• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제31권
• /
• pp.3-25
• /
• 2006

This study focus on interest for arrears and filling of the gaps left in Article 78 of CISG. In the case of CISG, Article 78 provides for interest any time a payment under a contract is untimely, but does not specify a particular rate of interest or a method to determine such a rate. This issue did not cause any uncertainty under ULIS, the CISG's antecedent, since Article 83 of ULIS provided for 1%p above the official discount rate in the creditor's country. Lacking any CISG general principle as well as any indication by the very same CISG, one can only conclude that the matter must be deferred to the domestic rule of private international law. Actually, resorting to private international law is not only admissible, but expressly required by Article 7(2). In the interpretation and filling of the gaps left in Article 78, there is a considerable difference of opinion especially amongst commentators on whether the gap is a lacuna praeter legem, i.e., one being governed by, but not expressly settled in the CISG, or whether it is an issue falling outside the scope of application of the CISG, i.e. a lacuna intra legem. The protagonists of the former view lay emphasis on the overall objective of the CISG, namely to create a uniform law, whereas the supporters of the latter view refer to the legislative history of Article 78 as the dominant principle in interpreting Article 78. Some authors believe that the issue of determining the rate of interest is not dealt with by CISG and it is, therefore, governed by the applicable domestic law, which is the subsidiary law applicable to the sales contract, since "no special connecting points seem to have developed for the entitlement to interest." In the light of the relevant case law, it seems correct to conclude that the interest rate is not determined by CISG and that courts normally determine it according to their own rules of private international law. While CISG Article 78 expressly does not deal with this issue, PICC Article 7.4.9 and PECL Article 9.508, on the other hand, set forth a precise method for computing interest. Although a method like the one set by PICC may be useful and may encourage uniformity, it still cannot be used under the CISG. The PICC or PECL formula may, however, be a very good starting point in a de jure condendum analysis when a new Article 78 will be drafted, if an interest rate method will ever be embodied in the text of an international convention.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제14권
• /
• pp.103-152
• /
• 2000

English contract law has traditionally taken the view that it is not the duty of the parties to a contract to give information voluntarily to each other. In English law, one of the principal distinctions between insurance contract law and general contract law is the existence of the doctrine of utmost good faith in insurance law. The doctrine gives rise to a variety of duties, some of which apply before formation of the contract while others apply post-formation. This article is, therefore, designed to analyse the overall structure and problems of the doctrine of utmost good faith in English marine insurance law. The results of analysis are as following : First, the requirement of utmost good faith in marine insurance law arises from the fact that many of the relevant circumstances are within the exclusive knowledge of the assured and it is impossible for the insurer to obtain the facts to make a appropriate calculation of the risk that he is asked to assume without this information. Secondly, the duty of utmost good faith provided in MIA 1906, s. 17 has the nature as a bilateral or reciprocal, overriding and absolute duty. Thirdly, the Court of Appeal in Skandia held that breach of the pre-formation duty of utmost good faith did not sound in damages since the duty did not arise out of an implied contractual term and the breach did not constitute a tort. Instead, the Court of Appeal held that the duty was an extra-contractual duty imposed by law in the form of a contingent condition precedent to the enforceability of the contract. Fourthly, the scope of the duty of utmost good faith is closely related to the test of materiality and the assured is required to disclose only material circumstances subject to MIA 1906, s. 18(1) and 20(1). The test of materiality, which had caused a great deal of debate in English courts over 30 years, was finally settled by the House of Lords in Pan Atlantic and the House of Lords rejected the 'decisive influence' test and the 'increased risk' test, and the decision of the House of Lords is thought to accept the 'mere influence' test in subsequent case by the Court of Appeal. Fifthly, the insurer is, in order to avoid contract, required to provide proof that he is induced to enter into the contract by reason of the non-disclosure or misrepresentation of the assured. Sixthly, the duty of utmost good faith is, in principle, terminated before contract is concluded, but it is undoubtful that the provision under MIA 1906, s. 17 is wide enough to include the post-formation duty. The post-formation duty is, however, based upon the terms of marine insurance contract, and the duty lies entirely outside s. 17. Finally, MIA 1906, s. 17 provides expressly for the remedy of avoidance of the contract for breach of the duty. This means rescission or retrospective avoidance of the entire contract, and the remedy is based upon a fairly crude 'all-or-nothing' approach. What is needed in English marine insurance law is to introduce a more sophiscated or proportionate remedy.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제12권
• /
• pp.429-460
• /
• 1999

