• Journal of Korea Trade
• /
• v.24 no.7
• /
• pp.107-124
• /
• 2020

Purpose - We assess the trade remedies rules in a host of Korea's FTAs to explore the trade policies for the effective implementation of FTA trade remedies rules. Also we develop the strategies of the future FTA negotiations of trade remedies rules. Design/methodology - After we review the key features of FTA trade remedies rules, we examine whether the rules are WTO-consistent or not. Next, we touch upon the WTO-plus characteristics of some provisions. Our main methodology is to compare the trade remedies rules in the numerous Korea's FTAs. Another methodology is to link those rules to the relevant WTO agreements and WTO dispute cases with a view to drawing lessons for trade policies and FTA negotiations. Findings - We find that most of the trade remedies rules are WTO-consistent. Moreover, we find that notification and consultation requirment, mandatory lesser duty rule, explicit prohibition of zeroing method, and public interest clause are WTO-plus. We also find that there are limitiations in the application of some global safeguard exclusion rules because of their non-mandatory nature. Originality/value - While most of previous studies focus mainly on the unique aspects of specific FTAs, our study analyzes comprehensively the trade remedies rules in the various Korea's FTAs. Based on the comprehensive analysis, we figure out the areas to be clarified and improved for the effective implementation of FTAs and the strategies for the future FTA trade remedies negotiations. As a consequence, our paper is expected to contribute to the academic research on FTA policies as well as the national economy.

• Korea Trade Review
• /
• v.45 no.2
• /
• pp.67-86
• /
• 2020

This study analyzes the buyer's remedies for defects in title under DCFR, and it is compared with those of CISG. DCFR adopts a unitary concept of 'non-performance' which is any failure and includes delayed performance and any other performance which is not conformed with the contract. In terms of defects in title, any remedies for non-performance are available under DCFR. Thus. under DCFR, the buyer is entitled to enforce specific performance of obligations, to withhold performance, to terminate for fundamental non-performance, to reduce price, to damage for loss, to require repair, or to deliver a replacement. But under CISG, whether or not defects in title constitute 'non-conformity' is not clear and the majority understands 'non-conformity' does not include title defects. Therefore, the buyer may not has rights to require repair and delivery of replacement unlike DCFR.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.40
• /
• pp.3-30
• /
• 2008

This article attempts to describe and analyze the rules on the buyer's remedies for lack of conformity under PELS. It shows that such remedies under the PELS operate in a two-tier remedial scheme which is alien to both domestic and international legal systems. That is, repair and replacement take the position of primary remedy, whereas termination, price reduction and damages are secondary remedies which are available only where the primary remedies cannot be invoked. Notwithstanding its superiority, the PELS have some drawbacks in several aspects. First, the PELS seems to place its focus on the factor of cost except the other factors, for instance, the significance of the lack of conformity, when one decides whether the first tier remedies cause the seller unreasonable effort or expense. It is argued that the factors can be considered by referring to art. 1:302 PECL. Second, the PELS does not expressively provide any exclusion of the seller's right to choose between repair or replacement on the basis of unreasonable uncertainty in reimbursing the expenses advanced by the buyer. It argues that if there is such uncertainty, it should be regarded as causing the buyer an unreasonable inconvenience under art. 4:204(1). Third, the PELS does not seem to properly reflect the consumer's interests in that most consumers prefer to have the absolute right of termination as against the commercial sellers who have a relatively stronger bargaining position. The reasons for that is that there is a big hurdle, i.e., a hierarchy of remedies, to be overcome by the consumer to battle with the commercial seller, and that unavoidable vagueness in defining a minor lack of conformity has been often used against the consumer, but in favour of the commercial seller with a strong bargaining position.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.32 no.4
• /
• pp.53-85
• /
• 2022

