• The Journal of the Korea Contents Association
• /
• v.13 no.1
• /
• pp.175-185
• /
• 2013

The judgement which is subject of research has denied legal rescission of division of the inherited property by agreement based on (1) the fact that the division of inherited property terminated at the time of concluding mutual agreement in its nature while only the relationship of claim and obligation between the inheritor who has paid for such obligation and the inheritor who has acquired such obligation in the mutual agreement remains (2) and the fact that the legal stability is considerably hindered as the re-partition of inherited property having retroactive effect becomes unavoidable in case of approving the legal rescission of the division of the inherited property by agreement. But it is reasonable to also approve legal rescission on the division of the inherited property by agreement in case the division by agreement actually has the nature such as conditional donation between joint heirs (1) from the fact that the division of the inherited property by agreement gets the nature of disposal equivalent to exchange, transfer and abandonment of share between joint heirs in actuality, (2) and the fact that there are no other theories in approving the validity of mutually agreed rescission despite the fact that the re-partition of inherited property having retroactive effect is unavoidable even in case of the mutually agreed rescission of the division by agreement among all joint heirs. However, as the division of the inherited property by agreement is a contract that gets concluded only if all joint heirs participate, even the legal rescission for the reason of not fulfilling the obligations paid by one party of the heirs during the division by agreement must be considered as possible only by expression of intentions from all other joint heirs excluding this one party.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.44
• /
• pp.31-55
• /
• 2009

This study attempts to provide a comparative overview of the liability systems Korean law and the PELS adopt, that is, the approaches taken by Korean law and the PELS to deal with various irregularities of contractual performance. In addition, it examines in a comparative way the questions of what is the position of the seller's liability for his delivery of defective goods under the chosen liability system and what is the legal nature of the seller's liability. The study finds that the dual liability system taken by Korean law has caused some complexities as to the matter of which liability is applicable in some borderline cases. The problem in such complexities is originated in that the remedies available and the limitation period applicable are differentiated in accordance with one's different categorization among three types of default under the general liability and defective performance under the seller's guarantee liability. In this light, the study argues that the unified liability system under the PELS is superior because its concept of non-performance embraces in a unitary manner all the aspects of default including defects in quality, quantity and title. In addition, it finds that Korean law has suffered endless debates on the question of what are the true contents of the same remedies of rescission and damages provided under the seller's guarantee liability as under the general liability. The debates have been come along on the basis of the traditional presumption among some of civil law jurisdictions that two liabilities be different in terms of not only their legal nature but also their contents of remedies. The study argues that the problem may be circumvented, first, by another way of thinking that the unified liability in Korean law is inferred from the specification of the identical remedies for both the general liability and the seller's guarantee liability under the KCC, second, by the preposition that the requirement of fault be depended upon what remedy the buyer seeks to claim rather than what liability he does to rely on.

• Journal of Korea Trade
• /
• v.26 no.7
• /
• pp.93-108
• /
• 2022

Purpose - This paper examines the admissibility of restitution as the legal consequence where a contract is frustrated under the Law of Reform (Frustrated Contracts) Act 1943 in comparison with Korean Civil Code (KCC). In order to provide practical guidelines and advice regarding choice of and application of law for contracting parties in international trade, the paper comparatively evaluates requirements and the scope of restitution under the Act 1943 and KCC. Design/methodology - This paper executes a comparative study to analyze whether the parties may claim restitution of money paid or non-money benefit obtained before or after the time of discharge under English law and KCC. To achieve the purpose, it focuses on the identifying characteristics of each statute, thereby providing guidelines to overcome difficulties in legal application and interpretation as to restitution as the consequence of frustration. Findings - Under English law, the benefit may be restituted according to Art 1943 or the common law rule, mistake of fact or law. Under the KCC, restitution is considered based on the principle of the obligation to recover the original obtained regardless of the time when the benefit is conferred. Whilst Act 1943 does not require careful analysis of the grounds of restitution, requirements to justify restitution according to the principle of unjust enrichment, mistake of fact or law, and the KCC should be met. Meanwhile, the KCC may provide more opportunities to award restitution because it does not require the burden of proof related to the defendant's good faith, unlike the principle of unjust enrichment. Originality/value - Where the contract is frustrated by the effect of COVID-19, one legal issue is a consequence of frustration. Therefore, this paper analyzes requirements and the scope of restitution under English law as compared with the KCC in a timely manner. It provides contracting parties with practical guidelines and advice to reduce unpredictability when they choose the governing law in a contract.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.19
• /
• pp.33-66
• /
• 2003

This is a comparative and analytical study which comprises of the analysis of the rules of the buyer's remedies where the seller delivers defective goods of four legal systems; Directive, CISG, English law and Korean law. In light of threefold main purposes of this study, it firstly attempts to describe and analyze the remedy provisions of Directive in a comparative way in order to provide legal advice to the sellers who plans to enter into English consumer markets. It shows that the two tier remedial system under Directive is not much different from the other jurisdictions, except where the right of rescission under Directive is absolute in a sense that it does not require a certain degree of seriousness of defect. Secondly, the study compares the rules of one jurisdiction with those of other jurisdictions and evaluates the rules in light of the discipline of comparative law the basic question of which is whether a solution from one jurisdiction may facilitate the systematic development and reform of another jurisdiction. It proves the followings; (1) the reluctance and uncertainty in English law of ordering specific performance based on the discretionary power does not reflect the parties' preference because the order is either uncertain or rather negative where the purchase of substitute goods elsewhere is not a satisfactory solution in many cases; (2) the position in Korean law which has no limitation on the right to require substitute goods is likely unfair in commercial sales, but justified in consumer sales; (3) the right of termination or reduction under Directive which is subject to the applicability of the right to require repair or substitute goods seems to be contrary to the consumer's preference where the defective delivery destroys the basis of trust in the quality of the seller's performance; (4) the absolute right of termination under Directive and English law seems crucial in consumer sales because they are often inferior to commercial sellers in terms of information and bargaining power; (5) the right of reduction as a self-help remedy which is absent in English law emphasizes its usefulness. Thirdly, it finds that, where CISG is deemed to fail to unify different rules on the right to require specific performance between Civil and Common law, it is attempted once again in Directive and notwithstanding their hostility to awarding the right to require specific performance in English law, Regulations 2002 expressively stipulates such right.