• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제67권
• /
• pp.119-142
• /
• 2015

Many insurers have traditionally incorporated "fraud clauses" into insurance policies, setting out the consequences of making a fraudulent claim. Even in the absence of an express terms, English courts provide insurers with a remedy for a fraudulent claim. However, the law in this area is complex, convoluted and confused. English Law Commission think that the law in this area needs to be reformed for three reasons; (1) the disjunctive between the common law rule and section 17 generates unnecessary disputes and litigation, (2) increasingly, UK commercial law must be justified to an international insurance society, and (3) the rules on fraudulent claims are functioned as a deterrent if they are clear and well-understood. In order for these purposes, English Law Commission recommends a statutory regime to the effect that, when an insured commits fraud in relation to a claim, the insurer should (1) have no liability to pay the fraudulent claim and be able to recover any sums already paid in respect to the claim, and (2) have the option to treat the contract as having been terminated with from the time of the fraudulent act and, if chosen the option, be entitled to refuse all claims arising after the fraud, but (3) remain liable for legitimate losses before the fraudulent act. LC is not recommending a complete restatement of the law on insurance fraud generally. For example, LC does not seek to define fraud, instead, recommends the introduction of targeted provisions to confirm the remedies available to an insurer who discovers a fraud by a policyholder.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제25권2호
• /
• pp.49-70
• /
• 2015

There are three categories of arbitration - domestic arbitration, foreign-related arbitration and foreign arbitration. Although the meaning of foreign arbitration and International Commercial Arbitration is different, they are used to mean the same in practice. In fact, there is significant controversy about the meaning of non-domestic arbitration because it is too difficult to distinguish between non-domestic arbitration and domestic arbitration. In the Chinese arbitration system, there are two main laws,Chinese Arbitration Law and Chinese Civil Procedure Law. Chinese Arbitration Law regulates the internal matters, while Chinese Civil Procedure Law regulates the external legal regulations. After the 2012 revised Chinese Civil Procedure Law, a number of laws and regulations have been revised, and almost every Arbitrations Rules have been revised, and will be in effect in 2015. Depending on the nationality of arbitration, the applicable laws will be different. The nationality of arbitration is so important that this paper will pay more attention to it. Although the case in China has no precedent effect, it is so important to the parties that this paper will address it. This paper will analyze the process and the cases of the recognition and enforcement of the award system in China.

• 항공우주정책ㆍ법학회지
• /
• 제27권2호
• /
• pp.107-142
• /
• 2012

현대 사회에서 항공기는 중요한 운송수단으로 자리매김 하였고 항공 여객운송에 있어서 항공기 연착 손해로 인한 분쟁은 항공운송 관련 분쟁 중 가장 많이 발생하는 일이다. 항공운송에 관한 국제조약이 적용되지 못하는 국내운송 등과 같은 영역을 규율하기 위하여 2011년 상법 항공운송편이 제정 발효되었고 여기에 여객 및 수하물의 연착으로 인한 항공운송인의 손해배상책임제도도 마련되었다. 몇 개 안되는 조문이지만 항공운송 중 가장 빈번히 일어나는 항공기 연착으로 인한 손해배상 문제를 규율하기 때문에 그 중요성은 매우 크다고 할 수 있다. 기존의 바르샤바협약 체제의 문제점을 개선한 1999년 몬트리올협약의 관련 내용을 대부분 수용하여 제정된 우리 상법 항공운송편 규정들은 널리 통용되고 있는 국제적 기준에 부합한다는 장점은 있지만, 1999년 몬트리올협약의 문제점들을 거의 그대로 지니고 있다는 단점이 있다. 상법 항공운송편상 여객 및 수하물의 연착 손해로 인한 배상책임제도 관련 규정들의 문제점 및 개선방안은 다음과 같다. 첫째, 연착으로 인한 항공운송인의 손해배상책임이 성립되기 위한 '연착'의 개념 정의가 없으므로 '연착'에 관한 정의 규정을 두는 것을 생각해 볼 필요가 있다. 둘째, 여객에 대한 연착 손해 발생 시 국내운송의 경우 국제운송의 1/8 수준으로 항공운송인의 배상책임한도액을 차등하여 규정한 것은 항공사보호에 별로 도움이 되지 않는 반면 소비자 피해의 구제 측면에서는 바람직하지 않으므로 국내운송의 여객 연착 손해 관련 배상책임한도액을 국제운송의 1/4~1/2 수준으로 상향 조정하는 것이 바람직하다고 본다. 셋째, 수하물의 멸실 훼손의 경우와 연착의 경우를 구분 없이 수하물의 손해로 인한 항공운송인의 배상책임한도액을 모두 동일하게 규정하고 있는 것은 일반적으로 손해의 정도가 다른 대상들을 구분하지 않았기 때문에 문제가 있다고 생각되며, 수하물의 멸실 훼손의 경우와 연착의 경우를 구분하여 별도로 배상책임한도액을 규정하는 것이 바람직하다고 생각된다. 위에서 언급된 상법 항공운송편의 여객 및 수하물의 연착 손해 관련 배상책임 규정의 문제점 등을 비롯한 동 법률의 개선요구들에 대한 많은 연구와 논의를 통해 오랜 노력과 기다림 끝에 제정된 국내 항공운송법제를 더욱 발전시켜 나가야 할 것이다.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제28권
• /
• pp.3-36
• /
• 2005

