• Journal of Korea Port Economic Association
• /
• v.23 no.3
• /
• pp.165-184
• /
• 2007

This study reviews the concept and protection system for the geographical Indication(GI) to support the Korea-EU FTA. A geographical indication(GI) is a name or sign used on certain products or which corresponds to a specific geographical indication or origin (eg. a town, region, or country). The use of a GI may act as a certification that the product possesses certain qualities, or enjoys a certain reputation, due to its geographical origin. In the WTO Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual property Rights("TRIPS"). There are, in effect, two basic obligations from Article 22 to article 23 on WTO member governments relating to GIs in the TRIPS agreement. Geographical Indications have long been associated with Europe as an entity, where there is a tradition of associating certain food products with particular regions, Under European Union Law, the protected designation of origin system which came into effect in 1992 and 2003 regulates the following geographical indications: Protected designation of origin(PDO) and protected geographical indication(PGI) and Traditional Specialty Guaranteed(TSG). They have 5,000 articles for GI. We have the GI system and 40 articles rotating to registration by the law for quality management of production in agriculture. Cinclusinally, geographical indications could potentially serve as tools to helf holders of trade benefit more equitable through the mutual Acceptance for Korea-EU FTA.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.17 no.2
• /
• pp.167-187
• /
• 2007

As Korea has reached a free trade agreement with the United States of America, it is required to provide an appropriate procedure to ".kr" domain name disputes based on the principles established in the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy(UDRP). Currently, Internet address Dispute Resolution Committee(IDRC) established under Article 16 of the Act on Internet Address Resources provides the dispute resolution proceedings to resolve ".kr" domain name disputes. While the IDRC's proceeding is similar to the UDRP administrative proceeding in procedural aspects, the Domain Name Dispute Mediation Policy that is established by the IDRC and that applies to disputes involving ".kr" domain names is very different from the UDRP for generic Top Level Domain (gTLD) in substantial aspects. Under the Korea-U.S. Free Trade Agreement(KORUS FTA), it is expected that either the Domain Name Dispute Mediation Policy to be amended to adopt the UDRP or the IDRC to examine the Domain Name Dispute Mediation Policy in order to harmonize it with the principles established in the UDRP. It is a common practice of cybersquatters to warehouse a number of domain names without any active use of these domain names after their registration. The Domain Name Dispute Mediation Policy provides that the complainant may request to transfer or delete the registration of the disputed domain name if the registrant registered, holds or uses the disputed domain name in bad faith. This provision lifts the complainant's burden of proof to show the respondent's bad faith because the complainant is only required to prove one of the three bad faiths which are registration in bad faith, holding in bad faith, or use in bad faith. The aforementioned resolution procedure is different from the UDRP regime which requires the complainant, in compliance with paragraph 4(b) of the UDRP, to prove that the disputed domain name has been registered in bad faith and is being used in bad faith. Therefore, the complainant carries heavy burden of proof under the UDRP. The IDRC should deny the complaint if the respondent has legitimate rights or interests in the domain names. Under the UDRP, the complainant must show that the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The UDRP sets out three illustrative circumstances, any one of which if proved by the respondent, shall be evidence of the respondent's rights to or legitimate interests in the domain name. As the Domain Name Dispute Mediation Policy provides only a general provision regarding the respondent's legitimate rights or interests, the respondent can be placed in a very week foundation to be protected under the Policy. It is therefore recommended for the IDRC to adopt the three UDRP circumstances to guide how the respondent can demonstrate his/her legitimate rights or interests in the disputed domain name. In accordance with the KORUS FTA, the Korean Government is required to provide online publication to a reliable and accurate database of contact information concerning domain name registrants. Cybersquatters often provide inaccurate contact information or willfully conceal their identity to avoid objection by trademark owners. It may cause unnecessary and unwarranted delay of the administrative proceedings. The respondent may loss the opportunity to assert his/her rights or legitimate interests in the domain name due to inability to submit the response effectively and timely. The respondent could breach a registration agreement with a registrar which requires the registrant to submit and update accurate contact information. The respondent who is reluctant to disclose his/her contact information on the Internet citing for privacy rights and protection. This is however debatable as the respondent may use the proxy registration service provided by the registrar to protect the respondent's privacy.

