• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제20권2호
• /
• pp.27-47
• /
• 2010

It is well recognized that the availability of prompt, effective and economical means of dispute resolution is an important element in the orderly growth and encouragement of international trade and investment. Increasingly, arbitration, instead of litigation in national courts, has become the preferred means of resolving private international commercial disputes. Under the situation, it will be important thing for arbitral institutions to reach an agreement to promote the dispute settlement of the commercial disputes, for which efforts have been made between the Korean Commercial Arbitral Board(KCAB) and principal arbitration institutions of the foreign countries. Since 1973, the KCAB has entered into many arbitration agreements with well-known foreign institutions of arbitration. If the place of arbitration is not so designated by the parties, it, as a general rule, shall be the country of the respondent(s) under the Korea-Japanese Arbitration Agreement. On the other hand, the U.S.-Korean Commercial Arbitration Agreement maintains 'Joint Arbitration Committee which finally decide the place of arbitration. In 1996, the Korea-Austria Agreement of Cooperation was concluded for the prompt and equitable settlement on an amicable basis of commercial disputes. Under this Agreement, arbitral institutions between Korea and Austria agreed to act as an appointing authority in accordance with the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules. It is also very important for Korea and China including North Korea to cooperate each other for the settlement of the commercial disputes within the Pan Yellow Sea Economic Bloc(PYSEB). The PYSEB is quickly becoming a distinctive and crucial region in the world sharing geographical proximity, many common historical experiences, and similar cultural norms and values although they have disparities in stages of development, trade and economic policies, and financial and legal frameworks. Finally, it should be considered to establish a central common system for settlement promotion of the commercial disputes within the PYSEB through the arbitration agreement. Such a dispute resolution system was already introduced and established within the area of the NAFTA, and it is called the Commercial Arbitration and Mediation Center for the Americas(CAMCA).

• 정보처리학회논문지:컴퓨터 및 통신 시스템
• /
• 제9권4호
• /
• pp.89-100
• /
• 2020

최근 보험 처리과정에서 소용되는 시간과 비용을 절감하고자, 자동차 보험에 블록체인 스마트 컨트랙트 기술을 도입하는 연구들이 활발하다. 그러나 기존의 연구들은 사고를 입증하기에 미흡한 수준의 교통 사고관련 데이터의 활용으로 악의적인 보험자의 사고 위조, 손상 확대 등의 보험사기 위협에 노출되어 있다. 이를 해결하고자, 본 논문에서는 자동차에 탑재된 센서, RSU, IoT 기기 등을 통한 다양한 종류의 데이터와 차량용 스마트 컨트랙트를 이용하여 사고데이터 기반 신뢰도 산정 모델을 제안한다. 특히 교통사고 데이터의 종류 및 상태에 따라 가중치를 달리하고, 다양한 사고 상황에 따라 학습되는 신뢰도 산정 모델을 고려하여 회귀모델을 적용했다. 제안 모델은 보험 처리과정의 투명성, 보험 처리 과정의 간소화와 같은 기존 장점을 유지하며 효과적인 보험사기 차단, 보험 소송의 감소의 효과를 보일 것으로 기대된다.

• 통상정보연구
• /
• 제14권3호
• /
• pp.453-479
• /
• 2012

국제상거래의 증가는 분쟁의 증가로 나타나 소송이나 중재로 명확히 반영되고 있다. 국제상거래의 중요성에도 불구하고, 최근까지 어떻게 법이 실제 무역관행과 상호작용하는지 잘 알지 못하고 있다. 전 세계에 걸쳐 소송과 중재법정은 국제물품매매계약에서 CISG를 준거법으로 적용하고 있지만, 해결되지 않는 문제점에 대한 국제 판례가 축적되고 있다. 이런 점에서 국제 판례법에 대한 유니렉스(UNILEX) 데이터베이스는 대표적인 사례라 할 수 있다. 오늘날 확실히 CISG가 국제상사계약에서 중요한 역할을 담당하고 있지만, CISG가 경성법(hard law)으로서의 특징 때문에 갖는 한계로 준거법 적용에 따른 문제가 있다. 이에 비하여 UPICC는 국제협약이나 법률이 아닌 국제상거래일반의 법의 리스테이트먼트(restatement)이다. 즉 연성법(soft law)으로서 UPICC는 CISG보다도 유연하고 포괄적이다. 따라서 본 연구는 UPICC 2010년 개정에 착안하여 2012년 8월 현재까지 유니렉스(UNILEX)에 포함된 CISG와 UPICC의 적용사례 통계를 비교 분석하여 UPICC가 CISG의 한계를 보완하는 기능을 담당할 수 있음은 물론이고, 더 나아가 국제상거래의 준거법으로서 적용에도 유용성이 있음을 밝혀 UPICC의 국제상거래에서의 적용을 촉진하고자 한다.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제26권
• /
• pp.35-86
• /
• 2005