Most legal systems provides the aggrieved buyer with a right to put an end to the contract. Unlike Civil Law systems, the right is rather complicated and uncertain in Common Law systems because they do not sharply distinguish between a refusal which amounts merely to a defence in the nature of the exceptio non adimpleti contractus, and one which is intended to abrogate the aggrieved party's obligations completely and to seek restitution of what he has already performed. That is, they do not draw any sharp distinction between the right of rejection or revocation and the right to put an end to the contract. This explains why the right to put an end to the contract under Civil Law systems are often compared with the right of rejection or revocation under Common Law systems in most academic papers. Having said that, this article describes and analyzes in detail the relevant UCC rules to the buyer's right of rejection and revocation, particularly the rules on the requirements for the right of rejection or revocation. This is for the purpose of providing legal advice to our sellers residing either in U.S.A. or in Korea who plan to enter into U.S.A markets and take academics' interest in the buyer's right which is deemed to be unique compared to the Civil Law systems. In addition, the study attempts to compare the rules as to the right of rejection and revocation under the UCC with those of English law which are stipulated mainly in the Sale of Goods Act (1979) in a statutory form. This may help one better to understand the rules of the UCC which are mostly originated with English law and to find in what way the rules of the UCC depart from those of English law.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제32권2호
• /
• pp.3-30
• /
• 2022

On 27 October the Supreme Court of UK handed down its much anticipated decision in Kabab-Ji SAL (Lebanon) v Kout Food Group (Kuwait) [2021] UKSC 48. The issues for the Supreme Court to decide were as follows: (1) which law governed the validity of the arbitration agreement; (2) if English law applied, whether, as a matter of English law, there was any real prospect that a court might find that KFG became a party to the arbitration agreement, and (3) whether, procedurally, the Court of Appeal was correct in giving summary judgment refusing recognition and enforcement the award, or whether there should have been a full rehearing of whether there was a valid and binding arbitration agreement for the purposes of the New York Convention and the AA 1996 (the 'procedural' issue) The decision in Kabab-Ji provides further reassuring clarity on how the governing law of the arbitration agreement is to be determined under English law where the governing law is not expressly stated in the arbitration agreement itself. The Supreme Court's reasoning is consistent with its earlier decision on the same issue, albeit in the context of enforcement pursuant to the New York Convention, rather than considering the arbitration agreement before an award is rendered. This paper presents some implications of Kabab-Ji case. Also, it seeks to provide a meaningful discussion and theories on the arbitration system in Korea.

• 한국마린엔지니어링학회:학술대회논문집
• /
• 한국마린엔지니어링학회 2005년도 후기학술대회논문집
• /
• pp.94-97
• /
• 2005

Seaworthiness is an important part of the carrier's obligation in the carriage of goods by sea. Especially seaworthiness of the ship is one of the most important obligations of the carrier in the field of international transport law. Therefore it will be important to examine the expected impacts by adopting a continuing duty of seaworthiness in UNCITRAL Draft Instrument from the Korea point of view because Korean Commercial Act provides that carriers are only obliged to exercise due diligence to make the ship seaworthy before and at the beginning of the voyage. This paper examines the concept of the seaworthiness and analyses the provisions of the Draft Instrument for the duty of seaworthiness in comparison with the Korean Commercial Act.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제55권
• /
• pp.33-62
• /
• 2012

Arbitration is an essential methods of settlement for disputes in international commercial transaction. UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules have been in force after adoption in 1976. Over the 30 years, UNCITRAL Arbitration rules have been modeled for domestic and international arbitration institutes for setting and revision on their arbitration rules. UNCITRAL Committee has published the revised Arbitration Rules which entered into force after 15 August 2010. Therefore new version of arbitration rules are substituted for the previous version of UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules 1976 since its enforcement. The revised arbitration rules of UNCITRAL have been changed in various items for convergence with new trends and modern practices on arbitration including information communication and technology. The revision of arbitration rules focused on resolving problems in practice and codifying best practice to enhance the efficiency of arbitration conducted under the rules. There are considerable in a number of important respects on the removing the restricted in writing requirement for information technology, adapting the multiparties arbitration, joinder arbitration, truncated arbitral tribunal and adjustment in terms and condition and construction simply. Also a number of provisions have been refined, varied and clarified with new articles included. Conclusively the new revised arbitration rules fill a number of gaps which became apparent in the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules 1976 to bring into line with new modern practices of international arbitration rules in international commercial disputes. This paper focus on the study the problems and inspired points on significant revised provisions and its considerable points in arbitration environment. This paper is approaching to the comparisons of UNCITRAL revised Arbitration Rules 2010 with previous Arbitration Rules 1976 of UNCITRAL and International Arbitration Rules 2011 of KCAB.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제17권
• /
• pp.71-91
• /
• 2002