• Korea Trade Review
• /
• v.48 no.3
• /
• pp.43-68
• /
• 2023

In this study, in relation to "Chapter 3 Support for Priority Purchase of Technology Development Products" of the 「Market Channel Support Act」, this study investigated the positive growth impact of technology development products subject to preferential purchase on small and medium sized enterprises. The data used for empirical verification is for 371 companies that obtained certification for technology development products subject to preferential purchase in 2016 and Data from SMEs were collected from 2017 to 2021, Sales, operating profit, and net profit was identified, and empirical verification. And conducted through statistical analysis to determine whether it had a positive effect on the growth factors of SMEs. In addition, data from 225 technology development product certification companies were collected, and empirical testing was conducted through t-test analysis on the change in growth factors before and after acquiring certification. As a result of statistical analysis, it was found that the total assets, certified sales, operating profit, and net profit, which are the growth factors of a company, are all positively affected according to the type of technology development product certification. However, in the case of authentication types, some authentications showed significant negative results. In addition, significant results were derived that after acquiring certification had a positive effect on growth factors than before acquiring certification. Consistent with this conclusion, I think that it is effective for technology development-based SMEs to enter the public procurement market and utilize the technology development product priority purchase policy for market exploitation and corporate growth. And the government should strengthen the market support policy to create demand so that SMEs can enter the procurement market and actively utilize the preferential purchase system, and come up with an improvement plan so that public institutions can actively utilize the preferential purchase system.

• International Commerce and Information Review
• /
• v.8 no.4
• /
• pp.105-121
• /
• 2006

This study is related with the judgements of our country's supremcourt against the transaction of Letter of Credit which is beneficiary's fraudulent trade deal. In this case I think to analyse the judgements and to present the basic grounds on which the judgements were established. In Letter of Credit transaction, there are the major parties, such as, beneficiary, issuing bank, or confirming bank and the other parties such as applicant, negotiating bank, advising bank and paying bank. Therefore, in this cases, the beneficiary, the French Weapons' Supplier who did not shipped the commodities, created the false Bill of Lading, let his dealing bank make payment against the documents presented by him and received the proceeds from the negotiating bank or collecting bank, thereafter was bankrupted and escaped. For the first time, even though the issuing bank conceived that the presented documents were inconsistent with the terms of L/C. it did not received the payment approval from the applicant against all the discrepancies, made the negotiating bank pay the proceeds to exporter and thereafter, delivered the documents to the applicant long after the time of the issuing bank's examination of documents. The applicant who received the documents from the issuing bank, instantly did not examine the documents and inform to the issuing bank whether he accepted the documents or not. Long time after, applicant tried to clear the goods through custom when he knew the bill of ladings were false and founded out the documents had the other discrepancies which he did not approved. As the results, the applicant, Korea Army Transportation Command claimed, that the issuing bank must refund his paid amount because issuing bank examined the documents unreasonably according to u.c.p 500 Act 13th, 14th. In spite of the applicant's claim, the issuing bank argued that it paid the proceeds of L/C reasonably after receiving the applicant's approval of an discrepancy of document, the delayed shipment, but for concerning the other discrepancies, the trivial ones, the applicant did not examined the document and noticed the discrepancies in reasonable time. Therefore the applicant sued the issuing bank for refunding it's paid proceeds of L/C. Originally, this cases were risen between Korea Exchange Bank and Korea Army Transportation Command. As result of analysing the case, the contents of the case case have had same procedure actually, but the lower courts, the district and high courts all judged the issuing bank was reasonable and did not make an error. As analysing these supreme court's judgements, the problem is that whether there are the applicant's liability of examining the documents and informing its discrepancies to the issuing bank or not, and if the applicant broke such a liabilities, it lost the right of claiming the repayment from issuing bank. Finally to say, such applicant's liabilities only must be existed in case the documents arrived to the issuing bank was delivered to the applicant within the time of the documents examination according to u.c.p 500 Act 14, d. i. But if any the documents were delivered to applicant after time of the documents examination, the applicant had not such liabilities because eventhough after those time the applicant would have informed to the issuing bank the discrepancies of documents, the issuing bank couldn't receive repayment of its paid proceeds of document from the negotiating bank. In the result after time of issuing bank's examination of documents, it is considered that there's no actual benefit to ask the applicant practice it's liability. Therefore finally to say. I concluded that the Suprem Court's judgement was much more reasonable. In the following, the judgements of the supreme court would be analysed more concretely, the basic reasons of the results be explained and the way of protecting such L/C transaction would be presented.

