• 무역학회지
• /
• 제45권1호
• /
• 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.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제69권
• /
• 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.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제19권3호
• /
• 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.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제51권
• /
• 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.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제24권2호
• /
• 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.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제51권
• /
• 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.

• 의료법학
• /
• 제17권1호
• /
• pp.299-346
• /
• 2016

2015년 한해에도 의료분야에서 다양한 판결이 선고되었다. 요양원 입소자에 대하여 요양원측 과실로 상해가 발생하여 요양원을 운영하는 사회복지법인이 환자의 진료를 의뢰한 사건에서 진료계약의 당사자 확정 기준이 제시되었고, 뇌사상태에 빠진 환자 가족의 무의미한 연명치료 중단 요구에 대하여 병원이 이를 거부하고 계속 진료한 경우 청구 가능한 진료비에 관한 판단이 이루어졌다. 안전성이 확인되지 아니하여 2011. 2. 보건복지부로부터 사상 초유의 시술중단조치를 받았던 눈미백수술에 관하여 법원은 시술 자체의 위법성을 인정하지는 아니하였으나 임상시험 단계에 있어 비용 대비 효과가 확립되어 있지 않다는 사실을 설명하지 아니한 설명의무 위반으로 전 손해의 배상을 명하였다. 의료과실을 적극적으로 인정한 판결로는 척추수술 후 마미증후군이 발생한 사건들에서 수술과정상 과실이 인정된 사례가 상당수 있었고, 병원감염 사건에서 감염을 유발한 과실을 인정한 판결이 선고되었다. 응급의료에 관한 법률상 응급장비 설치의무와 응급상황 발생시 조치의무를 구분하여 의료과실을 인정한 판결이 선고되었고, 극히 드문 희귀질환이라 하더라도 그에 대한 적절한 조치를 취하지 않은 의료기관에게 과실을 인정한 판결이 선고되었다. 손해배상의 범위와 관련하여 항소심 신체재감정 결과 노동능력상실률이 1심보다 작아지자 시간의 경과에 따라 노동능력상실률을 달리 적용하거나 환자의 상태에 따라 노동능력상실률을 신체감정 결과보다 낮게 인정하는 등 실체진실에 부합하는 판결이 선고되었다. 의료과실로 손해가 발생한 경우 의료사고 후 발생한 진료비에 책임제한이 적용되는지 여부와 관련하여 법원은 병원에서 환자 상태의 치유 또는 악화를 방지하는 정도의 치료만 계속되었다면 환자에게 진료비 지급을 청구할 수 없다는 이유로 병원 측의 상계주장을 배척하였다. 사전심의를 받지 않은 의료광고를 금지하고 그 위반시 처벌하는 의료법 규정에 대하여 사전심의기관인 대한의사협회 등의 행정기관성을 부인할 수 없어 사전검열에 해당한다는 이유로 위헌결정이 내려졌다. 임상에서 흔하게 시행되고 있는 PRP 치료가 법정비급여에 해당하는지 여부에 관하여 법원은 법정비급여 여부는 이론적인 가능성이나 실제 실시 여부 등에 따라 결정되는 것이 아니라 의학적 안전성 유효성을 인정받은 후 요양급여 또는 비급여대상으로의 편입절차를 거쳐야 함을 분명히 하였다. 또한 법원은 요양병원 적정성 평가에 관한 행정소송에서, 구조부문의 조사방식이나 절차상 위법을 인정하면서도 그 위법사유의 정도가 당연무효에까지는 이르지 아니하고 평가기관의 고의 과실이 없다는 이유로 건강보험심사평가원과 국민건강보험공단에 부당이득반환이나 손해배상의무가 없다는 판단을 하였다. 향후 더욱 다양하게 제기되는 쟁점들에 관하여 명쾌한 법리를 통해 실체진실에 다가가는 판결을 기대해본다.