• Korea Trade Review
• /
• v.45 no.1
• /
• pp.221-239
• /
• 2020

Among various export contracts, the contents of contracts are very important. Various companies make use of this method. [Which method are you talking about?] However, the Korean law system has an insufficient understanding of the international legal system. This paper looks into the conditions related to contracts in relation to the legal system. This paper analyzes not only the Korean civil law system about illegality of contracts but also makes a comparison with other international systems, such as the UNIDROIT Principles. Especially, the Korean civil law system about the illegality of contracts is comparable with the UNIDROIT Principles system about illegality of contracts. The purpose of this paper is to examine the revitalization of Illegality of Contract. This paper also deals with improvement of International Commercial Activation. Thus, this paper will offer directions to International Trade Practitioners. There is disagreement regarding methods of action related to international trade practice. Especially, this study is good for commercial parties, especially overseas sales people.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.69
• /
• pp.153-178
• /
• 2016

The United Nations Convention on the International Sale of Goods(CISG) leaves a number of aspects concerning commercial sales untouched. In particular, it is not concerned with the validity of the contract or of any of its provisions or of any usage. And UNIDROIT don't deal with all-round validity in International Commercial Contract. Especially, UNIDROIT includes declaration of intention department. The UNIDROIT contains the chapter 3 on the "validity" in terms of the defects of consent such as mistake, fraud, and threat as well as "gross disparity". Notwithstanding these provisions, the Principles did not deal with invalidity arising from the lack of capacity or authority, or immorality or illegality. On the other hand, there are arguments that the corresponding provisions of the Principles of International Commercial Contracts(UNIDROIT Principles; PICC). Therefore, Validity in International Commercial Contract is delegate by Each Country Law. So Trade practicer should know full well about Each Country Law Position. People(human, corporation, company) of position Trade practice classify each country civil law relation to validity of commercial contract. This paper is to examine the Validity of UNIDROIT Principles. Also this paper analyses comparison on each country position relation to capacity of right, capacity to act, illegality of contract, declaration of intention. In conclusion, This paper expect that people of trade practice makes use of analysis knowledge.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.19 no.3
• /
• pp.179-198
• /
• 2009

This paper aims at assessing reasonableness for restraining the independence principle in the operation of documentary credit in case of the illegality appeared in the underlying transactions. It has been a major rule under the independence principle to keep the credit operation free from the defences made by the issuing bank and/or credit applicant with a view to prevent the payment as specified under the credit. And also, it is generally accepted in the international commercial community to examine a presentation to determine, on the basis of the document alone, whether or not the documents appear on their face to constitute a complying presentation. Even though these two essences are major rules in the credit operation, if a presentation is made with the documents forged or materially fraudulent, the issuing bank can refuse to pay the documents in respect of fraud rule based on fraud exception for which a court of appropriate jurisdiction would enjoin such honour. Now we have newly come to another situation to determine whether or not we have to apply the same as fraud rule which is applicable to the illegality in the underlying contract under the new conception of illegality principle based on illegality exception. English Commercial Court handled the illegality case under the case of Mahonia Ltd., v. JP Morgan Chase Bank in 2003 and Justice Colman decided that issuing bank can rely on illegality affecting a letter of credit as an excuse for failure to pay. This judgement brought about the acceptance of illegality principle based on illegality exception as a defence to payment under a letter of credit as far as the illegality concerned in the underlying transactions. It is noticeable that this case will affect our international commercial community more to rely on the illegality in the underlying transactions as a good issue to stop payment for the issuing bank in the L/C operation.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.51
• /
• pp.101-131
• /
• 2011

The Governing Council of UNIDROIT at its 90th session adopted on 10 May 2011 the third edition of the Principles of International Commercial Contracts("UNIDROIT Principles 2010"). The UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts first published in 1994 and in a second edition in 2004, are taken by legislators worldwide as a model for contract law reform and increasingly used in international contracting and arbitration practice, as well as by the courts to interpret and supplement the applicable domestic law. The UNIDROIT Principles are particularly useful to parties when negotiating and drafting international contracts. The new edition of the Principles, UNIDROIT Principles 2010, prepared by a group of experts from all over the world including representatives of numerous international organizations and arbitration centers. The UNIDROIT Principles 2010 contain new provisions on restitution in case of failed contracts, illegality, conditions, and plurality of obligors and obligees, while with respect to the text of the 2004 edition the only significant changes made relate to the Comments to Article 1.4.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.24 no.2
• /
• pp.109-136
• /
• 2014

The separability of an arbitration clause is generally recognized throughout the world, but there are no provisions of it under the Federal Arbitration Act(FAA) of the United States. As such, the controversy over the recognition of separability has developed with the rise of certain cases. The Supreme Court recognized this separability based on section 4 of the FAA in the decision of the Prima Paint case. The Court ruled that courts must decide the claim about the fraudulent inducement of an arbitration agreement itself, but they must not decide the claim about the fraudulent inducement of a contract involving a broad arbitration clause, and they have to proceed with the arbitration. The Court said that the subject of an arbitral award is set by the agreement of the parties, and thereby arbitrators can decide the issues about the fraudulent inducement of a contract on the basis of the arbitration clause when it is broad to the point of including the issues. Many courts have extended the separability beyond the fraud context to include other defenses to contract formation in the federal courts such as the occurrence of mistake, illegality, and frustration of purpose. In interpreting the parties' intention of ensuring arbitrator competence, the Supreme Court has treated differently the issues about whether the arbitration agreement exists or not and the issues about whether the preconditions for dispute resolution by a valid arbitration agreement is fulfilled or not. The Court holds that the federal policy in favor of arbitration does not apply to the former issues, and arbitrators can decide theses issues only when parties assign them clearly and unmistakably to them. However, the later issues receive a presumption in favor of arbitration; i.e., when the interpretation of a valid arbitration clause is contested, the arbitrators can decide these issues. In the First Options case, the former issue was questioned. The question of the separability of an arbitration clause is where the validity of the main contract involving the arbitration clause is contested. Therefore, the doctrine of separability did not operate in the First Options case in which the validity of the arbitration clause itself was questioned, and the decision in the First Options was irrelevant to the separability. I think that the Prima Paint case and the First Options case have different issues, and there is no tension between them.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.51
• /
• pp.213-239
• /
• 2011

