• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제69권
• /
• pp.1-22
• /
• 2016

This study primarily concerns the cases recently held as to the formation of contract under the CISG. In order to put forward the most plausible direction to interpret the rules on the formation of contract under the CISG, it particularly deals with the followings. First, it scrutinizes the rules on the formation of contract, focusing on the requirements of offer and acceptance, the time when such offer and acceptance become effective, the issues on the battle of forms. Second, it introduces two recent interesting cases regarding the formation of contract and provides legal and practical advice to the contracting parties when they intend to conclude a contract under the CISG as a governing law. The followings are practical points that the parties should consider when they enter into contract. First, as any signature or intial made in the offer could be regarded as an acceptance, the parties are required to clarify the meaning of such signature or initials before the conclusion of contract. Second, it is not necessarily required one's signature for an offer to become effective but his name. Third, standard terms cannot be incorporated into the contract simply by reference to web-page or other documents. In order for such terms to be incorporated, it may be necessary to enclose them in the offer or to bring the other party's attention to them. Forth, one should remember that an acceptance by act become effective not when such act is complete, but when it is performed.

• 한국콘텐츠학회논문지
• /
• 제15권5호
• /
• pp.168-178
• /
• 2015

규제의 적용이나 조세의 부과와 같은 강제성을 수반하는 행위가 아닌 국가와의 대등한 관계에서 이루어지는 계약에서 왜 이런 특별한 규칙이 필요한 것일까? 규칙은 사인 간의 계약을 다루는 규칙에 비해 어떤 차이가 있으며 그 차이는 무엇 때문에 발생하는 것일까? 국가와의 계약은 사인 간의 계약과는 달리 대등한 당사자 사이의 효력을 갖는 것이라 하더라도, 계약당사자와 계약의 효력부담자가 다른 구조적 성격으로 인해 민간경제 주체끼리의 계약과는 다른 다양한 특이성이 존재한다. 즉 국가와의 계약에서는 대리인인 정부의 기회주의적 행위를 통제하기 위한 규칙들이 매우 구체적으로 사전적으로 존재하고 있는 것이다. 이를 통해, 국가와의 관계는 그것이 설령 강행성의 영역이 아닌 사적계약의 영역이라 하더라도 차이가 날 수밖에 없다는 사실을 확인 할 수 있다. 대리인 정부는 위임자인 국가의 이해와 다른 판단과 결정을 내리는 기회주의적 행위를 보일 가능성이 늘 존재하기에 이에 대한 사전통제 장치가 필요하기 때문이다.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제25권
• /
• pp.41-71
• /
• 2005

"UNIDROIT Principles 2004" focused on an enlargement rather than a revision. An additional Section or Chapter so to speak, which are about, the Authority of a Agents, Third Party Rights, Set-off, Assignment of Rights, Transfer of Obligations and Assignment of Contracts, and Limitation Periods have been added, while the only change of substance made to the 1994 Edition, apart from two paragraphs in the Preamble, and three new provisions in Chapter 1 and 2 which are necessary to adapt the Principles to the needs of electronic contracting. The Principles which have the nature of the restatement of international uniform laws (for example CISG) are continuous exercise. Therefore we should note whether in the future our concerns would be on a additional topics on a improvement of the current text by monitoring the reception of the "UNIDROIT Principles 2004" in practice, and the application by contracting parties. The purposes of the Principles may be classified into three ; the rules of law governing the contract, means of interpreting and supplementing international uniform law or domestic law, or models for national and international legislator. Among them, the function of governing law may be applied by the express choice by the parties or by the implied choice like "general principles of law" or "les mercatoria", and it may be applied in the absence of any choice of law by the parties. Among there importance functions, this writer would like to emphasize the function to supplementing international uniform law instruments. The reason is that the CISG which has been established as an international uniform sales act and to which our country would be a contracting State from March, 2005, needs a lot of gap-filling. For this purpose it is advisable the parties to insert following provisions in their contract. "This contract shall be governed by the CISG, supplemented when necessary by the UNIDROIT Principles 2004" Thus success in practice of the UNIDROIT Principles over the last then years has surpassed the most optimistic expectations. It is hoped that the 2004 Edition of the UNIDROIT Principles will be just as favorably received by legislators, business persons, lawyers, arbitrators and judges and become even better known and more widely used throughout the World.