Small and medium-sized enterprises ("SMEs") are vulnerable to trade secret misappropriation. Korea's legislation for the protection of SMEs' trade secrets and provision of civil, criminal, and administrative remedies includes the SME Technology Protection Act, the Unfair Competition Prevention Act, the Industrial Technology Protection Act, the Mutually Beneficial Cooperation Act, and the Subcontracting Act. Among these acts, the revised SME Technology Protection Act of 2018 introduced the "administrative technology misappropriation investigation system" to facilitate a rapid resolution of SMEs' technology misappropriation disputes. On September 27, 2021, Korea's Ministry of SMEs announced that it had reached an agreement to resolve the dispute between Hyundai Heavy Industries and Samyeong Machinery through the administrative technology misappropriation investigation system. However, not until 3 years and a few months passed since the introduction of the system could it be used to resolve an SME's technology misappropriation dispute with a large corporation. So there arose a question on the usefulness of the system. Therefore, we conducted a comparative legal analysis of Korea's laws enacted to protect trade secrets of SMEs and to address technology misappropriation, focusing on their legislative purpose, protected subject matter, types of misappropriation, and legal remedies. Then we analyzed the administrative technology misappropriation investigation system and the cases where this system was applied. We developed a proposal to enhance the usefulness of the system. The expert interviews of 4 attorneys who are experienced in the management of the system to check the practical value of the proposal. Our analysis shows that the lack of compulsory investigation and criminal sanctions is the fundamental limitation of the system. We propose revising the SME Technology Protection Act to provide correction orders, criminal sanctions, and compulsory investigation. We also propose training professional workforces to conduct digital forensics, enabling terminated SMEs to utilize the system, and assuring independence and fairness of the mediation and arbitration of the technology misappropriation disputes.

• Korea Trade Review
• /
• v.45 no.2
• /
• pp.177-189
• /
• 2020

The dispute settlement mechanism of the World Trade Organization (WTO) is in great peril. The Appellate Body has ceased to function last December as the United States has blocked the appointment of new Appellate Body members since 2017. The focus of this study is on the examination of US's discontent on the Appellate Body and various efforts to reform the Appellate Body. In a recent report, the US Trade Representative raises its concerns on the Appellate Body including 90 days mandatory deadline, transitional rules for outgoing Appellate Body members, scope of appeal, advisory opinions, precedent, recommendation, and overreach without offering any viable solutions. Some of WTO members and experts proposed several Appellate Body reform measures but agreement between WTO members is unlikely in a foreseeable future. Alternative dispute settlement mechanisms should be seriously considered such as interim appeal arbitration arrangements, separate dispute settlement mechanisms for trade remedies, unilateral retaliatory measures without WTO authorization. Rules-based multilateral dispute settlement system is imperative to small open economies like Korea. The Korean government should actively participate in Appellate Body reform discussions with other WTO members to keep the WTO dispute settlement system from collapsing.

• Korean Security Journal
• /
• no.61
• /
• pp.333-352
• /
• 2019

In January and August 2019, there were amendments to the Unfair Competition and Trade Secrets Protection Act (UCPA) and the Industrial Technology Protection Act(ITPA). These amendments will contribute to technology protection. But these amendments need to be supplemented further. In the area of civil remedies, despite the introduction of treble damages in the case of the UCPA and ITPA, the provisions related to the submission of supporting data have not been maintained. Therefore, it is necessary to recognize the claim of the other party as true if it is maintained at the level of the revised Patent Act and the scope of submission of supporting data. And the enforcement of the case of compulsory submission for the calculation of damages, and the order of filing documents are not followed. ITPA, on the other hand, has introduced the compensation for damages, but there is no provision for estimating the amount of damages. Therefore, it is necessary to estimate the amount of lost profits, profits, and royalties. In the area of criminal remedies, both the UCPA and ITPA have raised the penalty, but the sentencing regulations are not maintained. In addition, although the recent outflow of technology has expanded beyond organizational deviations to organizational outflows, amendments need to be made in relation to the serious consequence for the punishment of related juristic persons, such as companies involved in it. It should be noted that Japan and the United States have corporate regulations and regulations. In addition, in relation to the confiscation system, Act on Regulation and Punishment of criminal proceeds concealment require that domestic defenses be confiscated by defense industry technology, while trade secrets and industrial technologies are confiscated only by "foreign" outflows, and an amendment is necessary.

• The Journal of Asian Finance, Economics and Business
• /
• v.7 no.3
• /
• pp.289-294
• /
• 2020

The study of environmental pollution plays an important role in controlling emissions in the production activities of FDI enterprises as well as export goods. Vietnam is a country with a large proportion of FDI contribution and high export value. Therefore, there should be studies to assess the actual effects of FDI and the openness of the economy (trade) on the environment. Therefore, the authors conduct research on the role of FDI and trade on environmental quality in Vietnam. With data collected from 1990 to 2018 (from the period of Vietnam's economy opening up) through the ARDL (Autoregressive Distributed Lag) model, the results show that FDI has a positive impact on CO2 emissions in the short term but has no impact on the long-term (In this study, CO2 is considered to represent environmental quality). The trade has a positive impact on CO2 emissions in both the short term and long term. The results of the study show the actual shortcomings of FDI as well as production activities in the export enterprises in Vietnam. From the results of this research, the author also provides the causes and remedies to control of CO2 emissions from two activities of foreign direct investment and trade.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.44
• /
• pp.3-29
• /
• 2009

