• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.38
• /
• pp.47-68
• /
• 2008

I have observed the validity of open-offer from a point of European contract law in comparison with International Trade Law in this paper. Generally we know that an offer is an expression of willingness bo be bound to the contract. In English law if there are no intention it will be considered such as circulation of price lists or catalogues. As for French law these activities could be considered as an offer. However German law is closer to English law as to an offer. A contract which does not ascertained price is open-price terms and it can be applied not only for general commercial contracts but also for franchise or for distributorship agreements especially in Europe. When open-price terms applied to reserve a exclusive right to the contract the validity of contract can be a serious matter between principals. In English law an offer must be sufficiently complete to be capable of acceptaqnce. English law does not require that price terms should be indicated on offer. English law allow a open-price terms in the contract. In French law a contract will be valid in the absense of a price which is either determined or objectively determinable. A price by the market price of similar products is not enough to be valid offer. It should be recognized and accepted objectively by third parties. French law require that price terms should be indicated on offer. Open-price terms are not enough to be an effective offer. However German law shows more flexible than French law. In German law if the price is not fixed in the contract there are four ways to determine it. The seller may determine the price by the time of deliver. By reason of thess backgrounds I have made comparison with European contract law and International trade law on the validity of open-price offer in this paper. It seems that we are not familiar with open-price terms although franchise contract or special terms of contract have been increased in these days. So I hope this paper will be helpful to show a new point of view.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.17 no.1
• /
• pp.117-136
• /
• 2007

Currently, it is the general trend that the party's autonomy principle is applicable in determining the applicable law for the international private law and the international commercial arbitration. The purpose of this article is to make research on the party's autonomy principle for the international commercial arbitral awards. For this purpose ist to analyse regal issue the applicability of the lex mercatoria and the possibility of $d\acute{e}pe\c{c}age$ relating to the party autonomy. In this Article ist dealt with Art. 29 para. 1 of the Korean Arbitration Act in comparison with Art. 28 para. 1 UNCITRAL Model Law and Art. 1051 para. 1 of the German Code of Civil Procedure. The Art. 28 para. 1 UNCITRAL Model Law and Art. 1051 para. 1 of the German Code of Civil Procedure provides equally. "The arbitral tribunal shall decide the dispute in accordence with such 'rules of law' as chosen by the parties as applicable to the substance of the dispute. Any designation of the law or legal system of a given State shall be construed, unless otherwise expressed, as directly referring to the substantive law of that State and not to its conflict of laws rules." The term 'rule of law' used to describe the applicability of the lex mercatoria and the possibility $d\acute{e}pe\c{c}age$. Unlike Art. 28 para. 1 UNCITRAL Model Law and Art. 1051 para.1 of the German Code of Civil Procedure. Act, Art. 29(1) of the Korean Arbitration Act provides that the arbitral tribunal shall decide the dispute in accordence with the 'law' chosen by the parties as applicable to the substance of the dispute. However the majority view in Korea takes the position that the term 'law' should be interpreted broadly so as to encompass 'rules of law' at UNCITRAL Model Law and the German Code of Civil Procedure.

• Development and Reproduction
• /
• v.25 no.2
• /
• pp.113-121
• /
• 2021

This article aims to introduce German discussion on the approval of the non-invasive prenatal diagnosis (NIPD), which started with the development of PrenaTest^® by LifeCodexx AG. The discussion started with the concern that the non-invasive nature of NIPD, such as PrenaTest^®, may rapidly expand the use and scope of similar tests, thus leading to a new era of eugenics. Based on this concern, the need for clear clinical guidelines on specific indications for NIPD has been suggested. Along the same line, it was discussed whether PrenaTest^® is against the Basic Law prohibiting discrimination on grounds of disability and whether the test is outside the scope of the purpose of gene testing limited by Genetic Diagnosis Act. Through such discussion, the Federal Ministry of Health of Germany established the preconditions for inclusion of NIPD in the German public health insurance system. For this, the German motherhood guideline was amended and the information for the insured persons provided to pregnant women was included in the amended guideline. Such discussion made in Germany provides insight on which points should be considered when various gene testings are accepted in Korea, in which genetic communication has not been systematized yet. In particular, German counseling system for pregnant women will provide valuable insights for Korea where the direction for regulations on abortion has not been established even after the ruling by the Constitutional Court that charges for abortion are against the constitution.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.19 no.1
• /
• pp.147-169
• /
• 2009