• 한국무역상무학회:학술대회논문집
• /
• 한국무역상무학회 2004년도 제32회 산학협동 세미나
• /
• pp.9-40
• /
• 2004

"UNIDROIT Principles 2004" focused on an enlargement rather than a revision. An additional Section or Chapter so to speak, which are about, the Authority of a Agents, Third Party Rights, Set-off, Assignment of Rights, Transfer of Obligations and Assignment of Contracts, and Limitation Periods have been added, while the only change of substance made to the 1994 Edition, apart from two paragraphs in the Preamble, and three new provisions in Chapter 1 and 2 which are necessary to adapt the Principles to the needs of electronic contracting. The Principles which have the nature of the restatement of international uniform laws (for example CISG) are continuous exercise. Therefore we should note whether in the future our concerns would be on a additional topics on a improvement of the current text by monitoring the reception of the "UNIDROIT Principles 2004" in practice, and the application by contracting parties. The purposes of the Principles may be classified into three ; the rules of law governing the contract, means of interpreting and supplementing international uniform law or domestic law, or models for national and international legislator. Among them, the function of governing law may be applied by the express choice by the parties or by the implied choice like "general principles of law" or "les mercatoria", and it may be applied in the absence of any choice of law by the parties. Among there importance functions, this writer would like to emphasize the function to supplementing international uniform law instruments. The reason is that the CISG which has been established as an international uniform sales act and to which our country would be a contracting State from March, 2005, needs a lot of gap-filling. For this purpose it is advisable the parties to insert following provisions in their contract. "This contract shall be governed by the CISG, supplemented when necessary by the UNIDROIT Principles 2004" Thus success in practice of the UNIDROIT Principles over the last then years has surpassed the most optimistic expectations. It is hoped that the 2004 Edition of the UNIDROIT Principles will be just as favorably received by legislators, business persons, lawyers, arbitrators and judges and become even better known and more widely used throughout the World.

• 항공우주정책ㆍ법학회지
• /
• 제5권
• /
• 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.

• 한국건설관리학회논문집
• /
• 제15권2호
• /
• pp.33-43
• /
• 2014

정부, 지방자치단체 및 기타 공공기관 등이 필요로 하는 각종 시설공사, 물품, 용역 등의 조달은 국가예산을 사용하여 집행되고 있다. 우리나라에서는 국가의 예산을 효율적으로 집행하기 위하여 "국가를 당사자로 하는 계약에 관한 법률" 시행령 제9조 제1항 제2조에서 예정가격의 결정기준 중 원가계산에 의한 가격에 관하여 규정하고 있고, 이를 근거로 사업목적에 따라 소관부서별로 각기 원가계산에 의한 예정가격의 결정을 위한 대가기준을 가지고 있다. 본 연구는 기술용역의 대가기준에 관한 고찰을 통하여 투명성을 확보할 수 있는 용역비 산출방법을 도출하여 공공기관이 보다 합리적이고 효율적인 예산집행을 할 수 있도록 현실적인 개선방안을 제시하는데 그 목적이 있다.

