• International Commerce and Information Review
• /
• v.1 no.2
• /
• pp.273-294
• /
• 1999

인터넷은 단순히 통신수단의 변화에 그치지 않고 문화 사회 정치의 각 방면에서 커다란 변혁을 불러일으키고 있으며, 물품매매계약이 전자적으로 이루어지는 경우 전자상거래계약의 성립시기, 방식 및 전자문서의 효력, 준거법(applicable law, governing law), 재판관할(jurisdiction)등에 관하여 복잡 다양한 문제점들을 야기하게 된다. 전자상거래 계약상에서 청약의 기준에 관해서는 매도인의 행위를 청약으로 보는 것이 다수설이다. 따라서 매수인이 선돼한 상품에 대하여 구입의사를 표시, 즉 승낙하면 바로 전자상거래 계약이 성립한다고 할 수 있다. 그리고 인터넷을 이용한 전자상거래의 경우에는 국경을 초월하여 세계의 모든 소비자들을 그 대상으로 함으로써 준거법의 문제와 재판관할권의 문제가 상당히 중요한 문제로 부각되고 있는 바, 준거법의 결정은 일반적으로 당사자의 자유로운 의사에 따라 결정된다. 재판관할권에 대해서는 재판관할에 대한 합의가 있는 경우에 우려 나라는 이를 유효한 것으로 인정하고 있으나, 일반 소비자들을 대상으로 하고 있는 전자상거래의 특성을 고려할 때 이는 다소 무리가 따른다고 생각된다. 또한 재판관할에 대한 합의가 없는 경우에는 피고의 주소지국이 재판관할권을 부여받는바, 격지자간의 소액거래에서는 그 실익을 기대할 수 없는 것이 현실이다.

• International Commerce and Information Review
• /
• v.2 no.2
• /
• pp.1-18
• /
• 2000

최근 인터넷 등의 네트워크의 발달과 확산 보급은 가상공간(Cyber Space)이라는 특수한 공간을 창출하면서 이를 기반으로 한 전자상거래는 국내와 국외를 막론하고 급격히 증가하고 있으며, 이에 따른 분쟁의 발생가능성도 확대되고 있다. 이와 관련된 여러 가지 법적 쟁점 가운데 분쟁해결의 절차적 문제로서 재판관할을 어떻게 결정할 것인가가 문제된다. 이와 관련 기존의 국제상거래의 국제재판관할의 법리가 인터넷을 통한 전자상거래와 관련된 경우 어떻게 적용되는지에 대한 기본적 의문이 발생한다. 본고에서는 국제상거래의 국제 재판관할에 관한 기왕의 논의를 간략히 검토하고 특히 전자상거래를 중심으로 하여 인터넷이 관련되는 경우 어떻게 적용가능한지를 검토하고자 한다.

• Journal of the Korea Institute of Information and Communication Engineering
• /
• v.14 no.7
• /
• pp.1729-1736
• /
• 2010

Government ships, the ships owned by a state and operated for non-commercial purposes (hereinafter, government ships) are entitled to sovereign immunity. In accordance with sovereign immunity under traditional international law, states enjoy immunity from the jurisdiction of courts of another state. Sovereign immunity is the general principle accomplished through judicial cases and international treaties since the 19th century. The problem is that the restriction of jurisdiction on foreign government ships in Korean jurisdictional waters is a considerable threatening factor on the maritime security situation. In spite of dubious intention of foreign government ships, the counter measures should be limited because of sovereign immunity.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.31 no.2
• /
• pp.73-98
• /
• 2016

This is a case review of the Korean Supreme Court about international jurisdiction over a foreign-related case. This case is a guideline to other following cases how Korean court has international jurisdiction over the foreign elements cases. This case was an air crash accident in Busan, Korea. And the applicant was a chinese who was parents of flight attendant. The defendant was Air China. The applicant suid the defendant in Korea court, requesting for compensation for damages based on the contract of employment between died employee and the defendant and tort. The trial court rejected jurisdiction. But Supreme court granted jurisdiction on Korean court. The court determined the jurisdiction by the Korean Private International Law Act(KPILA). The KPILA has a concept of 'substantial connection', it is a main legal analysis to determine the jurisdiction. In the act, Article 2 Paragraph 1 says "In case a party or a case in dispute is substantively related to the Republic of Korea, a court shall have the international jurisdiction. In this case, the court shall obey reasonable principles, compatible to the ideology of the allocation of international jurisdiction, in judging the existence of the substantive relations." And Article 2 Paragraph 2 declares "A court shall judge whether or not it has the international jurisdiction in the light of jurisdictional provisions of domestic laws and shall take a full consideration of the unique nature of international jurisdiction in the light of the purport of the provision of paragraph (1)." In this case review find concepts, theories and cases out to clarify the meaning about Article 2 of the KPILA. Also it quoted from the concept of "the base rule" in Rome I (Regulation (EC) 593/2008 on the law applicable to contractual obligations) to apply the contract of employment between flight attendant and Air carrier.