This paper deals with disputes incurred from the CISG provisions in relation with the conformity of goods with a view to finding the general way of approach made by the court and arbitration tribunal in the case laws for the interpretation of CISG based on 6(six) cases thereon. Throughout this study, it has been noted that the German Supreme Court devoted most in creating the general principle of CISG interpretation in relation with national compulsory law of regulation applicable on the conformity of goods. It was New Zealand mussels case in which the German supreme court decided that the exporting country's compulsory law of regulation would be applied in determining the conformity of goods. Furthermore, German supreme court added that CISG does not place an obligation on the exporter to supply goods, which conform to all statutory or other public provisions in force in the import state unless the same provisions exist in the export State as well, or the importer informed the exporter about such provisions existing in the import state, or the exporter had knowledge of the provisions due to special circumstances. It is stipulated in CISG that the goods conform with contract if they are fit for the purpose for which goods of the same description would ordinarily be used. When questions arise concerning matters governed by the CISG that are not expressly defined in the CISG, the question is to be settled in conformity with general principles on which the convention is based. Only when such a general principle cannot be found may the tribunal turn to other sources such as UNIDROIT Principles, Principles of European Contract Law and Lex Mercatoria, etc. Interpretation of CISG should be autonomous, in the sense that it should not depend on principles and concepts derived from any national legal system. Even where a CISG rule is directly inspired by domestic law, the court should not fall back on its domestic law, but interpret the rule by reference to the CISG with a view to its international character and to the need to promote uniformity in its application and the observance of good faith in international trade.

• Journal of Cadastre & Land InformatiX
• /
• v.44 no.1
• /
• pp.17-35
• /
• 2014

There is no provision regarding the 'litigation on land boundary' under the Korean laws. Therefore, there are disputes in theory with respect to its nature, requirements for litigation, criteria for determination, etc., and it is necessary to establish the provisions of the law on this issue in the future. For this legislation, it is necessary to conduct a comparative consideration on laws of other countries which have completed the relevant provisions. This study, as a first step, researches a history of litigation for determination of boundary under the Roman law and medieval law, and furthermore introduces the German law which has relatively completed legal provisions on litigation for determination of boundary. In addition to common ownership litigation, the German law has established a provision on litigation for boundary as a judicial procedure considering a special place, called as a dispute on ownership of adjacent land, on the assumption that it is difficult or impossible to prove the boundary. The primary purpose of this litigation is to clarify a true boundary, and if such clarification is impossible, a boundary is discretionally created in accordance with the statutory standards under Article 920 of the German Civil Act (BGB). It means creation of the scope of land ownership by operation of decision, not only by the 'discovery of original boundary'. Both cases are different from each other in the aspect of judicial decision, but embracing them into one is a lawsuit for determination of boundary under the German law. Under the Korean legislation, it is necessary to make a theory containing two different criteria for determination into a single type of litigation, considering such aspects.

