract in front of treaty obligation. The decision of the Annulment Committee In CMS case in 2007 was an extraordinarily surprising one and poured oil on the debate. The Committee composed of the three respected international lawyers, Gilbert Guillaume and Nabil Elaraby, both from the ICJ, and professor James Crawford, the Rapportuer of the International Law Commission on the Draft Articles on the Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, observed that the arbitral tribunal made critical errors of law, however, noting that it has limited power to review and overturn the award. The position of the Committee was a direct attack on ICSID system showing as an internal recognition of ICSID itself that the current system of investor-state arbitration is problematic. States are coming to limit the scope of umbrella clauses. For example, the 2004 U.S. Model BIT detailed definition of the type of contracts for which breach of contract claims may be submitted to arbitration, to increase certainty and predictability. Latin American countries, in particular, Argentina, are feeling collectively victims of these pro-investor interpretations of the ICSID tribunals. In fact, BIT between developed and developing countries are negotiated to protect foreign investment from developing countries. This general characteristic of BIT reflects naturally on the provisions making them extremely protective for foreign investors. Naturally, developing countries seek to interpret restrictively BIT provisions, whereas developed countries try to interpret more expansively. As most of cases arising out of alleged violation of BIT are administered in the ICSID, a forum under the auspices of the World Bank, these Latin American countries have been raising the legitimacy deficit of the ICSID. The Argentine cases have been provoking many legal issues of international law, predicting crisis almost coming in actual investor-state arbitration system. Some Latin American countries, such as Bolivia, Venezuela, Ecuador, Argentina, already showed their dissatisfaction with the ICSID system considering withdrawing from it to minimize the eventual investor-state dispute. Thus the disagreement over umbrella clauses in their interpretation is becoming interpreted as an historical reflection on the continued tension between developing and developed countries on foreign investment. There is an academic and political discussion on the possible return of the Calvo Doctrine in Latin America. The paper will comment on these problems related to the interpretation of umbrella clause. The paper analyses ICSID cases involving principally Latin American countries to identify the critical legal issues arising between developing and developed countries. And the paper discusses alternatives in improving actual investor-State investment arbitration; inter alia, the introduction of an appellate system and treaty interpretation rules.