The letter of credit is quintessentially international. In the absence of international legal system, a private system based on banking practices has evolved, commanding the adherence of the international letter of credit community and providing the foundation of th reputation of this instrument. To maintain this international system, it is vital that international standard banking practice should not be subject to local interpretations that misconstrue or distort it. The UCP is a formulation of international standard banking practice. It is neither positive law nor a "contract term" in any traditional sense and its interpretation must be consonant with its character as a living repositary of international understanding in this field. As a result, the interpretation and application of specific articles of the UCP must be consistent with its evolving character and history and with the principles upon which sound letter of credit practice is predicated. This study, especially, focuses on article 13 and article 14 of the UCP500. Article 13(b) of UCP500 stipulates that banks will have a reasonable time, not to exceed seven days, to examine documents to determine whether they comply facially with the terms of the credit. The seven-day provision is not designed as a safe harbor, because the rule requires the issuer to act within a reasonable time. But, by virtue of the deletion of the preclusion rule in the document examination article in UCP500, however, seven days may evolve as something of a safe harbor, especially for banks that engage in strategic behavior. True, under UCP500 banks are supposed to examine documents within a reasonable time, but there are no consequences in UCP500 for a bank's violation of that duty. It is only in the next provision. Courts might read the preclusion more broadly than the literal reading mentioned here or might fashion a common-law preclusion rule that does not require a showing of detriment. Absent that kind of development, the change in the preclusion rule could have adverse effects on the beneficiary. The penalty, strict estoppel or strict preclusion, under UCP500 and 95UCC differs from the classic estoppel. The classic estoppel rule requires a beneficiary to show three elements. 1. conduct on the part of the issuer that leads the beneficiary to believe that nonconforming documents do conform; 2. reasonable reliance by the beneficiary; and 3. detriment from that reliance. But stict preclusion rule needs not detrimental reliance. This strict estoppel rule is quite strict, and some see it as a fitting pro-beneficiary rule to counterbalance the usually pro-issuer rule of strict compliance.

• 한국항행학회논문지
• /
• 제21권3호
• /
• pp.230-242
• /
• 2017

국회는 2017년 3월 30일 제조물책임법 일부개정법률안을 국회본회의에서 통과로 인해 제조물 소송비용의 부담이 대폭 증가할 것으로 예상된다. 정부법무공단은 2017년 3월 14일자로 수리온 헬기 4호기 추락사고에 대하여 군용항공기제작사인 한국항공우주산업(주)와 한화테크윈에게 하자담보책임과 채무불이행, 제조물책임법으로 손해배상 청구소송을 제기하였다. 미국은 1970년대 중반에 제조물책임보험이 적용되지 않는 군용항공기제작사의 책임한계에 대하여 학계와 법조계에서 많은 논란이 있었으며, 이러한 문제를 해결하기 위하여 도입된 법리가 정부계약자항변(GCD; government contractor defense)이라는 법 이론이며, GCD가 확립된 대표적인 사례는 Boyle v. United Technologies Corporation이다. 군용항공기 제작사가 높은 제조물책임보험을 들 수 없고, 방산원가에도 제조물책임보험료를 반영시키지 않는 현실에서 우리나라의 군용항공기제작사는 사고 시 손해배상으로 인한 위기에 직면하고 있는 것이 현실이다. 우리나라도 미국의 정부계약자 법리를 연구하여, '국가를 당사자로 하는 계약에 관한 법률'을 개정하는 방안을 찾아야 할 것이다.