• 한국건설관리학회:학술대회논문집
• /
• 한국건설관리학회 2007년도 정기학술발표대회 논문집
• /
• pp.41-47
• /
• 2007

최적 발주방식을 선정하는 것은 해당 사업의 성공적 수행을 위한 것이며, 이는 곧 사업의 목표를 달성시키는 것이다. 또한 사업특성에 적합한 발주방식의 선정과 사업의 성과는 밀접한 연관성을 갖는다. 이러한 취지에서 재정경제부는 2007년 10월 국가계약법시행령 개정을 통해 "기술제안입찰", "설계공모${\cdot}$기술제안입찰"이라는 발주제도를 새로이 도입하였다. 다양해진 발주제도를 효율적으로 운영할 수 있도록 하기 위해 본 연구는 공공건설사업의 특성을 정량적, 정성적으로 평가하여 해당 사업에 가장 적합한 발주방식을 선정할 수 있도록 하는 발주방식 선정모델을 제시하였다. 그리고 발주방식 성과평가 모델을 함께 제시하여 발주방식 선정 및 운영의 결과를 후속 사업의 피드백 할 수 있도록 하였다. 이와 같은 표준적인 모델은 공공발주기관의 의사결정을 지원하는 도구로 활용될 수 있을 것이다.

• 항공우주정책ㆍ법학회지
• /
• 제21권1호
• /
• pp.169-189
• /
• 2006

2007년 고흥 우주센타에서 우리가 만든 KSLV(Korea Small Launching Vehicle)이 발사될 예정이며, 우리나라의 우주개발을 체계적으로 진흥하고 우주물체를 효율적으로 이용관리하기 위하여'우주개발진흥법'이 제정되었고 효력을 발휘하고 있다. '우주개발진흥법'제3조 (1)항에서"정부는 다른 국가 및 국제기구와 대한민국이 맺은 우주 관련 조약을 지키며 우주공간의 평화적 이용을 도모한다."라고 규정하고 있는바, 대표적으로 우주조약(1967)과 책임협약(1972)등이 그 대표적인 국제협약들이다. 우주물체로 야기된 손해에 대한 책임협약 제2조에서 발사국은 자국의 우주물체에 대하여"지상(on the surface of the earth) 또는 비행중인 항공기(aircraft in flight)에서 발생된 손해에 대하여 절대적(absolutely liable)으로 배상할 책임이 있다고 규정하고 있다. 우주개발진흥법 제14조 (우주사고에 따른 손해배상책임)에는"우주물체를 발사한 자는 그 우주물체로 인한 우주사고에 따른 손해배상책임을 부담하여야 한다."는 규정은 발사허가의 문제를 넘어, 우주발사자에게 명백하게 책임을 부담하고 있는 것이다. 또한 우주책임협약(1972) 제2조에는 발사국(A launching State)이 배상책임의 주체가 되어 있다. 따라서, 현재 다른 나라의 사례에서 보면, 우주발사자는 제3자 피해 등에 대한 책임보험까지만 배상을 하고 그 보다 많은 배상액이 요구될 때에는 국가가 손해배상을 부담하는 체재로 수행하고 있다. 여기서, 우주발사자에게 제조물책임법을 적용시킬 수 있느냐의 문제가 제기된다. 우리나라는 2002년 7월 1일부터 시행하고 있다. KSLV개발에 있어서 KARl와 러시아제작사간 계약은 공동개발인지 기술이전개발 인지에 대한 명확한 이해가 부족하다. 특히, 러시아 회사들에 대한 책임면책에 대한 규정들이 없는 것으로 알고 있는데, 우주개발의 통념상 상호면책을 한다는 인식만으로 러시아 회사들의 제작 및 개발책임들을 면책할 수 있는 방안은 없다고 판단된다. 따라서, 명백한 책임면책 조항이 없다면, 러시아 회사들에 대하여, 한국의 제조물책임법이 적용될 수 있다고 판단된다. 가장 중요한 법적논점은 KARl와 주요부품업체간에 제조물책임법을 적용할 수 있는가에 대한 문제이다. KARl는 모 주요부품업체간의 물품구매계약특수조건에 대한 합의서 제17조에 제조물책임법에 대한 규정을 하고 있다. 참고로, Appalachian Insurance co. v. McDonnell Douglas 사례를 검토할 필요가 있는데, 본 사건은 Western Union Telegraph사 소유의 원거리 전기통신위성이 본 궤도 진입에 실패한 사례이다. Western Union의 보험회사는 완전한 손실로 간주하여 그 위성에 대해 Western Union 사에 1억 5백만 달러의 보험금을 지급하였다. 5개의 보험회사- Appalachian 보험 회사, Commonwealth 보험회사, Industrial Indemnity, Mutual Marine Office, Northbrook Excess & Surplus 보험회사 - 는 McDonnell Douglas와 Morton Thiokol 그리고 Hitco사를 상대로 과실과 제품에 대한 엄격한 책임을 물어 고소를 했다. Appalachian Insurance co. v. McDonnell Douglas사례를 참고로, KARl는 주요 제작업체의 제조물책임을 면책시켜주는 계약을 맺어야 한다. 주요제작업체가 제조물 책임을 면하기 위하여, 자비로 보험을 들게 되면 곧 KSLV 제작비만 증가하게 되기 때문이다. 따라서, Government Contractor Defense(정부계약자 항변)'의 법적개념을 적용시킬 수 있는지 여부에 대한 연구가 필요하다.

