• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.42
• /
• pp.133-160
• /
• 2009

In International trade the buyer and seller are normally separated from on another not only by distance but also by differences in language and culture. It is rarely possible for the performance of obligations to be simultaneous and the performance of contracts therefore calls for trust in a situation in which the parties are unlikely to feel able to trust each other unless they have a longstanding and successful relationship. Thus the seller under an international contract of sale will not wish to surrender documents of title to goods to the buyer until he has at least an assurance of payment, and no buyer will wish to pay for goods until he has received them. A gap of distrust thus exists which is often bridged by the undertaking of an intermediary known and trusted by both parties who will undertake on his own liability to pay the seller the contract price in return for the documents of title and then pass the documents to the buyer in return for the reimbursement. This is a common explanation of the theory behind the documentary letter of credit in which the undertaking of a bank of international repute serves as a "guarantee" to each party that the other will perform his obligations. The independence principle, also referred to as the "autonomy principle", is at the core of letter of credit or bank guarantee law. This principle provides that the letter of credit or bank guarantee is independent of the underlying contractual commitment - that is, the transaction that the credit is intented to secure - between the applicant and the beneficiary ; the credit is also independent of the relationship between the bank and its customer, the applicant. The most important exception to the independence principle is the doctrine of fraud in the transaction. A strict interpretation of the rule that the guarantee is independent of the underlying transaction would lead to the conclusion that neither fraud nor manifest abuse of rights by the beneficiary would constitute an objection to payment. There is one major problem related to "Independent guarantees", namely abusive or unfair callings. The beneficiary may make an unfair calling under the guarantee. The countermeasure of beneficiary's unfair calling divided three cases. First, advance countermeasure namely by contract. In other words, when the formation of the contract, the parties must insert the Force Majeure Clause, Arbitration Clause to Contract, and clear statement to the condition for demand calling. Second, post countermeasure namely by court. Many countries, including the United States, authorize the courts to grant an order enjoining the issuer from paying or enjoining the beneficiary from receiving payment under the guaranty letter. Third, Export Insurance. For example, the Export Credit Guarantees Department is prepared, subject to certain conditions, to cover the risk of unfair calling. Of course, KEIC in Korea is cover the risk of the all things for guarantees. On international projects, contractor performance is usually guaranteed by either a standby letters of credit or Independent guarantee. These instruments will be care the parties.

• Journal of the Daesoon Academy of Sciences
• /
• v.43
• /
• pp.67-102
• /
• 2022

The purpose of this study is to analyze the human rights found in the North Korean Constitution and their core problem by focusing on elements of human rights suggested by Daesoon Jinrihoe's doctrine of Haewon-sangsaeng (解冤相生 the Resolution of Grievances for Mutual Beneficence). Haewon-sangsaeng is seemingly the only natural law that could resolve human resentment lingering from the Mutual Contention of the Former World while leading humans work for the betterment of one another. Haewon-sangsaeng, as a natural law, includes the right to life, the right to autonomous decision-making, and duty to act according to human dignity (physical freedom, the freedom of conscience, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of press, etc.), the right to equal treatment in one's social environment, and the right to ensure the highest level of health through treatment. The North Korean Constitution does not have a character as an institutional device to guarantee natural human rights, the fundamental principle of the Constitution, and stipulates the right of revolutionary warriors to defend dictators and dictatorships. The right to life is specified so that an individual's life belongs to the life of the group according to their socio-political theory of life. Rights to freedom are stipulated to prioritize group interests over individual interests in accordance with the principle of collectivism. The right to equality and the right to health justify discrimination through class discrimination. The right to life provided to North Koreans is not guaranteed due to the death penalty system found within the North Korean Criminal Code and the Criminal Code Supplementary Provisions. The North Korean regime deprives North Koreans of their right to die with dignity through public executions. The North Korean regime places due process under the direction of the Korea Worker's Party, recognizes religion as superstition or opium, and the Korea Worker's Party acknowledge the freedoms of bodily autonomy, religion, media, or press. North Koreans are classified according to their status, and their rights to equality are not guaranteed because they are forced to live a pre-modern lifestyle according to the patriarchal order. In addition, health rights are not guaranteed due biased availability selection and accessibility in the medical field as well as the frequent shortages of free treatments.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.33 no.2
• /
• pp.267-290
• /
• 2018

This paper reviews and criticizes the EU Case of C-452/13, Germanwings GmbH v. Ronny Henning. Under this case, Ronny Henning later sued Lufthansa's budget carrier Germanwings after it refused to pay him 250 euros compensation for a delay he said totalled more than three hours. Germanwings, however, maintained his flight had arrived only two hours and 58 minutes behind schedule. In those circumstances, the following question to the European Court of Justice (ECJ) for a preliminary ruling: What time is relevant for the term time of arrival used in Articles 2, 5 and 7 of Regulation [No 261/2004]: (a) the time that the aircraft lands on the runway (touchdown); (b) the time that the aircraft reaches its parking position and the parking brakes are engaged or the chocks have been applied (in-block time); (c) the time that the aircraft door is opened; (d) a time defined by the parties in the context of party autonomy? ECJ says that the situation of passengers on a flight does not change substantially when their aircraft touches down on the runway at the destination airport, when that aircraft reaches its parking position and the parking brakes are engaged or when the chocks are applied, as the passengers continue to be subject, in the enclosed space in which they are sitting, to various constraints. Therefore, it is only when the passengers are permitted to leave the aircraft and the order is given to that effect to open the doors of the aircraft that the passengers may in principle resume their normal activities without being subject to those constraints. ECJ rules that it is apparent that Articles 2, 5 and 7 of Regulation No 261/2004 must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of 'arrival time', which is used to determine the length of the delay to which passengers on a flight have been subject, corresponds to the time at which at least one of the doors of the aircraft is opened, the assumption being that, at that moment, the passengers are permitted to leave the aircraft.