• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제12권
• /
• pp.133-162
• /
• 1999

The international sale transaction is in essence a sale of goods and presents all those commercial and legal problems in any sale of goods. As a result, A International sales contract imposes several duties on the parties : the seller must deliver the goods and transfer ownership in them, while the buyer must pay the price and take delivery of the goods. However, there are several problems which impede a active transaction between seller and buyer who have their places of business in other countries each other. Therefore, It is necessary to provide the concept on the conformity of goods in the Int'l Sale of Goods. Especially, In our consideration for the point of time when defects occurs, the existence of non-conformity of goods should be judged on the basis of time of delivery rather than time of contract. Moreover, The burden of proof about nonconformity of goods is another fact which make an international dispute between the contractual parties in an international trade. Thus, The consistency in the interpretation of law must be maintained betweened the warranty and seller's liability. In the Uniform Commercial Code and UN Convention, non-conformity of contract is made of contract liability. And in our civil and commercial law provisions of warranty should be understand as the special ones of the provisions of general non-performance of obligation liability. As a result, More concrete study of them is required because they may have a great influence especially on international trade. As a result, We should be our best in finding a helpful and systematic structure that the dualistic structure of nonperformance of obligation liability and warranty liability must be unified by studying the theories of English and American warranty and our legal system, as well as international practice and usage being used in an international trade.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제61권
• /
• pp.3-28
• /
• 2014

This study describes the buyer's remedies regarding defects in title under CISG. Although CISG stipulates the seller's liability for the delivery of conforming goods physically at Art. 35 and legally at Art. 41 and Art. 42 respectively, the buyer's remedies are not distinguished between non-conformity governed by Art. 35 and defects in title governed by Art. 41 and Art. 42. If the seller does not fulfill his obligation under Art. 41 and Art. 42 to deliver goods which are free from third party claims, the buyer should pay attention to which remedies are available under CISG. Under CISG, for defects in title in the delivered goods, the buyer is entitled to require performance in Art. 46 (1) unless he has resorted to a remedy which is inconsistent with this requirement, to declare the contract avoided by strictly limiting the situation in which the failure by the seller to perform his obligation amounts to a fundamental breach of contract in Art. 49, to claim damages in Art. 74, and to suspend the performance of his obligation where it becomes apparent that the seller will not perform a substantial part of his obligation in Art. 71 (1). Unlike Art. 35 non-conformity, the buyer may not require delivery of substitute goods under Art. 46 (2), claim repair under Art. 46 (3), and declare price reduction for title defects under Art. 50.

• 의료법학
• /
• 제12권1호
• /
• pp.227-255
• /
• 2011

Recently, many nations said "yes" to human embryonic stem cell research, signing an executive order to permit funding for the research in the mame of achieving health and life of humankind. Human Embryo Research is permitted by our Bioethics & Biosafety Act. But, illegal research cannot be divorced from civil liability since it requires the destruction of eggs of fertilized eggs and personal rights of embryo-creator. After all, though we allow to do research embryo, we should control the capacity of abuse of embryo research for embryo-creator. If research violate the law(Bioethics & Biosafety Act or Civil Law, etc), it comes to a delict by pecuniary loss and non-pecuniary loss. When it comes to pecuniary loss, Human Embryo is not body but special property. Supreme Court maintained a stance that mental suffering is generally deemed as compensable for damages for the loss of property where a person's property right is invaded by a tort or non-performance of obligation. Thus, where mental suffering occurs, which cannot be compensated by recovery of property losses, the situation must be a special circumstance and the injured could claim consolation money for such losses only if the offender knew or would have known of such special circumstances(Supreme Court Decision 96Da31574 delivered on Nov, 26, 1996, etc.). That is to say, Supreme Court regards mental suffering through person's property right invaded by a tort as damages that have arisen through special circumstances. According to Civil law article 393 (2), the injured could claim consolation money for such losses only if only if the offender had foreseen or could have foreseen such circumstances. Also our court will solve through damages for non-pecuniary loss by complementary function of consolation money in that pecuniary loss could be difficult to valuate.

• Journal of Advanced Marine Engineering and Technology
• /
• 제40권9호
• /
• pp.859-867
• /
• 2016

선박연료유는 운항비의 높은 비율을 차지하는 필수적인 요소이다. 그러므로 기준에 적합한 적정량의 연료유를 수급 받는 것은 운항손실을 예방하기 위해서도 중요한 작업이라 할 수 있다. 하지만 연료유 수급 시 발생되는 분쟁은 연료유 공급항을 중심으로 매년 지속적으로 발생되고 있으며, 선박소유자는 이러한 분쟁을 예방하고 효과적으로 대응하기 위하여 검정업체와의 계약을 통해 독립적 제3자인 선박연료유 검정인을 연료유 수급과정에 참여시켜 사실관계에 대한 증명서 발급을 요청한다. 하지만 현재 연료유 수급분쟁 발생 시 선박연료유 검정원의 지위와 역할이 명확하지 않아 효과적으로 대응하지 못하고 있다. 따라서 이 논문에서 과연 선박연료유 검정인이 가지는 법적지위 및 책임을 규명해보고 선박연료유 검정인이 수급분쟁에 있어서 실질적인 역할을 할 수 있는 대책에 대하여 논하고자 한다.