• 항공우주정책ㆍ법학회지
• /
• 제1권
• /
• pp.147-162
• /
• 1989

The current status of the application and interpretation of the Warsaw Convention and its subsequent Protocols in Asian countries is in its fredgling stages compared to the developed countries of Europe and North America, and there is thus little published information about the various Asian governments' treatment and courts' views of the Warsaw System. Due to that limitation, the accent of this paper will be on Korea and Japan. As one will be aware, the so-called 'Warsaw System' is made up of the Warsaw Convention of 1929, the Hague Protocol of 1955, the Guadalajara Convention of 1961, the Guatemala City Protocol of 1971 and the Montreal Additional Protocols Nos. 1,2,3 and 4 of 1975. Among these instruments, most of the countries in Asia are parties to both the Warsaw Convention and the Hague Protocol. However, the Republic of Korea and Mongolia are parties only to the Hague Protocol, while Burma, Indonesia and Sri Lanka are parties only to the Warsaw Convention. Thailand and Taiwan are not parties only to the convention or protocol. Among Asian states, Indonesia, the Phillipines and Pakistan are also parties to the Guadalajara Convention, but no country in Asia has signed the Guatemala City Protocol of 1971 or the Montreal Additional Protocols, which Protocols have not yet been put into force. The People's Republic of China has declared that the Warsaw Convention shall apply to the entire Chinese territory, including Taiwan. 'The application of the Warsaw Convention to one-way air carriage between a state which is a party only to the Warsaw Convention and a state which is a party only to the Hague Protocol' is of particular importance in Korea as it is a signatory only to the Hague Protocol, but it is involved in a great deal of air transportation to and from the united states, which in turn is a party only to the Warsaw Convention. The opinion of the Supreme Court of Korea appears to be, that parties to the Warsaw Convention were intended to be parties to the Hague Protocol, whether they actually signed it or not. The effect of this decision is that in Korea the United States and Korea will be considered by the courts to be in a treaty relationship, though neither State is a signatory to the same instrument as the other State. The first wrongful death claim in Korea related to international carriage by air under the Convention was made in Hyun-Mo Bang, et al v. Korean Air Lines Co., Ltd. case. In this case, the plaintiffs claimed for damages based upon breach of contract as well as upon tort under the Korean Civil Code. The issue in the case was whether the time limitation provisions of the Convention should be applicable to a claim based in tort as well as to a claim based in contract. The Appellate Court ruled on 29 August 1983 that 'however founded' in Article 24(1) of the Convention should be construed to mean that the Convention should be applicable to the claim regardless of whether the cause of action was based in tort or breach of contract, and that the plaintiffs' rights to damages had therefore extinguished because of the time limitation as set forth in Article 29(1) of the Convention. The difficult and often debated question of what exactly is meant by the words 'such default equivalent to wilful misconduct' in Article 25(1) of the Warsaw Convention, has also been litigated. The Supreme Court of Japan dealt with this issue in the Suzuki Shinjuten Co. v. Northwest Airlines Inc. case. The Supreme Court upheld the Appellate Court's ruling, and decided that 'such default equivalent to wilful misconduct' under Article 25(1) of the Convention was within the meaning of 'gross negligence' under the Japanese Commercial Code. The issue of the convention of the 'franc' into national currencies as provided in Article 22 of the Warsaw Convention as amended by the Hague Protocol has been raised in a court case in Korea, which is now before the District Court of Seoul. In this case, the plaintiff argues that the gold franc equivalent must be converted in Korean Won in accordance with the free market price of gold in Korea, as Korea has not enacted any law, order or regulation prescribing the proper method of calculating the equivalent in its national currency. while it is unclear if the court will accept this position, the last official price of gold of the United States as in the famous Franklin Mint case, Special Drawing Right(SDR) or the current French franc, Korean Air Lines has argued in favor of the last official price of gold of the United States by which the air lines converted such francs into us Dollars in their General Conditions of Carriage. It is my understanding that in India, an appellate court adopted the free market price valuation. There is a report as well saying that if a lawsuit concerning this issue were brought in Pakistan, the free market cost of gold would be applied there too. Speaking specifically about the future of the Warsaw System in Asia though I have been informed that Thailand is actively considering acceding to the Warsaw Convention, the attitudes of most Asian countries' governments towards the Warsaw System are still wnot ell known. There is little evidence that Asian countries are moving to deal concretely with the conversion of the franc into their own local currencies. So too it cannot be said that they are on the move to adhere to the Montreal Additional Protocols Nos. 3 & 4 which attempt to basically solve many of the current problems with the Warsaw System, by adopting the SDR as the unit of currency, by establishing the carrier's absolute liability and an unbreakable limit and by increasing the carrier's passenger limit of liability to SDR 100,000, as well as permiting the domestic introduction of supplemental compensation. To summarize my own sentiments regarding the future, I would say that given the fact that Asian air lines are now world leaders both in overall size and rate of growth, and the fact that both Asian individuals and governments are becoming more and more reliant on the global civil aviation networks as their economies become ever stronger, I am hopeful that Asian nations will henceforth play a bigger role in ensuring the orderly and hasty development of a workable unified system of rules governing international commercial air carriage.

• 의료법학
• /
• 제16권1호
• /
• pp.3-82
• /
• 2015

이 논문에서는 미용성형의료관계에서 설명의무의 위반과 시술상 오류로 인한 민사책임에 관한 판결(대법원 2013. 6. 13. 선고 2012다94865 판결, 서울중앙지방법원 2014. 12. 5. 선고 2013가소865646 판결)의 평석적 분석을 통해 설명의무만를 강화하여 책임귀속을 판단한 논지의 법리적 문제점을 지적하고, 다음과 같은 논점을 전개한다. 미용성형도 현행 의료법상 의료행위에 해당한다는 판례(대법원 1974. 11. 26. 선고 74도1114 전원합의체 판결)와 학계의 통용되는 견해는 공법적 관점에서만 타당하며, 적응증이 없는, 즉 질병 치료를 목적으로 하지 않는 순수한 미용성형시술은 의술적으로 신체, 건강 등에 위해를 가할 수 있는 의료법상 의료행위에 해당하지만, 민사책임법에서는 질병치료를 목적으로 하는 진료행위와 구별되어야 한다. 그리고 오늘날 의료생활에서 의료보험의 불가결성에 비추어, - 방법적으로 사회법상 개념 및 규준을 곧바로 민사책임법에 적용되는 것은 아니라는 점을 견지하면서 -, 성형시술에 대한 보험급여에 관한 독일 연방사회법원 판결(BSGE 63, 83, BSGE 72, 96, BSGE, 82, 158, BSGE 93, 252 etc.)을 소개하여 비교한다. 또한 진료계약의 법적 성질에 관한 교조적 논점과 관련하여 독일 연방법원의 판결(BGHZ 63, 306)도 비교적으로 검토한다. 소결적으로 성형의료를 (1) 신체의 물리적 기능의 침해의 교정, (2) 기형(騎形)의 교정, (3) 심인적 침해의 교정, (3) 정상적 체형(體型)의 미화(美化)로 유형적으로 분류하는 관점에서, 적응증 있는 진료계약(수단채무)에 적용하는 책임귀속법리와 달리, (4)의 유형에 해당하는 미용성형시술에는 예외적으로 도급계약의 법리 적용을 긍정적으로 재검토할 것을 제안한다.