• 법제연구
• /
• 제44호
• /
• pp.571-610
• /
• 2013

특허침해금지청구권은 물권적 청구권의 일종으로 특허의 유효성과 침해사실만 인정되면 자동적으로 인정되고 있다. 이에 관련기술을 실시하는 자 입장에서는 금지청구의 위험으로 인해 기술이용 및 후속기술개발을 회피하여 기술혁신이 저해되는 경우가 발생하고 있다. 따라서 절대적 금지청구권 인정보다는 특허권자에게 정당한 보상을 한다는 전제하에 사안에 따라 탄력적으로 침해금지를 제한할 수 있는 방안이 필요하다. 이를 위해 먼저 특허침해금지가처분에 대한 판단을 엄격하게 하여 되도록 본안소송에서 신중한 판단에 의해 특허침해금지에 대해서 판단할 수 있도록 해야 할 것이다. 또한, 본안소송에서는 영미법상의 '형평의 원리'나 가처분에 있어서 '보전의 필요성'과 같이 '침해금지의 필요성'에 대하여 판단할 수 있도록 법원에 재량권을 인정해야 한다. '침해금지의 필요성' 판단시에 고려할 사항으로는 '특허권자의 실시여부, 금전적 보상가능성 및 침해자의 손해배상능력, 특허권자의 라이선스 의도 및 금지청구권을 협상의 무기로 사용하는지 여부, 전체제품에서 특허기술이 차지하는 비율, 특허기술의 특성 및 무효의 가능성, 시장점유율의 경쟁관계, 공공의 이익 및 당사자 쌍방의 이해득실관계 등'이 있다. 이러한 판단결과 침해금지청구가 제한되는 경우 사후 금전적 손해배상으로 특허권자를 보호해야 한다. 장래의 적법한 실시를 보장하기 위한 방안으로는 우선적으로는 당사자의 사적협상에 의해서 적절한 실시료를 산정하도록 하는 것이 바람직하다. 당사자 간에 합의가 이루어지지 않는 경우에는 특허권자가 장래의 실시료를 청구할 수 있도록 하여야 할 것이다. 이와 같이 유연하고 개방적인 특허권의 개념 모색을 통해 빠른 기술변화 시대에 맞추어 특허법의 궁극적인 목적을 달성할 수 있을 것이다.

• 환경정책연구
• /
• 제7권3호
• /
• pp.63-88
• /
• 2008

조망권에 관한 일반법리를 전개한 후 판례를 조망권 침해를 이유로 한 공사금지가처분신청사건, 손해배상청구사건, 건물철거청구사건 등으로 분류하여 살펴보았다. 피해자들이 조망권 침해만을 문제 삼는 경우보다는 일조권 침해와 더불어 소송을 제기하는 경우가 많았다. 법원은 조망권 관련사건을 심리하던 초기에 교육환경이나 종교환경과 관련되는 조망권 침해사건에서 일정층수 이상의 공사를 금지하는 가처분을 인용하면서 조망이익이 일정한 요건하에서 법적으로 보호받을 수 있음을 밝혔다. 조망권 침해에 기한 손해배상을 하급심에서는 인정하는 경우가 있었으나, 대법원에서는 아직 이를 받아들이지 않고 있다. 영업용이 아니면서 조망을 위하여 특별히 건축되지 않은 주거용 건물에서 조망권 침해가 문제되는 경우 '경관조망권'의 인정은 그 요건이 충족되지 않아 인정하지 않더라도 '천공조망권'은 당해 요건이 충족되면 인정해야 할 것이다. 이러한 조치는 조망권 침해에 따른 주택가격의 하락이라는 기존 주택 거주자들의 현실적인 손해를 보전해 주는 기능을 수행할 수 있을 것이다. 최근에 이른바 '덕소현대아파트사건'에서 법원은 조망의 개념을 '경관조망'과 '천공조망'으로 구분하고 있으나, 이른바 '리바뷰아파트사건'에서는 원심법원과 달리 대법원은 이를 구분하고 있지 않다. 천공조망권의 인정여부에 관한 이러한 대법원 재판부간의 견해 차이는 조정되어야 할 것이다.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제22권3호
• /
• pp.119-139
• /
• 2012

