All legal systems set out the principle of full compensation of damages, which aims to fulfil the plaintiff's expectations by putting him into as good a position as he would have been in if the contract had been performed. On the other hand, they place some limitations on the full recoverability of damages for breach of contract. In Civil Law systems, 'fault' is a necessary requirement for liability for damages, and the extent of recoverable damages is directly related to the degree of the dependent's fault. This principle, however, is not adopted by Common Law systems, in which the dependent would be liable in damages for breach of contract even though the breach was not due to his fault. The CISG is in a similar position to the latter systems. In Common Law systems as well as CISG, the extent of liability of the party in breach for damages depends on whether he foresaw or could have foreseen the damages at the time of contracting. Unlike the position in Civil Law systems, foreseeability seems to be the most effective principle to decide the extent. The tests for remoteness centre on reasonable foreseeability or contemplation of the loss. The party in breach is liable even for loss indirectly caused to the other party provided that this loss was foreseeable or contemplated by the party in breach. However, this manner to decide remoteness may lead to unreasonable results in some cases. If the party in breach were the inveterate pessimist who foresaw all sorts of possible damages, he could foresee damages too remote from the breach of duty. If this fact were revealed in the course of trial, he should be liable for such indirect damages. This is really undesirable result. Therefore, as to the remoteness test, the criterion of whether the loss is foreseen or contemplated must not be adopted. Foreseeability by reasonable person must be the only available criterion.

Although the parties did not expressly incorporate Incoterms into their contracts, Incoterms which have reflected a generally authorized principles and custom might be a part of sale contract. As indication of Introduction in Incoterms 2000, although the D-terms are different in nature from the C-terms, since the seller according to the D-terms is responsible for the arrival of the goods at the agreed place or point of destination at the border or within the country of import. Therefore, according to importance of Incoterms, although Incoterms 2000 have been revised in line with the most current commercial practice, because mentioned problems in this paper can be raised, they must be revised through Introduction, Rules or Guide Book of Incoterms.

In recent years electronic fund transfers covered by the Electronic Fund Transfer Act 1978 for consumer protection and the Article 4A of Uniform Commercial Code(U.C.C.) 1989 for wholesale electronic payments in United States. Electronic fund transfers carried out by use of a wire transfer network, automated clearing house, or other communication system of a clearing house or other association of banks such as direct deposit, Fedwire, automated teller machine, point-of-sale, and credit card transactions have been increasingly common in consumer transactions and wholesale transactions. Especially, the Article 4A of U.C.C. governs the rights and obligations associated with transactions such as an issue and acceptance of payment order, execution of sender's payment order by receiving bank, and payment. These legal frameworks in connection with electronic fund transfers in United States can play a leading role in establishing model not only within the United States, but also as a basis for developments of electronic commerce law in Korea including other countries.

Throughout the history of UCP, the longest lasting operational rules have been those derived from internationally acceptable best practices. I would propose that the effort to establish best practices be undertaken using four tools the SBPED, ISP98, the Opinions of the Banking Commission, and decisional law by respected courts in jurisdictions that influence letter of credit case law in the various regions. The SBPED and the ISP98 should be used; not only as a model for the drafting of future operational rules, but also as a questionnaire on best practices directed to all the national committees. The Opinions of the Banking Commission and the leading cases should be used to verify the soundness and enforceability of proposed rules. For this reason, I would suggest that the revision wait until the dust settles sometime in 2003 (10 years after the enactment of UCP 500) and we know if it is a good idea to attempt the drafting of new operational rules and whether to merge with closely related sets of rules. To do otherwise may entail a revision of the revision while it is still going on, or worse, discarding it before the ink dries or the electronic message reaches its intended recipient.

The purpose of this paper is to consider how to decide the cause of loss or damage to the transport goods when maritime accident occurs. In marine insurance, the underwriter is liable for any loss or damage proximately caused by a risk insured(MIA Art.55). So it is very important to determine the proximate cause of loss or damage to ascertain whether it is to be recoverable under the policy. But there is no definite conception or rule what is the proximate cause. It was left to the tribunal as a question of fact. In this paper, I will suggest the general rules to determine the proximate cause of loss or damage of the transport goods in marine insurance. First, in MIA 1906, there is the rule of proximate causation and it has been established the effective causation by cases since 1918. Second, in Institute Cargo Clauses(B) & (C), there are rules of considerably relaxed standards to determine the causation of loss of or damage using the "attributable to" and "caused by" basis. Third, it is noted, under the complex causation situation, there are difference basises to decide the liability of underwriters between the case of successive occurrence of single risk and the case of concurrent occurrence of several risks. Forth, in practice, it couldn't be ascertained the underwrier's liability by a definite rule and it should be fully considered the circumstances and conditions of the loss.

