• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제69권
• /
• pp.127-151
• /
• 2016

UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts(PICC) was published in 1994. PICC has been functioned as a guideline of international commercial contracts, an applicable law to govern a contract by the agreement of the parties to a contract, general principles of law and lex mercatoria. In addition, PICC has a role of interpreting or supplementing international uniform law instruments as well as domestic laws, and also has served as a model for national and international legislations. PICC has been accepted as a authoritative source of knowledge of international trade usages of international commercial contracts to the arbitral tribunal rather than domestic court because it excluded the characteristics of hard law at the drafting stage. This article dealt with the rule on gross disparity of validity which fall outside the scope of UN Convention on Contract for the International Sale of Goods(CISG), which has obtained a leading legal position of uniform law in international sales of good. In other words, PICC suggests a series of meaningful solutions to the issue of gross disparity of contract which is the most complicated among legal disputes occurring during the process of conclusion of contact and also extremely different and diverse between legal systems. This article covered the issue of gross disparity of contract at the conclusion of contact and suggested the legal basis of several rules related to the gross disparity by analysing gross disparity rule of PICC. Furthermore, this article suggested legal check points or implication as well as interpretation and evaluation on doctrine of laesio enormis and undue influence or unconscionability. This article also dealt with a comparative analysis with Principles of European Contract Law(PECL) and Common European Sales Law(CESL) which have important legal positions in the area of international commercial contract as well as in terms of close relationship to PICC by linking with recent court or arbitral tribunal rulings.

• 무역학회지
• /
• 제44권6호
• /
• pp.1-21
• /
• 2019

In the case of a sea transport contract, the decision of the governing law, together with the choice of lex fori, shall be a legal issue in all legal disputes involving damage to the goods. In sea transport contracts, a paramount clause is often established in conjunction with the governing law clause, which can lead to conflict between these two clauses. Most B/L's back clauses contain a paramount clause that provides that the Hague Rules, Hague-Visby Rules, or foreign laws that prevail over other provisions of the terms. The Hague Rules and the Hague-Visby Rules, however, set different standards regarding the extent of the sea carrier's liability. Therefore, in the interpretation of ground conditions, it is an important question whether the Hague Rules or the Hague-Visby Rules are applied or whether each rule is applied as a law. For example, the paramount clause in the Superior Pescadores case was problematic in the interpretation of the term 'Hague Rules.' In this case, the English Court held that the expression 'Hague Rules' could be used to mean the Hague-Visby Rules, and not exclusively the Hague Rules. Therefore, the Hague-Visby Rules were applied in the judgment of this case, which suggests that this case can be a valuable precedent in future legal matters.

• 통상정보연구
• /
• 제19권3호
• /
• pp.215-235
• /
• 2017

CISG는 국제물품매매계약의 통일화를 위하여 제정되었으나 이와 관련한 모든 부분을 다 포괄하여 적용되는 것은 아니다. 따라서 CISG는 그 내용에 있어 CISG가 적용되지 않는 적용배제사안을 규정하고 있다. CISG 제4조가 이에 해당한다. 이에 본 논문은 중국과의 거래 시 CISG이 적용되는 경우라 하더라도 CISG 제4조에 따라 국내법이 적용될 수 있는 계약의 유효성과 소유권과 관련한 양국의 관련 법규를 비교하였다. CISG 제4조에 근거하여 특정사안의 협정 적용여부는 계약의 일부로서 거래당사자 모두 이를 인지하고 합의하였느냐에 따라 달리진다는 것과 비록 국내법이 적용되는 경우라도 협약의 일반원칙에 반하는 경우 그 적용에 제한이 있을 수 있다는 것이다. 결론적으로 CISG 제4조에 따라 국내법이 적용될 수 있는 사안은 계약의 유효성과 소유권의 이전에 관한 것이다. 실무적으로 중국과 거래하는 기업은 이에 대한 양국 관련법규의 차이점을 이해하고 불필요한 분쟁을 야기하지 않도록 CISG가 적용되는 경우라 하더라도 CISG가 적용되지 않는 사안을 위해 준거법을 선정하여야 할 것이다.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제32권4호
• /
• pp.33-51
• /
• 2022

According to the CISG, there are no special regulations for a reasonable period of time among the obligations to notify the contractual suitability of the goods. As a result, many disputes arise in 'notification within a reasonable period' despite being the most important treaty in practice in defining the obligation to notify nonconformities according to the suitability of goods for each case. Regarding the interpretation of Article 39 of the CISG, various judgments and arbitration decisions are being made in each country for a reasonable period to notify that the goods are not suitable for the contract.There are criticisms that these various views are too harsh on the buyer in the buyer's obligation to notify.It is important to create a unified principle because courts or arbitration agencies of the Contracting States of this Convention interpret in various ways the reasonable period of violation of the contract of goods stipulated in the Convention. Since most of the international commodity trading transactions around the world are regulated by the CISG, it is necessary to analyze and interpret cases in which this Convention is applied in court or arbitral tribunal of each country to derive a unified principle.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제27권4호
• /
• pp.91-113
• /
• 2017

UN Convention on International Sale of Goods (CISG) and International Commercial Arbitration aim at the promotion and facilitation of international trade. Both of them share similar general principles; i.e., party autonomy and pacta sunt servanda. Also they are often applied concurrently in the case of the international commercial trade. The purpose of this article is to investigate whether the CISG could apply the formation of the arbitration clause that is included in the main contract governed by CISG. Sellers and buyers have freedom of designating choice of law that is applied to their contracts. An international arbitration agreement is presumed to be separable from the contract in which it is found. However, arbitration clauses commonly form part of a general contract. Thus, the CISG is intended to be applied to dispute resolution clauses, including arbitration clause even if it is not completely suitable. Notably, there is a fundamental distinction between the CISG and arbitration. The CISG abolished the formalities of contract. New York convention requires Contracting States' Courts to enforce written international agreements to arbitrate.