• 시큐리티연구
• /
• 제21호
• /
• pp.177-199
• /
• 2009

이 연구에서는 민간경비의 정체성에 대한 기본논의를 바탕으로 그에 따른 다양한 권한영역과 관련내용을 살펴보고자 하였다. 주지하는 바와 같이 민간경비원들의 권한문제는 주로 공경비인 경찰과의 관계 속에서 논의되어 왔다. 이는 민간경비원들이 수행하는 직무가 경찰과 유사한 점이 많고, 실제로 법적으로도 경찰에서 이를 규제하고 있기 때문이다. 민간경비원의 권한 행사 영역은 공경비인 경찰 등과 비교해 볼 때, 몇 가지 차원에서 접근할 수 있다. 먼저, 민간경비원은 말 그대로 '민간인'에 불과하기 때문에 대부분의 민간경비원은 일반시민이 갖는 권한을 행사할 수 있을 뿐이다. 여기에는 정당방위, 긴급피난, 자구행위, 현행범체포 권한 등이 포함된다. 그러나 민간경비를 이용하는 사용주체의 일정한 점유권 내지 관리권 영역에서 접근한다면, 민간경비원의 권한은 다소 확대될 수 있다. 더욱이 특별법에 의해 전형적인 공무수탁사인의 형태로 권한을 위임하게 될 경우 민간경비원들의 권한은 보다 확대된다. 더 나아가 민영화 등에 의한 공경비의 권한 일체를 위임했을 경우에는 민간경비원의 권한은 공경비와 거의 동일한 성격을 갖게 될 것이다. 그러나 위임 또는 위탁된 권한의 정도는 상당히 유연하다는 점이다. 그리고 주의할 것은 민간경비원의 권한행사는 본질적으로 개인의 자유와 권리를 침해하지 않는 범위 내에서 이루어져야 한다는 점이다. 생각건대, 민간경비원의 권한 행사의 정당성과 그 허용가능성 문제는 법적 근거뿐만 아니라 최종적으로 사법적 판단을 전제로 한다고 볼 수 있다. 따라서 민간경비의 권한행사와 관련된 법원의 태도는 매우 중요한 의미를 갖는다고 본다. 끝으로 민간경비의 성장과 이에 따른 권한확대는 필연적으로 수많은 책임문제를 수반하게 된다고 보며, 따라서 향후 이에 대해 다양한 관점에서 연구가 진행되어야 한다고 본다.

• 한국언론정보학보
• /
• 제29권
• /
• pp.233-269
• /
• 2005

탐사보도 프로그램은 기본적으로 취재 대상의 비리·부정을 추적하고 고발·폭로하는 기능을 수행하기 때문에 인격권 침해가 가장 빈번하게 발생할 가능성이 높다. 따라서 탐사보도 프로그램은 기획 취재 보도 과정에서 무엇보다도 이러한 법적 분쟁의 가능성을 미리 검토하고 차단하는 작업이 필요하다. 이 연구는 방송3사의 대표적인 탐사보도프로그램 <추적60분>, , <그것이 알고싶다>를 상대로 한 총 35개의 법적 분쟁사례를 분석하였다. 연구결과 다음과 같은 결론을 얻었다. 첫째, 향후 탐사보도 프로그램은 공적 존재의 공적활동에 대한 탐사와 고발을 더욱 확대해 나가야만 본연의 역할에 충실하게 되고 법적 분쟁에서 패하지 않을 것이다. 둘째, 향후 탐사보도 프로그램은 취재과정에서 위법성을 배제해야 할 뿐만 아니라 최대한 취재대상에게 실질적인 반론의 기회를 부여하도록 노력해야 한다. 셋째, 탐사보도 프로그램으로 인한 법적 분쟁에서 법원은 최근 언론소송 일반에 적용되고 있는 공적존재 보도에 대한 언론의 '입증부담 완화' 법리를 '일관되고 폭넓게' 적용할 필요가 있다. 넷째, 탐사보도 프로그램 제작진에 대한 재교육의 기회가 실질적으로 확대되고 유용하게 전개될 필요가 있다.

