• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제37권
• /
• pp.35-59
• /
• 2008

In most products liability cases, the only or principal defendant is the manufacturer that designed, manufactured, and marketed the product which injured the plaintiff. In this regards, most national laws and international convention stipulates the definition of the producer. But there is no rule about the definition of the producer in China. Yet parties in the product distribution chain other than ordinary manufacturers, notably retail seller, often profit from moving products from factories to consumers and so may bear some responsibility when product hazards injure consumers. The purpose of this paper is to clarify the definition of the "producer", "seller" who is responsible for products liability claims in China. This paper will contributes to help the Korean exporters, manufacturers to build up the proper countermeasures regarding products liability in China.

• 디지털융복합연구
• /
• 제13권1호
• /
• pp.111-124
• /
• 2015

인터넷과 모바일 통신망 보급의 빠른 확산 속도와 더불어 중국의 전자상거래 시장은 과거 10년간 72배 성장하였다. 그러나 성장속도 대비 해당 시장의 선진화를 위한 하부구조와 관련 규정의 부재는 최근 국가 경제발전 차원에서 시급히 개선되어야할 문제로 부상하고 있다. 따라서 본 연구에서는 문헌연구를 통해 최근 급성장한 중국 전자상거래의 기반 환경 및 시장현황을 살펴보고, 현재 중국 시장에서 문제로 대두되고 있는 전자상거래상의 주요 이슈를 전자상거래 형태별로 점검하였다. 또한 중국 유통시장에서 가장 큰 문제로 지적되고 있는 전자상거래상의 물류시스템의 문제, 소비자 보호문제, R&D 투자 현황 및 고급인력 확충의 문제를 진단하고 향후 기업차원과 정부차원의 제도 및 시스템 개선을 제안하였다. 마지막으로 본 연구는 특히 과거 연구에서 논의되지 않았던 모바일 결제시장과 인터넷 금융시장 및 전자상거래 중국의 세제 개편내용을 제공하고 국제표준화를 위한 제도적 시사점을 도출하였다. 중국정부의 5개년 전자상거래 육성을 위한 전자상거래 대외시장 개방에 대한 정책 발표 이후, 한국 수출 기업들에게 제공하는 시사점을 처음으로 제안하였다는데 의의가 크다.

• 무역학회지
• /
• 제44권1호
• /
• pp.177-191
• /
• 2019

Global trade protectionism has increased further and U.S. priorities and protectionism have strengthened since Trump took office in 2017. Trump administration is actively implementing tariff measures based on U.S. domestic trade laws rather than the WTO rules and regulations. In particular, the American government has recently been imposing high tariffs due to national security and imposing economic sanctions on other countries' imports. According to the U.S. Trade Expansion Act Section 232, the American government imposed additional tariffs on steel and aluminum imports to WTO member countries such as China, India, and EU etc. on march 15, 2018. Thus, this study aims to investigate whether the U.S. Trade Expansion Act Section 232 is consistent with GATT/WTO rules by comparing the legal basis of US / China / WTO regulations related to Section 232 of the U.S. Trade Expansion Act, and gives some suggestions for responding to the Section 232 measure. As the Section 232 measure exceeded the scope of GATT's Security Exceptions regulation and is very likely to be understood as a safeguard measure. If so, the American government is deemed to be in breach of WTO's regulations, such as the most-favored-nation treatment obligations and the duty reduction obligations. In addition, American government is deemed to be failed to meet the conditions of initiation of safeguard measure and violated the procedural requirements such as notification and consultation. In order to respond to these U.S. protection trade measures, all affected countries should actively use the WTO multilateral system to prevent unfair measures. Also, it is necessary to revise the standard jurisdiction of the dispute settlement body and to explore the balance of the WTO Exception clause so that it can be applied strictly. Finally, it would be necessary for Chinese exporters to take a counter-strategy under such trade pressure.