• The Journal of Information Technology
• /
• v.6 no.3
• /
• pp.11-32
• /
• 2003

For the internet is spreading out, a trade method and a trade process are chaning. Especially, with the development of an internet, a international trade can be madevia internet and other trade related with businesses can be achived electronically. The electronic trade is expected to dominate the gloval trade. Therefore, a trader needs to study this new method of trade intransaction with German. This paper focuses on the electronic transaction system in German. They participate in the foreign trade which is based on The AuBenwirtschaftsgesetz(AWG) and AuBenwirtschaftsve- rordnung(AWV). Customs are managed by the processing of two methods, The one is a export custom processing, the other is a outward custom processing. This paper also focuses on the law for a electronic trade in German. There are a varity of Law related with a electronic trade in German. For example, there are Das Information und Kommunikationsdienste Gesetz, Teledienstegesetz, Entwurf eines Gesetzes zum Schutz von Zuganskontrolldienste, Teledienstedatenschutzgesetz, Signaturgesetz, Das Strafgessetzbuch, Das Gesetz ber Ordnungswidrigkeit, Das Gesetz ber die Verbreightung jugendgef hrdender Schrifen und Medieninhalt, Entwurf eines Gesetes zur Anpassung der Formvorschrifen des Privatrechts und anderer Vorschrifen aqn den modernnen Rechtsgesch ftsverkehr, Gesetzes zur Modernisieerung des Schuldrechts. Entwurf eines Gesetes zur Anpassung der Formvorschrifen des Privatrechts und anderer Vorschrifen aqn den modernnen Rechtsgesch ftsverkehr, Gesetz ber Urheberrecht und verwandte Schutzrechte, Directive 2000/31/EC of The European Parliament and of The Council, Directive 2002/58/EC of The European Parliament and of The Council, Directive 2002/65/EC of The European Parliament and of The Council etc.

• Journal of the Korean Society for Aviation and Aeronautics
• /
• v.15 no.1
• /
• pp.38-53
• /
• 2007

In a seminal judgment of November 2002 (Case C-476/98) relating to the compatibility with Community laws of the 'nationality clause' in the 1996 amending protocol to the 1955 U.S.-German Air Services Agreement, the European Court of Justice(ECJ) decided that the provision constituted a measure of an intrinsically discriminatory nature and was thus contrary to the principle of national treatment established under Art. 52 of the EC Treaty. The Court, rejecting bluntly the German government' submissions relying on public policy grounds(Art. 56, EC Treaty), seemed content to declare and rule that the protocol provision requiring a contracting state party to ensure substantial ownership and effective control by its nationals of its designated airlines had violated the requirement of national treatment reserved for other Community Members under the salient Treaty provision. The German counterclaims against the Commission, although tantalizing not only from the perusal of the judgment but from the perspective of international air law, were nonetheless invariably correct and to the point. For such a clause has been justified to defend the 'fundamental interests of society from a serious threat' that may result from granting operating licenses or necessary technical authorizations to an airline company of a third country. Indeed, the nationality clause has been inserted in most of the liberal bilaterals to allow the parties to enforce their own national laws and regulations governing aviation safety and security. Such a clause is not targeted as a device for discriminating against the nationals of any third State. It simply acts as the minimum legal safeguards against aviation risk empowering a party to take legal control of the designated airlines. Unfortunately, the German call for the review of such a foremost objective and rationale underlying the nationality clause landed on the deaf ears of the Court which appeared quite happy not to take stock of the potential implications and consequences in its absence and of the legality under international law of the 'national treatment' requirement of Community laws. Again, while US law limits foreign shareholders to 24.9% of its airlines, the European Community limits non-EC ownership to 49%, precluding any ownership and effective control by foreign nationals of EC airlines, let alone any foreign takeover and merger. Given this, it appears inconsistent and unreasonable for the EC to demand, $vis-{\grave{a}}-vis$ a non-EC third State, national treatment for all of its Member States. The ECJ's decision was also wrongly premised on the precedence of Community laws over international law, and in particular, international air law. It simply is another form of asserting and enforcing de facto extraterritorial application of Community laws to a non-EC third country. Again, the ruling runs counter to an established rule of international law that a treaty does not, as a matter of principle, create either obligations or rights for a third State. Aside from the legal problems, the 'national treatment' may not be economically justified either, in light of the free-rider problem and resulting externalities or inefficiency. On the strength of international law and economics, therefore, airlines of Community Members other than the designated German and U.S. air carriers are neither eligible for traffic rights, nor entitled to operate between or 'free-ride' on the U.S. and German points. All in all and in all fairness, the European Court's ruling was nothing short of an outright condemnation of established rules and principles of international law and international air law. Nor is the national treatment requirement justified by the economic logic of deregulation or liberalization of aviation markets. Nor has the requirement much to do with fair competition and increased efficiency.