This article examines two important issues of the demand for payment by the beneficiary and the payment by the guarantor to the beneficiary under the revised Uniform Rules for Demand Guarantee (URDG) published by ICC, which are called URDG 758 and effected on July 1, 2010. Here, after first briefly defining the concept and nature of the demand for payment, this article discusses various issues surrounding the demand: By whom, where and how the demand has to be made; which documents are required in demanding the payment; how much amount can be demanded and paid; when and where the payment has to be made and which currency has to be used for the payment. The demand for payment has to be made by the beneficiary to the guarantor on or before expiry of the guarantee at the place of issuance of the guarantee unless any other place is specified in the guarantee. The demand has to be made in paper form unless the guarantee requires an electronic form. Unless otherwise expressly stipulated in the guarantee, the demand must be supported by a statement by the beneficiary indicating the applicant is in breach of the underlying contract. Also the demand must identify the guarantee under which it is made, and the time for examination by the guarantor starts on the date of identification. The demand cannot be for more than the amount available under the guarantee. When the demand is complying the guarantor must pay the amount demanded. The payment has to be made at the branch or office of the guarantor that issued the guarantee unless any other place is indicated in the guarantee. The payment has to be made in the currency specified in the guarantee, unless the guarantor is unable to make payment in that currency due to an impediment beyond its control or any illegality under the law of the place for payment. In case of "extend or pay" or "pay or extend" demands, the demand is deemed to be withdrawn if the extension is granted. But if not, the demand has to be paid without any further demand by the beneficiary.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.17 no.1
• /
• pp.299-346
• /
• 2016

There were also various decisions made in medical area in 2015. In the case that an inmate in a sanatorium was injured due to the reason which can be attributable to the sanatorium and the social welfare foundation that operates the sanatorium request treatment of the patient, the court set the standard of fixation of a party in medical contract. In the case that the family of the patient who was declared brain dead required withdrawal of meaningless life sustaining treatment but the hospital rejected and continued the treatment, the court made a decision regarding chargeable fee for such treatment. When it comes to the eye brightening operation which received measure of suspension from the Ministry of Health and Welfare for the first time in February, 2011, because of uncertainty of its safety, the court did not accept the illegality of such operation itself, however, ordered compensation of the whole damage based on the violation of liability for explanation, which is the omission of explanation about the fact that the cost-effectiveness is not sure as it is still in clinical test stage. There were numerous cases that courts actively acknowledged malpractices; in the cases of paresis syndrome after back surgery, quite a few malpractices during the surgery were acknowledged by the court and in the case of nosocomial infection, hospital's negligence to cause such nosocomial infection was acknowledged by the court. There was a decision which acknowledged malpractice by distinguishing the duty of installation of emergency equipment according to the Emergency Medical Service Act and duty of emergency measure in emergency situations, and a decision which acknowledged negligence of a hospital if the hospital did not take appropriate measures, although it was a very rare disease. In connection with the scope of compensation for damage, there were decisions which comply with substantive truth such as; a court applied different labor ability loss rate as the labor ability loss rate decreased after result of reappraisal of physical ability in appeal compared to the one in the first trial, and a court acknowledged lower labor ability loss rate than the result of appraisal of physical ability considering the condition of a patient, etc. In the event of any damage caused by malpractice, in regard to whether there is a limitation on liability in fee charge after such medical malpractice, the court rejected the hospital's claim for setoff saying that if the hospital only continued treatments to cure the patient or prevent aggravation of disease, the hospital cannot charge Medical bills to the patient. In regard to the provision of the Medical Law that prohibit medical advertisement which was not reviewed preliminarily and punish the violation of such, a decision of unconstitutionality was made as it is a precensorship by an administrative agency as the deliberative bodies such as Korean Medical Association, etc. cannot be denied to be considered as administrative bodies. When it comes to the issue whether PRP treatment, which is commonly performed clinically, should be considered as legally determined uninsured treatment, the court made it clear that legally determined uninsured treatment should not be decided by theoretical possibility or actual implementation but should be acknowledged its medical safety and effectiveness and included in medical care or legally determined uninsured treatment. Moreover, court acknowledged the illegality of investigation method or process in the administrative litigation regarding evaluation of suitability of sanatorium, however, denied the compensation liability or restitution of unjust enrichment of the Health Insurance Review & Assessment Service and the National Health Insurance Corporation as the evaluation agents did not cause such violation intentionally or negligently. We hope there will be more decisions which are closer to substantive truth through clear legal principles in respect of variously arisen issues in the future.