In the case of Banque Paribas V. Banco Santander in England for the reimbursement request of deferred payment credit by the nominated bank, the L/C-issuing bank refused to pay the proceeds at maturity because of a fraudulent transaction. The reason of refusal was that the nominated bank, Banco Santander, had no right of payment in deferred credit before its maturity if it made payment of proceeds without notice to the issuing bank, that is, payment not based upon a credit transaction but on its own account. However, in the case of ADIB V. Fortis Bank in America, the New York court made the decision that the deferred payment bank could not refuse to reimburse to the nominated bank, Fortis Bank, because of fraud. Its decision was based on the UCP600. We have analyzed and investigated the above two cases-one was an English court's decision and the other an American's. The English court's decision was made under UCP500, but the American court's was made under UCP600, which was revised in 2007. As a result, we can expect that from now on in deferred payment credit transactions, the power of the nominated bank will be greater than before, but the issuing bank will bear the risk of the beneficiary's fraud, so the issuing bank will be hesitant to issue deferred payment credit. Notwithstanding, we thought that the New York court decision would come into effect in the activation of deferred payment credit in practical trade transactions.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제69권
• /
• pp.261-301
• /
• 2016

Recently the abusive calls on on-demand bonds have been a critical issue among many engineering and construction companies in Korea. On-demand bond is referred to as an independent guarantee in the sense that the guarantee is independent from its underlying contract although it was issued based on such underlying contract. For this reason, the issuing bank is not required to and/or entitled to look into whether there really is a breach of underlying contract in relation to the call on demand-bonds. Due to this kind of principle of independence, the applicant has to run the risk of the on demand bond being called by the beneficiary without due grounds. Only where the call proves to be fraudulent or abusive in a very clear way, the issuing bank would not be obligated to pay the bond proceeds for the call on on-demand bonds. In order to prevent the issuing bank from paying the proceeds under the on-demand bond, the applicant usually files with its competent court an application for injunction prohibiting the beneficiary from calling against the issuing bank. However, it is in practice difficult for the applicant to prove the beneficiary's call on the bond to be fraudulent since the courts in almost all the jurisdictions of advanced countries require very strict and objective evidences such as the documents which were signed by the owner (beneficiary) or any other third party like the engineer. There is another way of preventing the beneficiary from calling on the bond, which is often utilized especially in the United Kingdom or Western European countries such as Germany. Based upon the underlying contract, the contractor which is at the same time the applicant of on-demand bond requests the court to order the owner (the beneficiary) not to call on the bond. In this case, there apparently seems to be no reason why the court should apply the strict fraud rule to determine whether to grant an injunction in that the underlying legal relationship was created based on a construction contract rather than a bond. However, in most jurisdictions except for United Kingdom and Singapore, the court also applies the strict fraud rule on the ground that the parties promised to make the on-demand bond issued under the construction contract. This kind of injunction is highly unlikely to be utilized on the international level because it is very difficult in normal situations to establish the international jurisdiction towards the beneficiary which will be usually located outside the jurisdiction of the relevant court. This kind of injunction ordering the owner not to call on the bond can be rendered by the arbitrator as well even though the arbitrator has no coercive power for the owner to follow it. Normally there would be no arbitral tribunal existing at the time of the bond being called. In this case, the emergency arbitrator which most of the international arbitration rules such as ICC, LCIA and SIAC, etc. adopt can be utilized. Finally, the contractor can block the issuing bank from paying the bond proceeds by way of a provisional attachment in case where it also has rights to claim some unpaid interim payments or damages. This is the preservative measure under civil law system, which the lawyers from common law system are not familiar with. As explained in this article, it is very difficult to block the issuing bank from paying in response to the bond call by the beneficiary even if the call has no valid ground under the underlying construction contract. Therefore, it is necessary for the applicants who are normally engineering and construction companies to be prudent to make on-demand bonds issued. They need to take into account the creditability of the project owner as well as trustworthiness of the judiciary system of the country where the owner is domiciled.