The purpose of this paper is to examine the viewpoints of the different legal systems for the validity of LD Clause and the possibility of gap-filling function of UNIDROIT Principles in International Sales Contract. The results of comparative study between common law system and civil law system, and between CISG and UNCDROIT Principles is as follows: First, common law system distinguishes LD Clause and Penalty Clause, but civil law system including Korean law does not strictly distinguish the difference between them, provided that the liquidated damages are not grossly excessive. Second, CISG does not concerned with the validity of LD Clause but entrust this matter to the law applicable by virtue of the rules of private international law; conversely the Principles follow similar position of civil law system. The possibility of gap-filling of the Principles is more positive in the case of arbitration than in the case of litigation. On the basis of above study, I also checked the LD Clauses of ICC Model International Sales and the Model Contracts of Korean Commercial Arbitration Board. The LD Clauses of there two Model Contract seem very appropriate and reasonable for the reference in practical application. The appropriate, not excessive, LD Clause will contribute not only to eliminate the burden of proof for the actual damages, but also to enforce both parties to perform their obligations in their contracts. Therefore, When we make contract, we should keep in our mind to insert the reasonable and appropriate LD Clause in the sales contract. If not, so to speak, litigated damages are grossly excessive, the Clause may be invalid in some legal system.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제15권2호
• /
• pp.93-123
• /
• 2005

As the international commercial transaction has drastically grown up with the mainland China, commercial disputes that are required to settle through ADR have tremendously increased during the last decade. Since China has not been fully exposed to the Free World for a long period of time, there would have been a great amount of misunderstanding about their competency and integrity to deal with internationally oriented commercial transactions with a view to internationally acceptable manner. This arbitration case was related to the contract in dispute of C&A Inc. as the importer v. China XX Importation Co. as the exporter for the sale of Silicon Metal. But after the contract were formed, exporter(respondent) declined to deliver the goods under the contracts because the market price of Silicon Metal increased according to the argument of the importer(claimant). Importer had to purchase alternative goods from other companies to substitute for the goods subject to the contracts in dispute. Importer purchased silicon metal of the same quality as under the contracts from two other Chinese companies as the necessary measure to mitigate the loss, paying prices higher than the contract price. Since exporter had breached the contracts, importer's loss should be compensated by the exporter as the Arbitration Tribunal decided for supporting importer's claim of loss for the substitute goods. This study is aiming at analyzing the rationale of the arbitral awards made by the Shanghai Commission in terms of (l)Place of Arbitration, (2)Applicable Law, (3)Validity of the Contracts, (4)Doctrine of Frustration, (5)Responsibility for the Mitigation of Damage by the Importer.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제20권3호
• /
• pp.3-24
• /
• 2010

In the approaching 21th century, the outstanding development in international trade and commerce has established arbitration as the preferred form of dispute resolution on international business transaction. Because the form of commercial dispute becomes more complicated and varied with the quantitative increase of them, the reasonable and rapid settlement of them must be the important problem simultaneously. In this article, the author discusses various issues on the recognition and enforcement of an foreign arbitral awards under Korean Arbitration Act, which is modeled after the Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration of the UNCITRAL of 1985. The Dec. 31, 1999 amendment to the Korean Arbitration Act admits the basis for enforcement of foreign arbitral awards rendered under United Nations Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards of 1958(commonly known as the New York Convention). Korea has acceded to the New York Convention since 1973. When acceding to the convention, Korea declared that it will apply the Convention to the recognition and enforcement of awards made only in the territory of anther Contracting State on the basis of reciprocity. Also, Korea declared that it will apply the Convention only to differences arising out of legal relationships, whether contractual or not, which are considered as commercial under the national law of Korea. The provision relating to the enforcement of arbitral awards falling under the New York Convention consists of Article III, IV, V. In particular, Article V of the New York Convention enumerates the grounds for refusal of recognition foreign arbitral awards. The grounds are separated into two categories : One that abides by procedures and the others are based on national legal sovereignty. In Korea, a holder of a foreign arbitral award is obliged to request from the court a judgment ordering enforcement of awards. Because Korea requires enforcement to be based on a judgement, the result is that arbitral of award holders are forced to institute domestic litigation.