• 한국건설관리학회논문집
• /
• 제9권2호
• /
• pp.136-145
• /
• 2008

공공건설사업의 발주방식을 다양화하려는 차원에서 재정경제부는 2007년 10월 $\ulcorner$국가계약법시행령$\lrcorner$ 개정을 통해 기술제안형 입찰인 '기술제안입찰', '설계공모 기술제안입찰'을 새로이 도입하였다. 이러한 입찰은 사업의 특성 및 목적에 맞게 입찰자들에게 기술제안서를 요구한 후 이를 평가하여 낙찰자를 선정하는 방식이다. 본 연구는 국내에 처음 적용되는 기술제안형 입찰제도의 효과적인 운영을 위한 가이드라인을 제공하는 것을 목적으로 하고 있다. 이를 위해 국내외 관련 문헌 및 사례를 분석하여 운영모델의 틀을 구축하였으며, 이후 수차례의 전문가 자문을 통해 표준적인 운영 프로세스, 기술제안서 작성기준, 기술제안서 평가기준, 그리고 낙찰자 결정방법을 개발하였다. 발주자의 중요한 의사결정 요소인 낙찰자 결정방법은 가상 사례를 이용한 시뮬레이션을 수행하여 '기준적합최저가', '가중치', '가격조정입찰', '기술조정점수'의 4가지 낙찰방식이 갖는 정량적 인 특성과 적용기준을 시사점으로 도출하여 제시하였다.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제20권1호
• /
• pp.41-65
• /
• 2010

It is a matter for debate that which types of dispute may be resolved by arbitration. This problem is concerning the arbitrability of the subject-matter of a dispute. National laws establish the domain of arbitration. Each state decides which matters may or may not be resolved by arbitration in accordance with its own political, social and economic policy. In response to complexity and diversity of a social phenomenon, the dispute also is various, therefore can not be settled efficiently by means of court adjudication to which applies a law strictly. To overcome such problems we are going to seek to make use of arbitration. According to Korean Arbitration Act Art. 3 (1), any dispute in private laws would be the object of arbitral proceedings. For the promotion of fair and free competition, it is increasingly wide-ranging antitrust legislation across the world. It is matter for debate what can an arbitral tribunal do when confronted with an allegation that the contract under which the arbitration is brought is itself an illegal restraint of trade or in some other way a breach of antitrust law. The underlying question is how to accommodate the conflicting congressional policies favoring resolution of private controversies by arbitration and encouraging private suits to protect the public interests served by the antitrust laws. It is necessary to inquire into the arbitrability of antitrust issues on case-by-case basis, because the types of them are quite diverse. If antitrust issues are the dispute in private laws and the contracting parties agreed to submit to arbitration disputes which have arisen or which may arise between them in the antitrust issues, the antitrust disputes are arbitrable. Not only international antitrust disputes but also domestic antitrust disputes are capable of being resolved by arbitration. When the public interests in the enforcement of antitrust legislation are asserted, it is possible to justify the annulment or the refusal of the recognition or the enforcement of an arbitral award that ignores public policy as a matter of it.