• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제61권
• /
• pp.273-302
• /
• 2014

Project finance ("PF") is a method of raising long-term debt financing based on lending against the cash flow generated by the project alone. Project finance is a nonrecourse or limited recourse financing structure against the sponsors(or the investors). The debt terms in a project finance are not based on the creditor's credit support or on the value of the assets of the project. Lenders rely on the future cash flow to be generated by the project for debt repayment and interest, rather than the value of the project or the credit ratings of the sponsors. The non-recourse or limited recourse financing usually prompt potential project finance lenders to assess carefully all possible risks that might arise in a project to ensure that those risks are mitigated and controlled. In this respect, project finance is a opposite financing method of corporate finance. Project finance has rapidly grown over the last 20 years due to the worldwide process of privatization of public sector and development of natural resources. Global project finance volume reached the record USD 406.5 billion in 2011. In 2012, however, Global project finance volume dropped 6% to USD 382.3 billion. Infrastructure overtook Energy to lead all sectors with USD 113.6 billion. It is generally recognized that there are more and higher risks in project finance compared with corporate finance. Project finance is exposed to commercial risks as well as political risks. The main commercial risks are completion risks, environmental risks, operating risks, input supply risks, revenue risks, etc, and the main political risks are currency convertibility and transfer risks, expropriation risks, war and civil disturbance risks, risks of breach of government concession agreement, etc. Completion risks include permits risks, risks relating to the EPC Contractor, construction cost overrun, delay in completion, inadequate performance on completion, etc.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제64권
• /
• pp.65-97
• /
• 2014

Arbitration is the dispute methods for speedy and economic resolutions in international commercial areas. In maritime disputes cases in East Asia, Korea and Japan are the regional benefits to cover and deal with the maritime cases on arbitration. And Korea and Japan are the competitive maritime industry for heavy shipbuilding industry, cargo carrier, processing and transhipment service on ports, and ship financial services in national competitive areas. Japan is the Tokyo maritime arbitration commission(TOMAC) as an uniquely capable of dealing with arbitrations involving problems arising in the sea field. TOMAC provides amended its arbitration rules 2014 aiming at matching with the maritime disputes circumstances with three maritime arbitration rules as ordinary rules, simplified rules and the rules of small claims arbitration procedure. KCAB however, as the unique commercial arbitration board in Korea is dealing on all of the commercial disputes on only the international commercial arbitration rules in 2011. Though KCAB is dealt with maritime dispute cases on international arbitration rules in Korea, it is small and simple compared with TOMAC in Japan. Maritime disputes are highly complicated and embroiled with multi-parties contract and subcontracts arising under contracts relating to bills of lading, charter parties, sale and purchase of ships, shipbuilding, ship financing and so forth. This paper is to provides a discussion and comparison on recently arbitration rules focus on the maritime aspects on Korea and Japan. We need to consider to make an independent and special institute and maritime arbitration rules including the multiparty consolidation and med-arb provisions for handling the disputes and resolution of maritime conflict cases in Korea.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제30권
• /
• pp.91-120
• /
• 2006

An Arbitration agreement is one kind of contracts between two or more contracting parties; any possible disputes that arise concerning a contract will be settled by arbitration. Contracting parties who have made a valid arbitration agreement will submit a dispute for settlement to private persons(arbitrators) instead of to a court. Arbitration may depend upon the agreement of the private parties, but it is also a system which has been built on the law and which relies upon that law in order to make it effective both nationally and internationally. That is to say, arbitration is wholly dependent on the underlying support of the court. The complementarity of the courts and of the arbitrators is a well-established fact; they seek for the common purpose, the efficacy of international commercial arbitration. Most states' laws contain the provisions which have been set for the supportive role of the courts relating to arbitration; (1) the enforcement of the arbitration agreement(rulings on validity of the arbitration agreement), and the establishment of the tribunal at the beginning of the arbitration, (2) challenge of arbitrators, interim measures, and intervention during evidence in the middle of the arbitral proceedings, (3) filing of the award, challenge of the arbitral award, and recognition and enforcement of the arbitral award at the end of the arbitration. Most international instruments and national laws concerning arbitration believe that authoritative courts should play their power not to control and supervise arbitration but to support and develop the merits of arbitration at most. 1985 UNCITRAL Model Law also expressly limit the scope of court's intervention to assist arbitration, not to control it.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제54권
• /
• pp.167-190
• /
• 2012

The purpose of this study is to find out some countermeasure to Korean companies entered Chinese market through analyzing an arbitration case resolved by CIETAC applied of Chinese Commission Agency Law and CISG. China create legal relationship between the principal and the third party under Chinese Consignment Contract Law. Korean companies so make sure whether this Contract is included when they conclude international commercial contract. If yes, they have to prove their recognition for the relationship between the principal and the commission agent when needed. If the parties agreed an additional period of time of delivery and the seller do not deliver the goods within this period, this breach might be regarded as fundamental nature and the buyer could declare the contract avoided. In addition, late delivery might also be regarded as fundamental breach when market price is fluctuated. It is understandable that attorney's fees is recoverable one, but it is not understandable that arbitrator's extra expenses such as travel and accommodation expenses is not recoverable with the reason that arbitrator comes outside of the country.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제24권3호
• /
• pp.33-46
• /
• 2014