• 한국건설관리학회:학술대회논문집
• /
• 한국건설관리학회 2001년도 학술대회지
• /
• pp.11-16
• /
• 2001

본 연구는 하도급법 제14조에 규정된 하도급대금의 직접지급에 따른 계약관리방안을 제시하는 것을 목적으로 한다. 이를 위하여 문헌조사 및 연역적 논증의 방법을 이용하였다. 본 연구의 결과를 요약하면 다음과 같다. (1) 하도급대금직접지급의 요건과 효과를 고찰하여 그 의미와 내용을 명확히 하였다. (2) 하도급대금직접지급과 관련한 실무상·이론상 쟁점에 대한 검토와 논증을 통하여 타당한 해석을 제시하였다. (3) 하도급대금의 직접지급에 따른 발주자·원수급인·하수급인의 계약관리방안을 제시하였다.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제21권1호
• /
• pp.131-155
• /
• 2011

PICC executes its role as a useful lex mercatoria in the continuously increasing international trade to be adopted as the standard criterion of prevention or dispute resolution. When considering the fact that GISG has not presented results beyond expectation in the past due to hard laws and legal deficiency, PICC, which possesses interpretation and supplementation function, is considered undoubtedly useful particularly in international commercial arbitration. As observed in the previously mentioned analysis on cases accumulated in UNILEX, PICC application and Arbitral tribunal in international contract between parties possess considerably large claim possibility and the number of actual application cases is continuously increasing. The fact that PICC has been composed as maximum common measures of continental and common law systems by traditional comparative legal scholars familiar with international trade can function as the fundamental principle in future global trade activity and can also act as the model law for uniting contract laws of nations. In this aspect, PICC can be evaluated to have considerably achieved enactment purpose of previous intention. However, additional topics that had not been accepted in the revised edition of PICC remain as assignments requiring solution, such as analysis and acceptance problem of comparative law, PR of PICC unfamiliar even to the relative parties of international trade and application in international contract, and absorption problem as model law in various domestic laws.

• 한국건축시공학회지
• /
• 제9권5호
• /
• pp.103-110
• /
• 2009

건설사업계약은 매우 다양한 계약으로 구성되어 있다. 그리고 이는 일의 완성을 필요로 하는 도급계약의 일종이다. 따라서 당사자들은 계약의 이행과정중에 항상 많은 분쟁에 봉착하게 된다. 실제로 발주자의 지시에 의한 설계변경으로 인해 많은 분쟁이 발생하고 있다. 이러한 분쟁을 해결하기 위해서는 계약의 해석이 수반되어야 하지만, 우리나라에서는 종국적으로 분쟁을 해결하게 하는 분쟁해결절차가 중재와 소송에 국한되어 있으므로 계약당사자들이 비효율성으로 인해 이를 꺼리게 되는 실정이다. 따라서 우리나라에서는 계약의 해석을 찾아보기는 쉽지 않은 반면, 미국의 경우 발주자별로 분쟁해결절차를 둠으로써 다양한 계약의 해석유형을 찾아볼 수 있다. 따라서 본 연구에서는 과업의 범위를 초과하는 변경, 수량의 변경, 이행기간의 변경, 이행방법과 태도의 변경, 정부제공물품이나 인도장소의 변경, 시공자의 변경절차 수용, 감액조정에 대한 사항에 대한 해석동향을 분석하여 제시하였다.

• 무역학회지
• /
• 제43권4호
• /
• pp.27-50
• /
• 2018

본 연구는 '국제물품매매계약에 관한 UN 협약'(CISG)이 적용된 우리나라 법원의 제반 판결례 중에서 계약의 성립과 이행에 관한 판결례를 중심으로 본건 판결의 법리적 타당성 여부와 판결이 유상의 흠결 내지 보충적 사안 등을 연구대상에 둔 논문으로서, 이로부터 국제물품매매계약에 임하고 있거나 임하고자 하는 계약당사자로 하여금 논제의 범위 내에서 CISG의 올바른 이해를 제고함에 있어 유의할 수 있는 일련의 법적 단초를 제공하기 위함에 목적을 둔 논문이다. 주요 골자는 본고에서 특정한 판결례를 중심으로 사실관계와 당사자의 주장을 개략하고, 이에 법원의 판결주문으로서 적용법의 결정기준, 계약의 성립에 관한 CISG 조문인용과 해석, 중대한 계약위반과 계약해제의 적절성, 동시이행의 항변권 및 그 밖에 본 판결례로부터 유의할 수 있는 보충적 사안 등에 주안점을 두었다.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제19권1호
• /
• 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.