• 한국콘텐츠학회논문지
• /
• 제20권1호
• /
• pp.460-469
• /
• 2020

최근 대법원은 인신사고로 사망한 미성년자의 일실수입을 산정함에 있어 그 동안 경험칙의 기초가 되었던 제반 사정들이 현저히 변하였기 때문에 육체노동자의 경험칙상 가동연한에 대한 기존 견해를 더 이상 유지하기 어렵다고 지적하며 그 가동연한을 만 65세로 연장하는 전원합의체 판결을 선고하였다. 이번 판결은 지금까지 피해자의 일실수입을 산정하면서 육체노동자의 경험칙상 가동연한에 관하여 하급심별로 다르게 선고함으로써 발생했던 사회적 혼란을 종식시키고, 고령사회 진입에 따른 새로운 경험칙을 적용하여 가동연한을 상향했다는 점에서 의미가 있다. 다만, 육체노동자의 경험칙상 가동연한을 특정 연령으로 단정하여 선언한 것과 미성년자인 피해자의 일실수입을 기존 대법원 견해에 따라 도시일용노임 수준을 적용하여 산정한 것은 다소 아쉬움이 있다. 이와 같이 본 연구는 고령사회에 진입한 한국에서 육체노동자의 경험칙상 가동연한과 관련한 판결의 쟁점을 분석하고 미비점을 보완함으로써 미성년자인 피해자에게 적절한 손해배상을 담보하는 한편 가동연한 상향과 정년연장 문제를 연동함에 따라 발생하는 세대 간의 갈등을 해소하기 위해서 사회적 논의에 필요한 기초자료를 제공하고자 한다.

• 항공우주정책ㆍ법학회지
• /
• 제1권
• /
• pp.87-123
• /
• 1989

The purpose of this thesis is to do a research on suppression of peacetime international terrorism and penal system of terrorists by political and economic means. International terrorism means wanton killing, hostage taking, hijacking, extortion or torture committed or threatened to be comitted against the innocent civilian in peacetime for political motives or purposes provided that international element is involved therein. This research is limited to international terrorism of political purposes in peacetime, especially, hijacking of civil aircraft. Hijacking of civil aircraft include most of international terrorism element in its criminal act and is considered to be typical of international terrorism in view of multinationality of its crews, passengers and transnational borders involved in aircraft hijacking. Civil air transportation of today is a indispensable part of international substructure, as it help connect continuously social cultural and economic network of world community by dealing with massive and swift transportation of passengers and all kinds of goods. Current frequent hijacking of civil aircraft downgrade the safety and trust of air travel by mass slaughter of passengers and massdestruction of goods and endanger indispensable substructure of world community. Considering these facts, aircraft hijacking of today poses the most serious threat and impact on world community. Therefore, among other thing, legal, political, diplomatic and economic sanctions should be imposed on aircraft hijacking. To pursue an effective research on this thesis aircraft hijacking by six Chineses on 5th May, 1983, from mainland China to Seoul, Korea, is chosen as main theme and the Republic of Korea's legal, political and diplomatic dealing and settlement of this hijacking incident along with six hijackers is reviewed to find out legal, political diplomatic means of suppression and solution of international terrorism. Research is focused on Chinese aircraft hijacking, Korea-China diplomatic negotiation, Korea's legal diplomatic handling and settlement of Tak Chang In, mastermind of aircraft hijacking and responses and position of three countries, Korea, China and Taiwan to this case is thoroughly analyzed through reviewing such materials as news reportings and comments of local and international mass media, Korea-China Memorandum, statements of governments of Korea, China and Taiwan, verdicts of courts of Korea, prosecution papers and oral argument by the defendants and lawyers and three antiaircraft hijacking conventions of Hague, Tokyo and Montreal and all the other instruments of international treaties necessary for the research. By using above-mentioned first-hand meterials as yardsticks, legal and political character of Chinese aircraft hijacking is analyzed and reviewed and close cooperation among sovereign states based on spirit of solidarity and strict observance of international treaties such as Hague, Tokyo and Montreal Conventions is suggested as a solution and suppressive means of international terrorism. The most important and indispensable factor in combating terrorism is, not to speak, the decisive and constant resolution and all-out effort of every country and close cooperation among sovereign states based on "international law of cooperation."