• 발명특허
• /
• v.7 no.1 s.71
• /
• pp.53-53
• /
• 1982

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.21 no.2
• /
• pp.55-69
• /
• 2006

Electronic ticketing ("e-ticketing") through the internet will be the most critical commercial tool in the international airline industry. Actually the International Air Transport Association(IATA) has announced that it's goal is to accomplish 100 percent implementation of e-ticketing worldwide by 2007. Domestically e-ticketing will be put into operation in a full scale from the next year(2007). Thus, we count on, sooner or later, e-ticketing will be accomplished globally. As a legal aspect, this e-ticketing raises many legal issues which are no longer subject to a static set of legal rules driven by judicial precedent because e-ticketing is carried out on the "cyber space" which is a new and developing law area. In this treatise, I studied these legal issues, specially on the time and place(jurisdiction) of the contract which are the most important issues based on the New Montreal Convention signed at Montreal on May 28, 1999, which would seem prove that the airline industry is receptive and capable of change. Upon this opportunity, I hope the more comprehensive legal study on the e-ticketing will be introduced in the near future.

• Proceedings of the Korean Society of Marine Engineers Conference
• /
• 2005.11a
• /
• pp.90-91
• /
• 2005

• Proceedings of the Korean Society of Marine Engineers Conference
• /
• 2006.06a
• /
• pp.129-132
• /
• 2006

• Convergence Security Journal
• /
• v.13 no.2
• /
• pp.133-141
• /
• 2013

After Presidential Declaration of Korea's Rights in the Surrounding Seas(Lee, Seung-Man Line), Japanese government objected to the Korean government's Declaration of the Peace Line. Japan didn't agree with Korean's ownership of Dokdo and has tried to develop the Dokdo issue into an international dispute and solved it by resorting the International Court of Justice(ICJ) since 1954. As mentioned before, ICJ doesn'thave the right of compulsory jurisdiction of ownership of Dokdo between Korea and Japan. Therefore, we don'thave to agree with Japan's suggestion of bringing a case to ICJ to solve the Dokdo issue. It is not the best way to maintain the international peace judging by ICJ as well. When Japan try to institute case unilaterally, We should remember that it is possible to give the expanding jurisdiction to the ICJ. It is the best way that solving the dispute of Dokdo is to establish the sovereignty over Dokdo while strengthen the control the Dokdo effectively. In conclusion, no matter how Japan claims ownership of Dokdo, it cannot be subject to negotiation.

• International Commerce and Information Review
• /
• v.13 no.3
• /
• pp.3-29
• /
• 2011

The Internet has become a medium through which people engage in increasingly sophisticated transactions. Businesses and consumers now use the Internet to communicate and engage in commercial transactions creating a virtual worldwide marketplace. They fear that the determination of Internet jurisdiction could be uncertain because electronic commerce is not executed in one particular place. Until now, there are no specific rules in the model laws and conventions dealing with international jurisdiction in electronic commerce. Due to the fact that U.S. companies are at the forefront of Internet technology, litigation regarding electronic commerce in the U.S. is more advanced than anywhere else in the world This paper analysis the basic framework for personal jurisdiction and approach for determining international jurisdiction in electronic commerce cases and explain the differences of several approaches involving interactions over the Internet. According to jurisdiction approach test, the U.S. employs sliding scale, effects and targeting test in electronic commerce. In recent many research views the targeting test as a global standard for determining international electronic commerce jurisdiction. However, there is still no clear indication of conclusive test of jurisdiction determination for electronic commerce. Therefore, it is a changing and process of jurisdiction test in the U.S. cases. In Korea, there is jurisdiction related clause in Private International Law, but it may be asked whether applicable in electronic commerce. Accordingly, analysis of the precedents changing related to electronic commerce jurisdiction of U.s. is full of suggestions in Korean companies, consumers and helps an enactment of code of civil procedure that containing many group's demands.