• Journal of Korea Trade
• /
• 제26권5호
• /
• pp.88-105
• /
• 2022

Purpose - This paper studies whether economic sanctions can be used as grounds for a party to an international sales contract to get an exemption if he fails to meet his contractual obligation. Because the answer can differ depending on the governing law of the contract, this study focuses on CISG, the most widely recognized international uniform legal instrument as the governing law of the international sale of goods. Design/methodology - This paper focuses on analyzing the conditions to meet before getting an exemption under CISG. For such analysis, this paper examined various scholarly writings, cases, and hypothetical examples reflecting a wide variety of economic sanction measures. Findings - The findings of this paper are as follows. The main provision for exemption under CISG is Article 79(1), which provides for an exemption for a party that failed to perform if such failure was caused by an impediment that was uncontrollable, unforeseeable, and unavoidable; either a seller or a buyer may rely on the Article for his non-performance, delay, or defective performance. The Article is applicable not only where the economic sanction caused impossibility of performance but also where it caused hardship. The economic sanction will likely be found to be an uncontrollable impediment; however, it will be relatively more difficult to prove it to be unforeseeable or unavoidable. Originality/value - The subject of this paper is whether a party can be exempted from liability under CISG when he fails to perform his contractual obligations due to economic sanctions. Given that this issue is now actually faced by many involved in international trade, it is expected to provide practical help to practitioners and companies alike.

• 항공우주정책ㆍ법학회지
• /
• 제35권2호
• /
• pp.113-136
• /
• 2020

전 세계 항공운송인의 관행으로 자리매김한 초과판매는 항공운송산업의 유지와 발전을 도모하는 반면, 승객의 입장에서는 유효한 운송계약을 체결하였음에도 불구하고 탑승거부를 당함으로써 여행계획에 차질을 빚을 수 있다. 국내 대법원은 초과판매를 근거로 승객의 탑승을 거절한 항공운송인에게 "채무불이행"에 따른 손해배상책임이 있다고 판결한 바 있다. 하지만 항공권 초과판매는 본래부터 가능한 좌석 수를 초과하여 판매한 것이므로, 해당 항공편의 여객 중에 아무도 운송계약을 철회하지 않으면, 여객 중 몇몇은 일방적으로 탑승을 거절당+하게 된다. 그러므로 항공권 초과판매에 따른 탑승거부로 인하여 급부가 불능이 되는 것은 이미 처음부터 특정되지 않은 누군가에 대한 항공운송인의 후발적불능이 아닌 원시적불능이라고 볼 여지도 있다. 급부가 원시적불능인 경우 그 법률관계는 무효이다. 급부의 원시적 불능에 따라 손해가 발생한 경우, 우리 민법은 채무불이행이 아닌 "계약체결상의 과실책임"의 법리에 따라 손해배상책임을 인정하고 있다. 결국 소비자가 항공운송인으로부터 항공권 초과판매에 따른 탑승거절로 인하여 손해배상을 받게 된다는 결론은 동일하지만, 그 책임이 발생하는 법적근거에 대하여 다른 측면에서 검토의 필요성이 있다. 나아가 각각의 구체적이고 개별적인 상황에 따라 항공운송사업자의 초과판매로 인한 탑승거부는 채무불이행의 법리적용이 불가능 경우도 발생할 수 있으며, 모든 법리에는 적용상의 흠결이 존재하므로, 입법 상의 공백을 채우기 위하여 새로운 법리의 적용가능성에 대하여 제기해 보았다. 더불어 이러한 손해배상청구원인에 대한 검토와 동시에 용인된 관행에 대한 손해배상의 인정은 오히려 양 당사자에게 혼란을 야기할 가능성도 충분하다. 하지만 항공운송사업자의 허락된 관행이라고 해서 소비자가 무조건 수용하여야 하는 현재의 관행에 대한 수정은 반드시 필요하다고 판단된다. 항공운송사업자에게 계속적으로 초과판매에 따른 채무불이행책임을 묻게 된다면, 초과판매를 할 수 밖에 없는 항공사업 환경에 치명적일 수 있으며, 소송경제상으로도 양 당사자에게도 불합리한 결과가 될 것이다. 그러므로 항공운송사업자의 항공여객운송계약을 체결함에 있어 보다 명확한 설명의무를 부과하고, 항공운송사업자가 이행의무를 충실하였을 때는 면책될 수 있도록 한다면 항공운송사업자와 여객 모두에게 합리적인 방안이 될 것이다.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제58권
• /
• pp.3-33
• /
• 2013

The purpose of this paper is to examine the problems in exercising buyer's right to claim damages for the breach of contract by the seller in international sales contract and to suggest reasonable counter-measures. The main contents are as follows: First, this author analyzed the principles of the seller's liability for damages in detail and examined the methods for the calculation of damages on the basis of Arts.74~77. As these articles are found to be insufficient in practical application, this author further examined the UNIDROIT Principles(2004) to confirm whether these Principles can fill the gaps of CISG or not, which turned out their gap-filling functions. Second, this author tried to find any expected problems when the buyer resorts to the right to claim damages in case of the seller's breach of contract including the estimation of damages, the burden of proof, causation, the proof of appropriateness for avoidance, the proof of buyer's obligation to mitigate the loss and so on. The reason is that these problems may cause a lot of difficulties in real business. As result, many buyers have given up their reasonable rights to claim damages so far. Finally, from the buyer's perspective, this author would like to suggest a liquidated damage clause(LD Clause) which gives the buyer to received a specified sum in case of seller's non-performance and/or a demand guarantee(or standby L/C) which guarantees buyer to secure unconditional payment independent of the underlying contract. For these purposes, the buyer should try to insert the LD Clause and/or Guarantee Clause in the contract when the buyer and the seller negotiate the sales contract. Also there are a lot of considerations and limitations in using the LD Clause and the Guarantee Clause in their real business, mainly dependent up bargain power between the seller and the buyer, for which this author promise to examine in detail in the future.