• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제67권
• /
• pp.1-21
• /
• 2015

U. N. Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (hereinafter the 'CISG' or the 'Convention') has been in force more than 37 years. The CISG responds to the need for uniform sales law. First of all, the biggest barrier against the uniformity in sales law is so-called "homeward trend". Professor Honnold, who served as secretary of UNCITRAL during the time in which the CISG was developed, pointed out the danger of "homeward trend" like this in his Article. "One threat to international uniformity in interpretation is a natural tendency to read the international text through the lenses of domestic law." CISG Article 79 is the principal provision governing the extent to which a party is exempt from liability for a failure to perform any of his obligations due to an impediment beyond his control. So-called 'Manfred Forberich' decision regarding the article 79 represents the most extreme example of what is likely the most dangerous error that tribunals applying the CISG can make. CISG Article 79 only governs impossibility of performance, and there is a controversy whether a disturbance which does not fully exclude performance, but it considerably more difficult or onerous(hardship, change of circumstances, economic impossibility) can be considered as an impediment. Unlike PICC and PECL, the CISG governs contract of sale. Therefore, events such as a sudden increase in the price of raw materials or a dramatic devaluation of currency, will not allow the seller to avoid his liability for non-delivery of the goods or to require renegotiation of the terms of the contract of sale. We should bear in mind that the CISG should be interpreted and applied in the context of the CISG itself.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제69권
• /
• pp.153-178
• /
• 2016

The United Nations Convention on the International Sale of Goods(CISG) leaves a number of aspects concerning commercial sales untouched. In particular, it is not concerned with the validity of the contract or of any of its provisions or of any usage. And UNIDROIT don't deal with all-round validity in International Commercial Contract. Especially, UNIDROIT includes declaration of intention department. The UNIDROIT contains the chapter 3 on the "validity" in terms of the defects of consent such as mistake, fraud, and threat as well as "gross disparity". Notwithstanding these provisions, the Principles did not deal with invalidity arising from the lack of capacity or authority, or immorality or illegality. On the other hand, there are arguments that the corresponding provisions of the Principles of International Commercial Contracts(UNIDROIT Principles; PICC). Therefore, Validity in International Commercial Contract is delegate by Each Country Law. So Trade practicer should know full well about Each Country Law Position. People(human, corporation, company) of position Trade practice classify each country civil law relation to validity of commercial contract. This paper is to examine the Validity of UNIDROIT Principles. Also this paper analyses comparison on each country position relation to capacity of right, capacity to act, illegality of contract, declaration of intention. In conclusion, This paper expect that people of trade practice makes use of analysis knowledge.

• 디지털융복합연구
• /
• 제2권1호
• /
• pp.93-112
• /
• 2004

A license under UCITA(Uniform Computer Information Transactions Act) which represents the first comprehensive uniform computer information licensing law is not fundamentally rooted in intellectual property law such as patent or copyright law. A license under UCITA is simply a commercial contract, dependent wholly on the parties' ability to enter into a normal, commercial contract, just as a contract of sale or lease is simply and wholly a commercial contract. However, intellectual property rights may be licensed in a contract subject to UCITA. UCITA may not be used to vary or extend informational rights that are intellectual property rights, and expressly recognizes preemption by copyright, patent, or other federal intellectual property law in Section 105(b). Like the law of sales and leases, in general, the right to contract is constrained by principles of unconscionability, good faith and fair dealing, UCITA has an additional restraint, an express power for a court to deny enforcement of a provision in a licensing contract that violates fundamental public policy. This public policy defense is unique in UCITA. An essential purpose of this defense is to give courts some latitude in reconciling commercial licensing law with the principles of intellectual property law. Most intellectual property law is federal, and UCITA expressly recognizes the preemptive effect of that federal law. But the public policy defense gives courts an additional power to consider intellectual property principles purely within the context commercial law.