Amiable composition is a means of dispute resolution based on the arbitrator's authority to base his decision on equity. Although this method has been used frequently in the last decades of the 20th Century, the number of the published awards by amiable compositeur arbitrators is getting lower and lower. The reason(s) for unpopularity of amiable composition should be sought in its very nature, in its relationships with other institutions such as arbitration in law, equity, ex aequo et bono arbitration, other means of dispute resolution and in its role in the development of the rules specific to international commerce. A brief look at the history of law shows that the concept of equity comes to the scene every time that the rigidity of the rules of law challenges the justice. This has been the case in the 20th Century with respect to international commercial law which was deprived of specific rules. The role of amiable composition has been to contribute to the development of the rules specific to international commerce. The progressive codification of such rules in the last decades is also owed to amiable composition, which has accomplished its mission in the evolution of these rules.

• Composites Research
• /
• 제16권1호
• /
• pp.50-57
• /
• 2003

저속충격을 받는 복합적층판의 충격거동을 해석하기 위하여 많은 연구자들이 수정된 Hertz의 접촉법칙이나 실험적으로 구한 정적압입법칙을 사용하여 왔다. 본 연구에서는 이들이 사용했던 충격해석방법에 대만 물리적 의미를 고찰하였으며, 두 법칙의 차이가 실제로 적층판의 충격거동해석에 미치는 영향을 고찰하였다. 나아가 접촉법칙에 사용되는 접촉상수 및 지수의 크기를 임의로 변경하여 해석함으로써 접촉법칙이 충격거동해석의 결과에 미치는 영향을 살펴보았다. 최종적으로 선형화된 접촉법칙을 적용하여도 충격거동해석을 정확히 수행할 수 있음을 보였다. 이 개념을 응용하면 충격문제해석을 위한 부가적인 프로그램 개발 없이 범용 유한요소해석 프로그램으로도 복합적층판의 저속충격거동을 해석할 수 있음을 보였다.

• The Journal of Asian Finance, Economics and Business
• /
• 제8권12호
• /
• pp.233-239
• /
• 2021

The objective of this study is to find out the factors affecting the employees' loyalty in private joint-stock commercial banks in Mekong Delta, Vietnam. Then, possible solutions can be proposed, which can be implemented to improve employees' engagement in private joint-stock commercial banks in Mekong Delta, Vietnam, in the future. The author conducted a survey of 300 employees at 6 private joint-stock commercial banks in 6 provinces in Mekong Delta: An Giang, Tra Vinh, Can Tho, Ben Tre, Soc Trang, and Tien Giang. The author also used the Cronbach Alpha reliability analysis method, exploratory factor analysis (EFA), and multivariate regression analysis. The results show the degree of influence of factors on employees' loyalty - according to decreasing importance: Income, Job characteristics, Working environment, Colleagues, Leadership. The authors propose some solutions based on the research findings, including focusing on assigning the right employees to the right jobs, creating a competitive and fair working environment, focusing on a reasonable income policy, and transparency in working relationships to help bank managers in the Mekong Delta, Vietnam improve human resource management to improve employee loyalty to private joint-stock commercial banks in Vietnam.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제45권
• /
• pp.51-82
• /
• 2010

The "rules of private international law" or "conflict of law rules" work to determine the governing law, the law applicable to international contracts. These rules permit parties' autonomy to choose the law applicable to their contracts in cases of both litigations and arbitrations. In this regards, the present article examines parties' five options for the choice of the law governing their contracts, which the parties should consider when negotiating and drafting an international agreement. This means that parties in international contracting should check the contents of the law that they are to choose as the governing law before doing so. The first option is to submit the contract to its own law, which can be the safest and simplest solution generally. However this option is subject to the consent of the other party, and is not appropriate when the domestic law chosen contains mandatory rules strongly protecting the other party. Secondly, the option of choosing the other party's law is not preferable in general. Even though the other party is strong enough to succeed in insisting on applying its own law, the other party is advised to counter-offer a neutral solution by suggesting the application of a transnational set of rules and principles of international contract, such as Unidroit Principles. The third option to choose the law of a third country should be taken with the caution that it should be harmonized with either, in case of litigations, the international jurisdiction clause which makes the country chosen have the jurisdiction over the dispute arising under the contract, or, in case of arbitrations, the way of selection of the arbitrator who has good knowledge of the law chosen. The fourth option of submitting the contract to the lex mercatoria or the general principles of law including the Unidroit Principles can be a advisable solution when a dispute is designed to be submitted to experienced arbitrators. The final and fifth is to be silent on the choice of the governing law in contracting. This option can be usefully available by experienced negotiators who are well familiar with the conflict of laws rules and enables the parties to avoid the difficulties to agree on the governing law issue and leave it open until a dispute arises.