International distributorship contract(IDC), as well as international agency contract is a type of contract which is most frequently used in international trade. But one of the main difficulties faced by parties of IDC is the lack of uniform rules for this type of contract. This means that both parties should be careful about each clause of the contract when they draw up it. The ICC prepared model form which incorporates the prevailing practice in international trade, and which aims at protecting and balancing the legitimate interests of both parties. This author examined the several important clauses in this model contract. The purpose of this examination is to help the contracting parties for better understanding and applying them in their actual contracting practice, which based on this model contract. When the supplier and the distributor execute their contract or use ICC Model Contract, they should be careful about the following points: First, some terminologies(like, "territory", "product", "competing products" and "exclusivity") should be clearly defined in their contract. Second, regarding the supplier's functions including "supplying products" and the distributor's responsibility including "undertaking not to compete", and "attaining guaranteed minimum targets", both parties should make clear about each party's right and obligation as well as one party's remedies available when other party makes breach of its obligation. Third, both parties should examine the relationship between the "exclusivity" or "sole" and competition law which is regarded as a mandatory rule in the territory. Forth, when both parties lay down "termination clause" in the contract, they should make clear about the indemnity in case of termination. Fifth, as there is not uniform law for the distributorship contract, it is inevitable to choose any local law as an applicable law in case of litigation. So both parties should keep in mind to insert arbitration clause to avoid the application of the local law. Besides, both parties should consider their individual and specific circumstances and try to reflect them in their contract by Annex I to XI attached to the end of model contract.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제33권
• /
• pp.191-219
• /
• 2007

Section 39(5) of Marine Insurance Act 1906 concerns the case where with the privity of the assured, the ship is sent to sea in an unseaworthy state. The underwriters argue that the assured had"blind-eye knowledge" of the particular respect in which the ship was unseaworthy. Blind-eye knowledge requires a conscious reason for blinding the eye. There must be at least a suspicion of a truth about which one do not want to know and which one refuse to investigate. What has caused greater difficulty is the broad provision in s.17 which appears to be unlimited in its scope. The expression "utmost good faith" appears to derive from the idea of uberrimae fidei, words which indeed appear in the sidenote. The concept of uberrima fides does not appear to have derived from civil law and it has been regarded as unnecessary in civilian systems. S.17 raises many questions. But only two of them are critical to the decision of the present appeal-the fraudulent claim question and the litigation question. It is however necessary to discuss them in the context of a consideration of the problematic character of s.17. In the Star Sea Case, for the defendants to succeed in their defence under this part of the case the defendants have to show that claim was made fraudulently. They have failed to obtain a finding of fraud. It is not enough that until part of the way through the trial the owners failed to disclose to the defendants would have wished to see in order to provide them with some, albeit inadequate, evidential support for their alleged defence under s.39(5). The defence under s.17 fails. The Purpose of this work is to analyze the Star Sea Case, and to explore problems of the MIA relating to the judgement of this case.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제67권
• /
• pp.119-142
• /
• 2015

Many insurers have traditionally incorporated "fraud clauses" into insurance policies, setting out the consequences of making a fraudulent claim. Even in the absence of an express terms, English courts provide insurers with a remedy for a fraudulent claim. However, the law in this area is complex, convoluted and confused. English Law Commission think that the law in this area needs to be reformed for three reasons; (1) the disjunctive between the common law rule and section 17 generates unnecessary disputes and litigation, (2) increasingly, UK commercial law must be justified to an international insurance society, and (3) the rules on fraudulent claims are functioned as a deterrent if they are clear and well-understood. In order for these purposes, English Law Commission recommends a statutory regime to the effect that, when an insured commits fraud in relation to a claim, the insurer should (1) have no liability to pay the fraudulent claim and be able to recover any sums already paid in respect to the claim, and (2) have the option to treat the contract as having been terminated with from the time of the fraudulent act and, if chosen the option, be entitled to refuse all claims arising after the fraud, but (3) remain liable for legitimate losses before the fraudulent act. LC is not recommending a complete restatement of the law on insurance fraud generally. For example, LC does not seek to define fraud, instead, recommends the introduction of targeted provisions to confirm the remedies available to an insurer who discovers a fraud by a policyholder.