• Journal of the Korea Academia-Industrial cooperation Society
• /
• v.7 no.6
• /
• pp.1319-1336
• /
• 2006

The successive round of talks oil Korea-USA Free Trade Agreement (FTA) has continued, and it also has the Intellectual property(IPR) unit. Until now, tile one of most disputing concerns in IPR unit through talks is the limitation of compulsory license of claimed invention. The US is urging to establish a safeguard for IPR, as similar measure of the US, to protecting the profit of the US enterprises through these on-going talks, it is more likely expected to take the offensive about infringement of the patent seriously. Based on the current circumstances, the provision strategy study is needed to obtain Korea inventors the first inventor defense under the US patent law system as well as understand the current Korea's patent law and its revision against that in the US. In patent Law, both nations with first to file system and first to invent system permit a prior user of an invention to continue to use the invention notwithstanding its subsequent patenting by another under being subject to certain qualifications and limitations, even though a patent by a later inventor is granted. Normally, the first inventor defense has been used to compensate the drawbacks of the first to file system. The US patent Law, however, adopting the first to invent system admits the first inventor defense. Therefore, pursuing counteract provision under consideration with Korean patent Law system and research environment along with investigating the reason why the US adopted its patent law system, the scope of right, and the new reform of Act. 2005 of the institute, which promotes the first Korean inventor to possess the defense right of the US, provides certain preparations for Korean companies against the expected offensive from the US ones under the US patent Law system.

• Journal of Legislation Research
• /
• no.53
• /
• pp.525-551
• /
• 2017

This Article discusses the current trend of European competition damage actions focused on the recent Damage Directive and its transposition by the United Kingdom and Germany. The relevant Directive was signed into law in November 2014, and it requires the EU Member States to adopt certain measures to support competition damage actions. The required measures and principles by the Directive include right to full compensation, rebuttable presumption of harm, extensive disclosure of evidence, use of pass-on for defense and indirect purchaser suits. Although many Member States did not meet the deadline to transpose the Directive, the end of 2016, it is reported that 23 Member States have now, as of September 2017, made enactments according to the Directive. When we look at the transposition done by the United Kingdom and Germany, the revisions on their competition laws closely follow the contents of the Directive. However, it will take quite a long time before the amended provisions apply to actual cases since most of the new provisions apply to the infringement that take place after the date of the amendment. A similar situation regarding application time may happen in some other Member States. Furthermore, even if the terms of the competition laws of the Member States become similar following the Directive, the interpretations of the laws may differ by the courts of different countries. EU also does not have a tool to coordinate the litigations that are brought in different Member States under the same facts. It is true that the EU made a big step to enhance competition damage actions by enacting Damage Directive. However, it needs to take more time and resources to have settled system of competition private litigation throughout the Member States. Korea has also experienced increase in competition damage actions during the last fifteen years, and there have been some revisions of the relevant fair trade law as well as development of relevant legal principles by court decisions. Although there are some suggestions that Korea should have more enactments similar to the EU Directive, its seems wiser for Korea to take time to observe how EU countries actually operate competition damage actions after they transposed the Directive. Then, it will be able to gain some wisdom to adopt competition action measures that are suitable for Korean legal system and culture.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.33 no.1
• /
• pp.45-79
• /
• 2018

An increase of airplanes and military aircraft operation lead to significant demanding of residential claims by people who live in nearby airports and military bases due to noise, vibration and residential damages caused by aircraft operations. In recent years, a plaintiff has filed a lawsuit against the defendant, claiming the prohibition of using claimant's possessed land as a helicopter landing route, and the Daejeon High Court was in favour of the plaintiff. Although the Supreme Court later dismissed the Appeal Court decision, it is necessary to discuss the case of setting flight prohibited zone. In Japan, the airport noise lawsuits have been filed for a long time, mainly by environmental groups. Unlike the case that admitted residential damages caused by noise, the Yokohama District Court for the first time sentenced a judgment of the prohibition of the flight. This ruling was partially changed in the appellate court and some of the plaintiffs' claims were adopted. However, the Supreme Court of Japan finally rejected such decision from appeal and district courts. Atsugi Base is an army camp jointly used by the United States and Japan, and residents, live nearby, claim that they are suffering from mental damage such as physical abnormal, insomnia, and life disturbance because of the noise from airplane taking off and landing in the base. An administrative lawsuit was therefore preceded in the Yokohama District Court. The plaintiff requested the Japan Self-Defense Forces(hereinafter 'JSDF') and US military aircraft to be prohibited operating. The court firstly held the limitation of the flight operation from 10pm to 6am, except unavoidable circumstance. The case was appealed. The Supreme Court of Japan dismissed the original judgment on the flight claim of the JSDF aircraft, canceled the first judgment, and rejected the claims of the plaintiffs. The Supreme Court ruled that the exercise of the authority of the Minister of Defense is reasonable since the JSDF aircraft is operating public flight high zone. The court agreed that noise pollution is such an issue for the residents but there are countermeasures which can be taken by concerned parties. In Korea, the residents can sue against the United States or the Republic of Korea or the Ministry of National Defense for the prohibition of the aircraft operation. However, if they claim against US government regarding to the US military flight operation, the Korean court must issue a dismissal order as its jurisdiction exemption. According to the current case law, the Korean courts do not allow a claimant to appeal for the performance of obligation or an anonymous appeal against the Minister of National Defense for prohibiting flight of military aircraft. However, if the Administrative Appeals Act is amended and obligatory performance litigation is introduced, the claim to the Minister of National Defense can be permitted. In order to judge administrative case of the military aircraft operation, trade-off between interests of the residents and difficulties of the third parties should be measured in the court, if the Act is changed and such claims are granted. In this connection, the Minister of National Defense ought to prove and illuminate the profit from the military aircraft operation and it should be significantly greater than the benefits which neighboring residents will get from the prohibiting flight of military aircraft.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.23
• /
• pp.155-219
• /
• 2004