• 한국IT서비스학회지
• /
• 제5권1호
• /
• pp.61-81
• /
• 2006

It is necessary to systematically explore the reform plans of the Software Industrial Promotion Law to systematically a representative high-added value future knowledge-based industry, software industry. The current Software Industrial Promotion Law provides only one provision on software business contract procedures, and the Civil Code, the National Contract law or Subcontract Fairness Law regulate other things, so the features of software industry are not properly reflected. To the contrary, the Information Communication Construction Law or the Construction Basic Law effectively prevent disputes by providing material and detailed provisions. Therefore the current software industry needs to be shifted from promotion to fundamental one. That is, as the software industry takes up a large portion at present, so the law should have basic procedural provisions. Also the National Contract Law governs only the contract procedures of public sector, so there should be business performance procedural provisions to regulate the software business formalities of civil sector. And the National Contract Law controls the sale, construction and service of articles at separate contract procedures, but software business contains construction and service characters simultaneously, so there should be business performance procedures fit for software business. Thus this study presented the legislative need and bill on the performance procedures of software business.

• 한국정보통신학회논문지
• /
• 제25권2호
• /
• pp.286-293
• /
• 2021

블록체인 기술을 부동산등기 및 거래에 적용하는 스마트계약은 다층식 코딩이 가능한 이더리움 기반의 시스템 구축이 보편화되고 있다. SOLIDITY 또는 PYTHON으로 코드화되는 스마트계약의 구축은 매매와 임대를 포괄하는 다양한 종류의 시나리오를 통하여 실현될 수 있는데, 스마트계약이 적용되는 부동산시장은 국경, 언어, 법제도, 비대칭 정보, 환전 등의 전통적 거래비용을 크게 감소시킬 수 있는 대안으로 기대되고 있다. 블록체인 고유의 투명성과 보안성, 분산성과 개방성 역시 그 높은 잠재력을 평가받고 있다. 다만 최근 부동산등기를 블록체인 네트워크에 구현하려는 프로젝트가 여러 나라에서 추진되고 있으나 완비된 새 제도로서 현실에서 운용되기까지는 아직 몇가지 난관이 남아있다.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제75권
• /
• pp.1-28
• /
• 2017

Article 67 of CISG which provides for the passing of risk of loss of the goods applies to the contract of sale involving carriage of the goods. The risk here is in nature the price risk. Under Article 67(1), if the seller is bound to hand the goods over to a carrier at a particular place, the risk passes to the buyer when the goods are handed over to the carrier at that place; if the seller is not bound to hand them over at a particular place, the risk passes to the buyer when the goods are handed over to the carrier. In these cases, the risk passes even though the seller duly retains documents controlling the disposition of the goods. Article 69 of CISG applies to the contract of sale that does not involve carriage of the goods. Under Article 69(1) which covers the situation that the buyer is bound to take over the goods at the place of business of the seller, the risk passes when the buyer takes over the goods, however if the buyer does not take over the goods in due time, the risk passes at the time when the goods are placed at the buyer's disposal and he commits a breach of contract by failing to take delivery. Under Article 69(2) which covers the situation that the buyer is bound to take over the goods at a place (including his own place of business) other than the place of business of the seller, the risk passes when delivery is due and the buyer is aware of the fact that the goods are placed at his disposal at that place. Under these provisions of CISG, this study suggests what should be the definition of the contract of sale involving carriage of the goods. This study goes further to looks into what should be the concepts of the handing over of the goods by the seller to the carrier, the taking over of the goods by the buyer and the placing the goods at the buyer's disposal by the seller. This study may, we hope, provide a guidance for clearer understanding of the exact time of passing of risk under CISG.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제26권1호
• /
• pp.107-134
• /
• 2016

