• 의학교육논단
• /
• 제16권3호
• /
• pp.119-125
• /
• 2014

Much of the behavior of doctors reflects the influences from the social, cultural, historical, and economic environment of the time. Therefore, it is very important for future doctors to understand the practice environment in an ever changing world. Traditionally, doctors' competence has been based on the doctor-patient relationship. However, the social practice of medicine in the contemporary era asks future doctors to have social competencies, which often are defined as non-clinical competencies. As a global project, the World Federation for Medical Education has urged every country to define the future role of doctors to encompass global roles based on the duty toward and value of clinical as well as non-clinical competencies. In the past four years, Korean medical professional societies have coordinated to set forth the global role of Korean doctors. Five domains of clinical competence, professionalism, social accountability, communication and collaboration, and education and research have been chosen. The current version of the "global role of Korean doctors" can be used not only for the common objectives of medical education, but also for translating into the competencies of doctors that can be achieved through life-long learning. If we all want to improve medical education in order to produce more qualified and competent doctors as the public desires, then it may be the most urgent task to produce doctors who are equipped with social competencies to persuade, negotiate, and engage in constructive dialogues with society for better health care for a better society.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제76권
• /
• pp.77-101
• /
• 2017

This article provides the definitions of the negotiation of credit, the negotiating bank and the negotiation credit. It further describes a number of legal status of negotiating banks by looking into the legal relations firstly between the beneficiary and the negotiating bank and secondly between the issuing bank and the negotiating bank. This study is in large part based on relevant provisions of UCP 600 and decisions of the Supreme court of South Korea. Under UCP 600 the definition of negotiation requires the purchase by the nominated negotiating bank of the required documents by advancing funds on or before the banking day on which reimbursement is due to the negotiating bank. A negotiation credit authorizes the negotiating bank who is a nominated bank to purchase from the beneficiary the documents required by the letter of credit and to present those documents to the issuing bank for reimbursement. If the credit is to be honoured at sight, reimbursement is due when the issuing bank determines that there has been a conforming presentation. Reimbursement under a letter of credit available by acceptance or by deferred payment is due at maturity of the credit. In particular, while the timing of advance by the nominated negotiating bank is up to the parties, a promise of the negotiating bank to advance the purchase price to a fraudulent beneficiary does not confer immunity from letter-of-credit fraud prior to its performance. This requires the negotiating bank who is notified of material fraud prior to making an advance to beneficiary to avoid a loss by using the fraud.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제37권
• /
• pp.107-130
• /
• 2008

The purpose of this study is to provide the guideline for the loss of documents relating to the delivery of documents under Letter of Credits transactions. If the documents are lost while in transit from the nominated bank to the issuing bank neither the nominated bank nor the issuing bank is liable as Article. 35 of the UCP600. Normally such matters are settled amicably between banks and problems are only likely to give rise to litigation where this cannot be done and the applicants does not want the goods or take delivery or sell them on because of the loss of documents. UCP 2007 Revision stated that a presentation is complying and forwards the documents to the issuing bank, whether or not the nominated bank has honoured or negotiated, an issuing bank must honour or negotiate, or reimburse that nominated bank. Accordingly, the applicant liable to the issuing bank for any damage sustained as a result of the loss of document. In such circumstance it might be possible to obtain a second(duplicate) set of documents that were sufficient to satisfy the applicant that the document were compliant and enable the applicant to obtain deliver of documents or comply with the terms of a sub-sale. If the applicant does not want the documents presented, no the less, the bank might find it difficult to prove that complaint documents had been presented and, subject to the terms of arrangement with the buyer, could be liable for damage sustained by the applicant as a result the loss of the documents.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제62권
• /
• pp.135-178
• /
• 2014

The Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) sets the standards of good faith in a commercial transaction for the sale of goods. With every sales contract, there is an implied obligation for both the seller and the buyer to negotiate the contract and perform under the terms of the contract in good faith. The agreement between both parties and the customs in the industry determine how the good faith standard should be applied to a particular transaction. Generally, the meaning of good faith, though always based on honesty, may vary depending on the specific context in which it is used. A person is said to buy in good faith when he or she holds an honest belief in his or her right or title to the property and has no knowledge or reason to know of any defect in the title. In section 1-201 of the UCC good faith is defined generally as "honesty in fact in the conduct or transaction concerned." Article 2 of the UCC says "good faith in the case of a merchant means honesty in fact and the observance of reasonable commercial standards of fair dealing in the trade." The sales contract will generally determine which party is required to perform first. This provision helps to determine if the buyer or the seller is in breach of the agreement due to failing to perform as stated by the contract. Either the seller must deliver the items before the buyer is required to accept and pay or the buyer must pay for the items before the seller has the duty to act in good faith and deliver the items in a reasonable manner. If the contract does not specifically define who is required to perform, industry customs and fair trade may determine what is acceptable for the transaction. Under the UCC, the buyer is required to pay for the goods when they are delivered, unless the contract states otherwise. Therefore, the UCC imposes an obligation of good faith on the performance of every contract or duty under its purview. The law also generally requires good faith of fiduciaries and agents acting on behalf of their principals. This article discusses problems of the principles of good faith under the UCC. Specifically, this paper focuses on the interpretation of UCC sections and analysis of various cases. By comparing, also, UCC and Korean law, the paper proposes some implications of good faith issues for Korean law.