The study on the duration of risk in the marine insurance has been paid a great attention because the marine insurance has to provide several indemnity conditions including the one to be compensated the loss when the accident happens. The research examines as to how the duration of risk has been extended from the beginning period to now. The results show the duration of risk has been continually extended in terms of place and time by a dramatic change of environment related to the marine insurance including marine transportation, a variety of goods, development of marine communication, many different trading conditions, etc, and requirement of the assured. The validity of the duration of risk is effected when the ship leaves at the port and is terminated when the ship arrives at the final destination. It in the Lloyd's age has been started when the products was charged to the ship and terminated when the one was safely discharged to the destination. Recently, the duration of risk in England Marine Insurance attaches from the time the goods leave the warehouse or place of storage at the placed named for the commencement of the transit, continues during the ordinary course of transit and terminates on delivery to the consignees or other final warehouse or place of storage at the destination named. Further research on the extension of the duration of risk must be conducted according to the being large scale of the ship and goods.

As a domain name can be registered simply by filing an application for registration, disputes over the domain name between the holder of domain name and the holder of trademark increased. Since the holder of trademark who was late for registering domain name is willing to pay for the return of domain name, cybersquatters increased. Cybersqatters are not genuine users of the Internet. This article is to compare the construction of law by American Courts and by Korean Courts and to assert the creation of the law similar to the law of US as to anti-cybersqatting. American Courts applied the Trademark Act and the Anti-Dilution Act to resolve the disputes over domain name. To apply the Trademark Act, the Court required the plaintiffs to prove that the goods or the services expressed by the domain name should be identical or similar to the goods or the services represented by the trademark. However, there were many cases where the holder of domain name used it for the goods or the services irrelevant to those of the holder of trademark. Also, the Anti-Dilution Act could not successfully protect the holder of trademark from cybersquatters because it required that the trademark should be famous or distinctive. As a result, the US promulgated a new law which is designed to prohibit cybersquatters from being free of sanction by the existing laws. Korea Courts applied the Trademark Act and the Unfair Competition Prohibition Act to the cases disputing domain name. Likewise in the US, Korean Courts must cope with the issue of identity of the goods or the services, and the famousness or distinctiveness of trademark. The Courts hesitate to give a winning judgement to the holder of trademark simply because the domain name of alleged violator confused the trademark. Some scholars advocate the broadening of construction of the Unfair Competition Prohibition Act to illegalize cybersquatting but it is beyond the meaning of the law. Accordingly, it is a time to make a law similar to the Anti-Cybersquatting Act of the US. The law must be a fair and reasonable compromise to resolve the collision between system of registration of domain name and the system of registration of trademark. Some commentators advocate that the registration of domain name should be examined just as the one of trademark and to facilitate it, the Patent and Trademark Office should have jurisdiction of registration of domain name. But it abandons the distinction of domain name and trademark and results in obstructing e-commerce. By adopting the Anti-Cybersqatting Act, we can prohibit it. In other cases, we get a reasonable adjustment between the holder of domain name and the holder of trademark through the Trademark Act and the Unfair Competition Prohibition Act.

This article discusses and analyses several issues regarding to the Electronic Signature and the Electronic Certification. The objects of the analyse are the each paragraphs of the Korean Electronic Signature Act of 1999 and that of the Korean Electronic Transaction Basic Act of 1999 in comparing to the paragraphs of the Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act' (E-Sign) of 2000, U.S.A. and that of the Draft UNCITRAL Model Law on Electronic Signature of 2000. The main issues discussed herein are the scope of the electronic signature, the definition of the electronic signature, permission of services to the non-authorized certification service providers, the effect of the electronic signature, the liability of the concerning parties of the electronic signature including liability of the certification service providers, that of the subscribers and that of the relying parties. This paper also discusses the problems of the possibility of issuing the electronic negotiable commercial papers, the validity of the electronic signatures done by electronic agents, the authority certificate, mutual certification of the foreign certification service providers, the permission of the electronic notary service, the problems of the consumer protection and the possibility of issuing electronic insurance policy, etc. The writer concludes by suggesting some measures that will activate the use of electronic signatures under the korean circumstances.

There are many kinds of risk in int'l trade by internet network, such as credit risk, mercantile risk, contingency risk, exchange risk, physical risk and the risk on internet network. Especially, risk management against credit risk and the risk on internet network are very important. The former is conventional but more important these days. The latter is a new risk that has been incurred owing to the int'l trade by internet network. The system of risk management against the former are firstly, to surely research credit of counterpart by internet, secondly, to certify the entity by password or fingerprint, thirdly, to pay the price under a letter of credit, fourthly, to use the system of int'l trade such as bolero, trade card, finally, to use the authority of electronic trade services. The system of risk management against the latter are firstly, to install the firewall on the own computer network, secondly, to entrust the management own computer network to the network security services firm, thirdly, to electronically communicate with counterpart through the certification authority, finally, to insure against the own network risk with the security insurance company.