• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제75권
• /
• pp.29-48
• /
• 2017

This study describes the retention of title under UCC. UCC ${\S}$ 2-401 prescribes that any retention or reservation by the seller of the title (property) in goods shipped or delivered to the buyer is limited in effect to a reservation of a security interest. It means that the retention of title generates a security interest in the same way like a charge. To be effective, a security interest must be attached or perfected. Once attachment occurs, a security interest is enforceable against the buyer. Once a security interest is perfected, a security interest is enforceable against third parties. Under UCC, a simple retention of title clause is valid as long as it is incorporated into the contract of sale. If the seller acquires a perfected security interest, he as a secured party can enjoy a priority against other creditors. But if a security interest is not perfected but PMSI is afforded, the seller has a special priority. Secondly, under UCC ${\S}$ 9-335 and 9-336, if a security interest under an enlarged retention of title clause is perfected, the seller as the secured party has a valid security interest in the product or mass into which his goods have been mixed or commingled. But in terms of assession of goods, as the seller has a security interest only in his goods, if the seller wants to enlarge his security interest in the whole, a security agreement should cover its intention. Thirdly, under UCC ${\S}$ 9-315, a security interest in proceeds of subsale of goods supplied by the seller is a perfected security interest if the security interest in the original collateral was perfected. But if the proceeds are cash proceeds, it should be identifiable from other funds of the buyer.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제30권2호
• /
• pp.43-68
• /
• 2020

The "arbitration" system resolves disputes through judgments on rights relations or claims between disputed parties by judging by private trial, but it does not have organizational and material bases to execute the contents of these judgments. Therefore, unless the parties succeed in voluntarily surrendering to the results of the arbitration award, the implementation of the award will be accomplished by the enforcement of the assistance of the National Court. However, unlike the court's ruling, the arbitration tribunal does not generate enforcement power from the judgment itself, and it must be filed with the court for execution. In this regard, Germany provides for arbitration proceedings in the Civil Procedure Act Volume 10. In particular, Article 1060 governs the approval and enforcement of domestic arbitral awards. Accordingly, the procedure for declaring the feasibility of domestic arbitration proceedings and the execution of forced execution are commenced. Regarding the enforceable declaration of a domestic arbitral award, it differs from the simpler process requirements compared to the procedure in a foreign arbitral award, and usually has the same effect as a final judgment between the parties without a separate approval procedure. However, the arbitration award does not constitute an enforceable power that can be implemented, but is enforced through the national court's declaration procedure. However, if there is a ground for cancellation as provided for in Article 1059 (2) of the German Civil Procedure Act, the arbitral award is canceled and the application for enforcement is dismissed.