• 통상정보연구
• /
• 제14권4호
• /
• pp.409-431
• /
• 2012

본 연구는 미국과의 FTA에서 이의 비준과 관련하여 찬반 양쪽으로 첨예한 의견이 대립되는 ISDS에 관한 연구를 통하여 우리나라가 취할 수 있는 입장에 대하여 분석하였다. 이를 위하여 특별히 ICSID에 서명은 하였으나 인준을 하지 않은 국가 중, 캐나다와 호주의 사례를 중심으로 분석하였다. NAFTA에 의하여 미국과 멕시코를 포함하는 자유무역협정을 체결하고 있음에도 ICSID 협정을 인준하지 않고 있으며, 호주 또한 ICSID 협정을 거부하고 있다. 이러한 두 국가가 ICSID를 거부하고 있는 사유를 우리나라 역시 ICSID를 거부하여야 하는 문제점으로 제시하고 있는 실정임으로 양국의 입장을 분석하고 우리나라의 실정에 적용해 봄은 학술적으로 의미가 있다고 할 수 있을 것이다. 이에 본 연구는 캐나다와 호주의 ICSID 비인준 입장을 분석하고 이와 ICSID를 바탕으로 한미 FTA에서의 ISDS 문제를 논의하며, 국가간 분쟁과 ISDS의 의미를 재고하여 결론을 제시하도록 한다.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제25권4호
• /
• pp.3-23
• /
• 2015

The Chevron saga including Chevron/TexPet v. Ecuador, PCA Case No. 34877(hereinafter referred to as "Chevron I") and Chevron/TexPet v. Ecuador, PCA Case No. 2009-23(hereinafter referred to as "Chevron II") started out of domestic litigations between TexPet and Ecuador in the early 1990s. In Chevron I, the Tribunal decided that Article 2(7) of the U.S.-Ecuador BIT on effective means of provision was breached because of undue delays in the seven legal proceedings TexPet had brought against Ecuador in respect to contractual obligations. In Chevron II, it was contended that through the actions and inactions of the judiciary and the executive, Ecuador breached her several obligations under the BIT. Ecuador objected to the jurisdiction of the Tribunal because TexPet's investment was terminated in 1992, and because Chevron is not a party to the 1995 Settlement Agreement and 1998 Final Release. In its Interim Award on Jurisdiction and Admissibility, the Tribunal applied a prima facie standard to the facts alleged by the Claimants but denied by the Respondent, and decided that questions in respect of the Respondent's jurisdictional objections should be joined to the merits under Article 21(4) of the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules. In the merits phase of Chevron II, the Tribunal divided the merits of the Parties' dispute into two parts, entitled "Track 1" and "Track 2". In its Partial Award on Track 1, the Tribunal decided that Chevron is a "Releasee" under the 1995 Settlement Agreement. In a decision on "Track 1B", the Tribunal decided that the Lago Agrio complaint cannot be read as pleading "exclusively" or "only" diffuse claims, and that, to this extent, the Claimants' reliance on the 1995 Settlement Agreement as a complete bar to the Lago Agrio complaint must fail, as a matter of Ecuadorian law. The Tribunal maintained the position that the Parties' disputes on both merit and jurisdiction should be reserved for Track 2. It remains to be seen how the Tribunal addresses the Claimants' allegations of multiple denials of justice under international law against the judgments of the Respondent's Courts, together with the Respondent's jurisdictional objections in Track 2 of the arbitration.