This paper focuses on two recent legislative developments in electronic commerce: the "Uniform Computer Information Transactions Act" ("UCITA") of USA and the "preliminary draft convention on the use of data message in [international trade] [the context of international contracts]" ("preliminary draft Convention") of UNCITRAL. UCITA provides rules contracts for computer information transactions. UCITA supplies modified contract formation rules adapted to permit and to facilitate electronic contracting. UCITA also adjusts commonly recognized warranties as appropriate for computer information transactions; for example, to recognize the international context in connection with protection against infringement and misappropriation, and First Amendment considerations involved with informational content. Furthermore, UCITA adapts traditional rules as to what is acceptable performance to the context of computer information transactions, including providing rules for the protection of the parties concerning the electronic regulation of performance to clarify that the appropriate general rule is one of material breach with respect to cancellation (rather than so-called perfect tender). UCITA also supplies guidance in the case of certain specialized types of contracts, e.g., access contracts and for termination of contracts. While for the most part carrying over the familiar rules of Article 2 concerning breach when appropriate in the context of the tangible medium on which the information is fixed, but also adapting common law rules and rules from Article 2 on waiver, cure, assurance and anticipatory breach to the context of computer information transactions, UCITA provides a remedy structure somewhat modeled on that of Article 2 but adapted in significant respects to the different context of a computer information transaction. For example, UCITA contains very important limitations on the generally recognized common law right of self-help as applicable in the electronic context. The UNCITRAL's preliminary draft Convention applies to the use of data messages in connection with an existing or contemplated contract between parties whose places of business are in different States. Nothing in the Convention affects the application of any rule of law that may require the parties to disclose their identities, places of business or other information, or relieves a party from the legal consequences of making inaccurate or false statements in that regard. Likewise, nothing in the Convention requires a contract or any other communication, declaration, demand, notice or request that the parties are required to make or choose to make in connection with an existing or contemplated contract to be made or evidenced in any particular form. Under the Convention, a communication, declaration, demand, notice or request that the parties are required to make or choose to make in connection with an existing or contemplated contract, including an offer and the acceptance of an offer, is conveyed by means of data messages. Also, the Convention provides for use of automated information systems for contract formation: a contract formed by the interaction of an automated information system and a person, or by the interaction of automated information systems, shall not be denied on the sole ground that no person reviewed each of the individual actions carried out by such systems or the resulting agreement. Further, the Convention provides that, unless otherwise agreed by the parties, a contract concluded by a person that accesses an automated information system of another party has no legal effect and is not enforceable if the person made an error in a data message and (a) the automated information system did not provide the person with an opportunity to prevent or correct the error; (b) the person notifies the other party of the error as soon as practicable when the person making the error learns of it and indicates that he or she made an error in the data message; (c) The person takes reasonable steps, including steps that conform to the other party's instructions, to return the goods or services received, if any, as a result of the error or, if instructed to do so, to destroy such goods or services.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.5
• /
• pp.101-118
• /
• 1993