The PECL have been drawn up by an independent body of experts from each member state of the european union under a project supported by the european commission and many other organizations. Salient features of the general provisions of the PECL, freedom of contract and pecta sunk servanda, good faith and fair dealing, most of the PECL are non-mandatory. The CISG uses the term fundamental breach in various setting. The concept of fundamental breach is a milestone in its remedial provisions. Its most important role is that it constitutes the usual precondition for the contract to be avoided(Art. 49., Art. 51., Art. 64., Art. 72., Art. 73). In addition, where the goods do not conform with the contract, a fundamental breach can give rise to a requirement to deliver substitute goods. Furthermore, a fundamental breach of contract by the seller leaves the buyer with all of his remedies intact, despite the risk having passed to him(Art. 70). Basically, PECL, PICC generally follows CISG, it was similar to all the regulation's platform though the terms and content sometimes differ. For example regarding to the non-performance and remedies, in the case of non-performance, that is the PECL/PICC term analogous to breach of contract as used in the CISG. Furthermore the PECL/PICC used fundamental non-performance refered to in PECL Art. 8:103 ; PICC Art. 7.1.1. correspond generally to the concept of fundamental breach referred to in CISG Art. 25. The main significance of the fundamental non-performance, in any systems, is to empower the aggrieved party to terminate the contract. The need for uniformity and harmony in international commercial contracts can be expected to lead to growth of international commerce subject to the CISG, PICC, and PECL. It is hoped that the present editorial remarks will provide guidance to improve understanding between the contractual party of different countries in this respect and following key-words.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.44
• /
• pp.31-55
• /
• 2009

This study attempts to provide a comparative overview of the liability systems Korean law and the PELS adopt, that is, the approaches taken by Korean law and the PELS to deal with various irregularities of contractual performance. In addition, it examines in a comparative way the questions of what is the position of the seller's liability for his delivery of defective goods under the chosen liability system and what is the legal nature of the seller's liability. The study finds that the dual liability system taken by Korean law has caused some complexities as to the matter of which liability is applicable in some borderline cases. The problem in such complexities is originated in that the remedies available and the limitation period applicable are differentiated in accordance with one's different categorization among three types of default under the general liability and defective performance under the seller's guarantee liability. In this light, the study argues that the unified liability system under the PELS is superior because its concept of non-performance embraces in a unitary manner all the aspects of default including defects in quality, quantity and title. In addition, it finds that Korean law has suffered endless debates on the question of what are the true contents of the same remedies of rescission and damages provided under the seller's guarantee liability as under the general liability. The debates have been come along on the basis of the traditional presumption among some of civil law jurisdictions that two liabilities be different in terms of not only their legal nature but also their contents of remedies. The study argues that the problem may be circumvented, first, by another way of thinking that the unified liability in Korean law is inferred from the specification of the identical remedies for both the general liability and the seller's guarantee liability under the KCC, second, by the preposition that the requirement of fault be depended upon what remedy the buyer seeks to claim rather than what liability he does to rely on.

• International Commerce and Information Review
• /
• v.14 no.3
• /
• pp.231-251
• /
• 2012

The remedies available to a seller that has suffered a breach of contract by the buyer are addressed in Section III of Chapter III of Part III. The first provision in the section, 61, catalogues those remedies and authorizes an aggrieved seller to resort to them. The remaining provisions of the section address particular remedies or prerequisites to remedies. The subject matter of the current section remedies for breach of contract by the buyer obviously parallels that of Section III of Chapter II of Part III remedies for breach of contract by the seller. Many individual provisions within these sections form matched pairs. Thus 61, which catalogs the seller's remedies, which catalogs the buyer's remedies. Other provisions in the current section that have analogues in the section on buyer's remedies include 62, seller's right to require buyer's performance 63, seller's right to fix an additional period for buyer to perform and 64, seller right to avoid the contract. As was the case with the provisions on buyers' remedies, the articles governing sellers' remedies operate in conjunction with a variety of provisions outside the current section. Thus the seller's right to require performance by the buyer is subject to the rule in 28 relieving a court from the obligation to order specific performance in circumstances in which it would not do so under its own law. The authorization in 61 for a seller to claim damages for a buyer's breach operates in connection with 74-76, which specify how damages are to be measured. 49, stating when an aggrieved seller can avoid the contract, is part of a network of provisions that address avoidance, including the definition of fundamental breach, the requirement of notice of avoidance, provisions governing avoidance in certain special circumstances, measures of damages available only if the contract has been avoided and the provisions of Section V of Part III, Chapter V on effects of avoidance.