• Journal of Korea Trade
• /
• 제24권7호
• /
• 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.

• 무역학회지
• /
• 제45권2호
• /
• 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.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제40권
• /
• 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.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제32권4호
• /
• 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.

• 무역학회지
• /
• 제45권2호
• /
• 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.

• 시큐리티연구
• /
• 제61호
• /
• pp.333-352
• /
• 2019

2019년 1월과 8월 영업비밀보호법과 산업기술보호법의 각각의 개정이 있었다. 이들 법률의 개정은 기술 보호에 크게 기여할 것으로 보인다. 그러나 민·형사적 구제와 관련하여 몇 가지 더 보완되어야 할 사항이 있다. 민사구제 분야와 관련하여 영업비밀보호법과 산업기술보호법의 경우 3배 손해배상 도입에도 불구하고, 입증자료제출과 관련된 규정은 정비가 되지 못한 상태이다. 따라서 입증자료의 제출 범위 확대, 손해액 산정을 위한 서류인 경우의 제출 강제, 서류제출 명령을 따르지 않는 경우 상대방의 주장을 진실한 것으로 인정하는 등 개정 특허법의 수준으로 정비될 필요가 있다. 한편 산업기술보호법은 손해배상규정이 도입되었지만, 손해액 추정규정이 없는 상태이므로, 일실이익·이익액·로열티 상당액에 대한 추정규정이 필요하다. 형사구제와 관련하여서는 영업비밀보호법과 산업기술보호법 모두 형벌의 상향화는 이루어졌지만 양형규정이 정비되지 못하고 있으므로 이의 정비가 필요하다. 또한 최근의 기술유출은 개인의 일탈을 넘어 조직적인 유출로 확대되고 있음에도 불구하고 이에 가담한 기업 등 관련 법인의 처벌에 대한 중과(重課)와 관련하여 개정이 필요하다. 일본과 미국의 경우 법인 중과 규정을 두고 있다는 점을 참고하여야 할 것이다. 또한 몰수제도와 관련하여서는 범죄수익은닉규제법에서는 방위산업기술은 국내유출도 몰수의 대상으로 하고 있는 반면에, 영업비밀과 산업기술은 '국외'유출만 몰수의 대상으로 하고 있으므로 이의 개정도 필요하다.

• The Journal of Asian Finance, Economics and Business
• /
• 제7권3호
• /
• 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.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제44권
• /
• 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.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제44권
• /
• 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.

• 통상정보연구
• /
• 제14권3호
• /
• pp.231-251
• /
• 2012

본고는 국제물품매매계약에 있어 매수인의 계약위반에 따라 피해를 입은 매도인의 구제수단을 다루고 있는 CISG 제3편 제3장 제3절(제61조 내지 제65조)을 중심으로 매도인의 구제권 일반과 이행청구권, 이행을 위한 추가기간의 지정, 계약해제권 및 물품명세의 확정권에 관한 규정내용을 연구범위로 두고, 당해 조문해석과 적용에 따른 평가에 기하여, 법적 시사점과 유의점을 도출한 논문이다. 그 내용은 우선, 제61조는 매수인의 계약위반에 기한 매도인이 선택할 수 있는 구제수단을 규정하고 있고, 나머지 조항에서는 특별구제 또는 구제의 전제조건을 규정하고 있다. 본조는 매수인의 계약위반에 관하여 매도인이 선택할 수 있는 일반적인 구제방법을 다루고 있다. 본조에서 매도인은 제62조 내지 제65조에 규정된 권리를 행사할 수 있다고 규정하고는 있으나, 이는 독립적으로 그 조항들에게 법적 효력을 부여하고 있는 규정이라고는 볼 수 없다. 제62조는 매수인의 의무이행을 청구하는 권리에 대한 제한을 두고 있는데, 그 내용은 매도인이 이미 자신의 의무의 이행을 청구하는 권리와 양립되지 않는 어느 구제방법을 채택한 경우와, 매도인이 매수인에게 의무이행을 청구할 권리가 있다고 규정하고 있음에도 불구하고, 국내법에 의해 특정이행을 주문하지 않는 상황에서 매도인을 대신하여 매수인에게 특정이행을 청구할 필요가 없는 경우로 대별된다. 제63조는 매도인은 매수인으로 하여금 그 의무를 이행할 수 있도록 하기 위하여 추가기간을 지정할 수 있음을 규정하고 있고, 제64조는 매수인이 하나 또는 그 이상의 의무를 위반하는 경우와 중대한 계약위반에 기하여 매도인이 계약을 해제할 수 있는 상황을 다루고 있다. 아울러, 제65조는 매수인이 합의한 기간 내에 또는 매도인으로부터 요구를 받은 후 상당한 기간 내에 합의된 특징을 확정하지 않는 경우 발생될 수 있는 문제를 다루고 있다.