• Journal of Environmental Impact Assessment
• /
• v.2 no.2
• /
• pp.13-25
• /
• 1993

Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) serves to identify a project's possible effects on the environment early enough sufficiently allowing for them to be taken into account in the decision-making process. The EIA in Germany is an instrument of environmental Policy which considers nature as an integrated system (ecosystem). In the german process of developing environmental policy, the EIA has been one of the instruments which introduced by law rather late. This means that the German Law of EIA has been made in 1900, 20 years after the beginning of the environmental policy in Germany. In the following paper I intend to ${\cdot}$ explain the basic concept of the EIA in Germany ${\cdot}$ describe the process of law building for EIA ${\cdot}$ give a short overview of applications and experiences with EIA ${\cdot}$ show the links between EIA and general environmental policy in Germany.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.29 no.2
• /
• pp.107-132
• /
• 2019

The arbitration procedure, which is a private trial, does not have a separate enforcement agency. Therefore, unless a party consents to the arbitration award and voluntarily fulfills the award, its execution is accomplished through the implementation of the national court. In particular, the decision in the foreign arbitration procedure will be refused or rejected for the arbitration award in case the proceedings of the law and procedure on which the judgment is based are caused by inconsistency with the domestic law or procedural defect. However, all foreign arbitration awards generally do not have to go through the approval process, and it will come into force with the arbitration award. In the case of Germany in the revision of the German Civil Procedure Act of 1996, the main provisions of the New York Convention concerning the ratification and enforcement of arbitration proceedings are reflected. Germany provides for the arbitration procedures in the arbitration proceedings of Book 10 of the Civil Procedure Act. Particularly, with Article 1061 in Book 10 Section 8 below, the approval and enforcement of foreign arbitrators shall be governed. Article 1061 has been referred to as "The New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Jurisdictions," Article 5 (1). The main reasons for approval and enforcement rejection are: (1) Reason for the acceptance or refusal of enforcement by request of the parties: Reason for failure of subjective arbitration ability, invalidation of arbitration agreement, collapse of attack or defense method, dispute not included in arbitration agreement, (2) Reasons for the approval and enforcement of arbitration considered by the competent authority of the arbitrator: violation of objective arbitration ability, violation of public order, but not based on the default of German statute.

• Journal of The Korea Institute of Healthcare Architecture
• /
• v.10 no.2
• /
• pp.107-115
• /
• 2004

In this paper, the all units of residential housing that is not legislated in facility development law are analyzed and foreign design criteria that is related to barrier-free unit housing is comparing to domestic. Through the comparison in front door, living room, bathroom, bedroom, and kitchen, this paper aims to suggest internal barrier-free design criteria. This paper is limited to internal housing which are front door, living room, bedroom, bathroom, and kitchen. Also, the objectives of facility development law are U.S, Japan, German, and in case of U.S, UFAS is established by ADA, in Japan, Heart Building law and detail standard drawing are used, in German, DIN is used. The objective of domestic case study is the latest residential housings that are built over 2003. The flow of study is as follows ; First, the internal items of residential housing are abstracted, and each item is checked in facility development law that is legislated in. Next, through comparison of domestic and foreign facility development law related to housing, common items are abstracted and detail standards are defined. Domestic residential housings are analyzed in those standards. Finally, the problems that is the result of analysis are analyzed and the barrier free design criteria is abstracted in unit housing. Also, more developed items and future study are suggested.