• 한국기록관리학회지
• /
• 제16권4호
• /
• pp.7-30
• /
• 2016

국내외에서 특허나 제조물책임과 관련하여 그 어느 때보다 각종 소송에 노출되어 있는 기업들은 전자증거개시에 효과적으로 대처할 준비를 해야 한다. 이 연구는 기업 소송 사례를 통해 증거개시 과정에서 드러난 위험성을 기록정보관리 측면에서 분석하고, 이를 토대로 기업의 기록정보관리 방향을 제안하기 위한 것이다. 판례조사를 통해 삼성전자, 코오롱 등 국내 기업들이 전자증거개시 과정에서 '방어가능한 처분'에 실패한 요인을 분석하였고, 이러한 요인을 고려하여 소유 점유 관리하고 있는 전자정보의 파악과 통제, 신의성실에 입각한 처분중지 보장, 합리적 기록보유정책의 수립과 이행이라는 세 영역별로 정책방향을 제시하였다.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제9권1호
• /
• pp.161-182
• /
• 1999

The purpose of this paper is to examine the applicability of the UNIDROIT Principle in international commercial arbitration. For this purpose, I have studies the basic two characters of this Principles: One is of general rule(principle); Another is of international and commercial character. According to CISG, questions concerning matters governed by the CISG which are not expressly settled in it are to be settled in conformity with the general principles, so this Principles will cover many questions which are not expressly settled in the applicable law, by gap-filing, analogy or usage. In the preamble of this Principles, there are five cases in which the Principles shall be applied or may be applied. If the disputes are submitted to the any national court, the application of this Principles would be restricted because of the mandatory rules of national, international or supranational origin. But the disputes are submitted to arbitration, the arbitrator would have more discretional powers to apply the Principles than the judge. The reason is that in the arbitration, the arbitrators do not bear obligation to act in conformity with the law applicable by virtue of the rules of rules of private international law. I also examined the applicability of the Principles in cases which there are no mentions in preamble: When the international arbitrators choose the Principles; When the arbitrators decide ex aequo et bono; When the both parties have not chosen the governing law; When there are gaps in domestic law chosen by the parties; When the applicable domestic law is insufficient. In all these cases, the Principles may be applied more easily and conveniently in arbitration than in litigation. Thus to envisage the application of this Principle in international arbitration, first both parties in international commercial contracts should incorporate this Principle as a governing law in their contracts, and second, the arbitrators should try to apply this Principles in their arbitrations by choice, analogy, general principles or usage.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제18권3호
• /
• pp.23-50
• /
• 2008

In a global economy where, private parties increasingly favour arbitration over litigation, many foreigners are unfortunately reluctant to arbitration with China's parties because the China national courts do not scrutinize the merits when deciding whether to recognize and enforce foreign awards. As a result, the finality of arbitral awards hangs in uncertainty. Overseas concern is that China's courts may abuse "Public Policy" grounds provided for in the New York Convention to set aside or refuse to enforce foreign awards. The purpose of this article is to examine the distrust to enforcement of arbitral awards whether that is just an assumption. In spite of the modernize and internationalize her international arbitration system and many reforms provided in the related law and rules, the most vexing leftover issues are caused of the lack of "rule of law" in China. This situation imply the risk of pervert 'Public Policy' as the ground for refusing enforcement of arbitral awards. Some cases reflect the fear. But it is unclear whether those cases caused from the lack of "rule of law" in China. Same uncertainty present between Hon Kong-China under th one country-two legal system after the return of Hong Kong to China on 1 July 1997. While China is striving to improve its enforcement mechanism in regard to the enforcement of arbitral awards, it can only be expect following the establishment of rule of law in the future.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제26권4호
• /
• pp.83-109
• /
• 2016

Recently, China has brought many political, economical, and ideological changes in order to complete the "socialistic market economy." In terms of legal system, they make much effort to seek compatibility and stability of law and order. China recognizes that the breakdown of corruption, which is rampant in society, is an essential short-cut for national development. To realize anti-corruption reformation, it strengthens the supervision of relatives and close officials of high-ranking government officials. Recently, China has suffered from expanded trade disputes internationally and has also experienced severe management-labor conflicts domestically due to economic recession. From 2012 onward, civil lawsuit and other litigations have increased sharply. Also, they face severe conflicts in the land system. It is expected that many disputes arise due to speculation on rural housing. Meanwhile, Mongolia expands the size of trade with Korea in mutual cooperation since their diplomatic relation in 1990 by entering more than 20 treaties and agreements. As Mongolia has rich natural resources and Korea is equipped with advanced science and technology, the two countries have opportunities to develop mutually beneficial cooperative relations. Recently, the arbitration system has attracted attention instead of litigation as a means of dispute settlement in line with the expansion of trade between Korea and Mongolia. This study would be helpful to figure out desirable methods for dispute settlements in case of trade disputes among Korean companies that would advance into China and Mongolia.