국제상사중재는 <국제물품매매계약에 관한 유엔협약>을 적용하는 중요한 영역이고 본 협약이 국제 통일법적인 역할을 발휘하는데 중요한 지원을 제공하고 있습니다. 중국국제 경제무역중재위원회(CIETAC)는 협약을 가장 많이 적용하여 중재사건을 해결하는 중재위원회이다. 중재재판소는 체약국 법원과 마찬가지로 협약내용을 정확하게 이해하고 정확하게 적용함으로써 사건재판의 질을 제고하고 판결의 공신력을 강화한다. 하지만 중재재판소의 민간성과 독립성으로 인하여 재판소가 협약을 적용하는 법률기초는 소재국 국내 중재법, 중재절차 및 국제중재관례이고, 소재국이 협약을 이행함에 있어서의 국제조약의무가 아니다. 협약과 중국 계약법은 CIETAC 중재재판소가 주요하게 적용하는 법률이다. 중국 계약법 규정에는 협약 제75조, 76조의 내용에 해당하는 차액배상제도가 존재하지 않기 때문에, 판사와 중재재판소는 손해배상금을 확정함에 있어서 보다 많은 자유재량권을 가지므로 협약을 적용하는 것과 중국 계약법을 적용하는 것은 당사자에게 서로 다른 영향을 일으킨다.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제71권
• /
• pp.1-36
• /
• 2016

Unlike continental European legal systems (civil law systems), specific performance in common law refers to an equitable remedy requiring exactly the performance that was specified in a contract. It usually granted only when money damages would be an inadequate remedy and the subject matter of the contract is unique. Thus, under common law specific performance was not a remedy, with the rights of a litigant being limited to the collection of damages. Consistent with the practice in civil law jurisdictions, United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (CISG) makes specific performance the normal remedy for breach of a contract for the sale of goods. Therefore, the buyer may require a breaching seller to deliver substitute goods or to make any reasonable repair. Likewise, the sellermay require the buyer to taker delivery of goods and pay for them. Despite this, Article 28 of the CISG restricts the availability of specific performance where it would be unavailable under the domestic law of the jurisdiction in which the court is located. Thus, the CISG's more liberal policy toward specific performance is restricted by common law. There are some legal issues in CISG's specific performance availability by Article 28. This paper analyzes these issues as interpreting Article 28 of CISG, by examining various theories of application to actions for specific performance and comparing CLOUT cases involving CISG Article 28.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제12권
• /
• pp.253-276
• /
• 1999

CISG articles 34 and 37 clearly allow the seller to cure any nonconformity in documents of sale or performance prior to the date for delivery if it does not cause the buyer unreasonable inconvenience or unreasonable expense. CISG article 48 allows a seller to cure the performance even after the date for delivery if it does not cause the buyer unreasonable delay, unreasonable inconvenience or unreasonable uncertainty of reimbursement by the seller of expenses advanced by the buyer. The wording any failure to perform is broad enough to include a delay. The seller's right to cure relates to all his obligations. The seller may remedy 'any failure to perform his obligations'. This language is broad enough to include a defect in documents. In some cases the fact that the seller is able and willing to remedy the non-conformity of the goods without inconvenience to the buyer, may mean that there would be no fundamental breach unless the seller failed to remedy the non-conformity within an appropriate time. It cannot generally be said what unreasonable inconvenience means. This can only be decided on a case-by-case basis. The seller must bear the costs involved in remedying a failure to perform. The curing of a failure to perform may have influence on the amount of the damage claimed. Insofar as the seller has the right to cure, the buyer is in that case obliged to accept the cure. If he refuses to do so, he can neither avoid the contract nor declare a reduction in price. This rule clearly shows the underlying concept of the CISG, to keep to the contract, if possible. Should the buyer requires delivery of substitute goods and the seller offers repair, it depends on the expense each case. The buyer must receive the request or notice by the seller. The relationship between the seller's right to cure and the buyer's right to avoid the contract is unclear. The buyer's right to avoid the contract should not nullify the seller's right to cure if the offer is reasonable. In addition, whether a breach is fundamental should be decided in the right of the seller's offer to cure.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제5권1호
• /
• pp.365-387
• /
• 1995