• 항공우주정책ㆍ법학회지
• /
• 제30권1호
• /
• pp.95-116
• /
• 2015

항공운송계약은 객체에 따라 항공여객운송계약과 항공물건운송계약으로 분별된다. 항공운송 사고는 인적 물적 피해를 수반하기 때문에 피해의 분석을 다각도로 접근할 필요가 있으며, 항공운송인의 손해배상책임 논의는 크게 (1) 원인 사유, (2) 제한 사유, (3) 면제 사유로 나눠볼 수 있다. 우리 상법에서 손해배상책임의 소멸을 위한 면제사유는 조약과 국내법이 혼재되어 있는바 이에 대한 가늠이 필요하다. 상법과 항공운송 관련 조약은 항공운송인은 여객의 연착으로 인한 손해에 대하여 항공운송인측이 손해를 방지하기 위해 합리적으로 요구되는 모든 조치를 취하였다는 것 또는 조치를 취하는 것이 불가능하였다는 점을 증명한 경우에는 책임이 면제된다. 그래서 어떠한 경우에 합리적으로 요구되는 모든 조치의 요건을 달성하였는지가 문제이다. 개정 상법 항공운송편은 국제항공운송에서 세계적으로 활용되는 조약들의 내용을 우리 실정에 맞게 반영하여 국제적 기준에 맞으면서 체계상으로도 육상 해상 항공운송을 포괄하는 특징을 갖고 있다. 그러나 상법은 운송계약상 항공운송인의 손해배상책임 문제를 규율하는 몬트리올 협약을 주로 반영하면서 동 협약이 가지고 있던 문제들도 그대로 안게 되었으므로 국내 상황에 맞게 변형 및 생략을 통해 동 협약의 규정을 수용함으로 인해 발생하는 문제들도 생겨나게 되었다. "상법" 제907조 제1항 제909조 제914조에서의 '합리적으로 요구되는 모든 조치'에 대한 분석이 필요하다. 항공운송으로 인한 손해에 관하여 항공운송인에게 기산일로터 2년 내에 재판상 청구가 없으면 항공운송인의 책임은 소멸하는데 이와 같은 2년의 제소기간은 국내법상 어떤 의미로 해석되는지 여부와 연장이나 중단은 합리적인 주의와 사고방지를 위한 적극적인 조치를 다하는 것으로 판단해야 할 것이다.

• 항공우주정책ㆍ법학회지
• /
• 제32권1호
• /
• pp.419-477
• /
• 2017

우주 공간은 천연 자원의 보고로, 미래 인류의 지속적인 생존과 번영을 위해, 언젠가는 개척해야 할 영역이다. 문제는 우주에 존재하는 수많은 자원들의 수송, 이용, 처분과 같은 민간 차원의 배타적 소유권 행사가 국제법적으로 가능하냐는 것이다. 1967년 제정된 우주조약의 경우에는 우주에 대한 국가적 소유는 금지하고 있으나 사적 소유에 대하여는 아무런 규정을 두고 있지 않다. 따라서 민간 기업과 같은 사적 주체에 의한 우주 자원의 재산적 권리가 가능한 것은 아닌가 하는 해석을 할 수 있다. 지난 2015년 11월 25일 미국은, 이와 관련한 '상업우주발사경쟁력법'(CSLCA)을 제정하면서, 민간 기업의 소행성 자원과 우주 자원의 점유, 소유, 이용, 수송, 처분 등에 관한 재산적 권리를 명시적으로 인정하였다. 본 논문에서는 이와 같은 문제에 주목하여, 2015년 CSLCA의 구조와 법적 쟁점들을 검토해 보았다. 특히 우주 자원의 사적 소유권 쟁점을 중심으로, 국제우주법 체제의 제규정들과 비교 분석하였고, 이를 통해 CSLCA 제4편 SREU Act의 타당성 여부를 검증해 보았다. 결론은, 새로운 우주 시대를 위해 우주 자원의 '사적 소유권'을 보장할 필요가 있다는 것이다. 구체적으로는, 우주 천체와 우주 자원을 구분하여 파악하되, (1) 우주 천체로부터 분리되지 않은 비추출 우주 자원의 경우에는 사적 소유를 금지하며, (2) 우주 천체로부터 분리되어 추출된 우주 자원의 경우에는 사적 소유를 인정하여야 한다고 본다. 나아가 1967년 우주조약은 현대적 입법 환경에 맞추어, 새로운 우주 산업 시대를 보다 효율적으로 설계할 수 있는 방향으로 개선되어야 할 것이다.