Generally there is no law and liability system which applies particulary to commercial space ventures. There are several international treaties and national statutes which deal with space ventures, but their impact on the liability of commercial space ventures has not been significant. Every state law in the United States will impose both tort and contract liability on those responsible for injuries or losses caused by defective products or by services performed negligently. As with the providers of other products and services, those who participate in commercial space ventures have exposure to liability in both tort and contract which is limited to the extent of the resulting damage The manufacturer of a small and cheap component which caused a satellite to fail to reach orbit or to operate nominally has the same exposure to liability as the provider of launch vehicle or the manufacturer of satellite into which the component was incorporaded. Considering the enormity of losses which may result from launch failure or satellite failure, those participated in commercial space ventures will do their best to limit their exposure to liability by contract to the extent permitted by law. In most states of the United States, contracts which limit or disclaim the liability are enforceable with respect to claims for losses or damage to property if they are drafted in compliance with the requirements of the applicable law. In California an attempt to disclaim the liability for one's own negligence will be enforceable only if the contract states explicitly that the parties intend to have the disclaimer apply to negligence claims. Most state laws of the United States will refuse to enforce contracts which attempt to disclaim the liability for gross negligence on public policy grounds. However, the public policy which favoured disclaiming the liability as to gross negligence for providers of launch services was pronounced by the United States Congress in the 1988 Amendments to the 1984 Commercial Space Launch Act. To extend the disclaimer of liability to remote purchasers, the contract of resale should state expressly that the disclaimer applies for the benefit of all contractors and subcontractors who participated in producing the product. This situation may occur when the purchaser of a satellite which has failed to reach orbit has not contracted directly with the provider of launch services. Contracts for launch services usually contain cross-waiver of liability clauses by which each participant in the launch agrees to be responsible for it's own loss and to waive any claims which it may have against other participants. The crosswaiver of liability clause may apply to the participants in the launch who are parties to the launch services agreement, but not apply to their subcontractors. The role of insurance in responding to many risks has been critical in assisting commercial space ventures grow. Today traditional property and liability insurance, such as pre-launch, launch and in-orbit insurance and third party liability insurance, have become mandatory parts of most space projects. The manufacture and pre-launch insurance covers direct physical loss or damage to the satellite, its apogee kick moter and including its related launch equipment from commencement of loading operations at the manufacture's plant until lift off. The launch and early orbit insurance covers the satellite for physical loss or damage from attachment of risk through to commissioning and for some period of initial operation between 180 days and 12 months after launch. The in-orbit insurance covers physical loss of or damage to the satellite occuring during or caused by an event during the policy period. The third party liability insurance covers the satellite owner' s liability exposure at the launch site and liability arising out of the launch and operation in orbit. In conclusion, the liability in commercial space ventures extends to any organization which participates in providing products and services used in the venture. Accordingly, it is essential for any organization participating in commercial space ventures to contractually disclaim its liability to the extent permitted by law. To achieve the effective disclaimers, it is necessary to determine the applicable law and to understand the requirements of the law which will govern the terms of the contract. A great deal of funds have been used in R&D for commercial space ventures to increase reliability, safety and success. However, the historical reliability of launches and success for commercial space ventures have proved to be slightly lower than we would have wished for. Space insurance has played an important role in reducing the high risks present in commercial space ventures.

• Environmental and Resource Economics Review
• /
• v.32 no.1
• /
• pp.47-75
• /
• 2023

Compared to the EU, which legislates the Carbon Border Adjustment System (CBAM), the United States' carbon border adjustment policy movement is still relatively slow. Recently, however, a related bill has been proposed in the United States, and research institutes have been presenting research results on how to introduce an upstream carbon tax rather than an emission trading system and carry out carbon border adjustment based on it. Therefore, in this study, we looked at the economic and environmental effects of introducing this type of upstream carbon tax and carbon border adjustment in Korea. If an upstream carbon tax of KRW 30,000 per ton of CO₂ is applied to the net supply of domestic fossil energy, the expected carbon tax revenue is approximately KRW 22.9961 trillion, equivalent to about 5.7% of the total revenue of the Korean government of KRW 402 trillion in 2019. In addition, the carbon dioxide content of the steel sector, calculated based on the energy supply and demand status of the steel sector, which emits the most greenhouse gas emissions in Korea and has a considerable amount of overseas exports, was 106.22 million tons of CO₂. On the other hand, assuming that the upstream carbon tax of 30,000 won per ton of CO₂ embodied is directly passed on to the production cost of the steel sector, the carbon tax burden in the steel sector is estimated to reach approximately KRW 3.1865 trillion. Even after deducting KRW 1.1599 trillion in export refunds estimated by using the share of exports of steel products, the net carbon tax burden on steel products for domestic demand amounts to KRW 2.0266 trillion, which is analyzed to act as a factor in increasing the price of steel products.