• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.75
• /
• 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.

• Korea Trade Review
• /
• v.42 no.2
• /
• pp.391-410
• /
• 2017

This study examines Romalpa clause as an extended or enlarged retention of title clause under SGA. Under a simple retention of title clause, the seller retains title to goods supplied until the goods have been paid. A simple retention of title gives the seller super-priority interest in other creditors of the buyer without registering a charge. Aluminium Industrie Vaassen BV v. Romalpa Aluminium Ltd introduced the concept of 'extended reservation of title(so called 'Romalpa clause') in English law. It is because the Court of Appeal held that under an extended reservation about title clause the seller can trace his title into money which constitutes the proceed of sale by the buyer of goods supplied by the seller. However, since Romalpa case, the courts are reluctant to uphold the seller's extended title. Under Romalpa clause, the seller attempts to extend his protection by laying claims to new products manufactured from his goods or to proceeds of sale by the buyer. Where the seller's goods are lawfully used by the buyer to create new goods, the property in the new goods will generally vest in the buyer. It is because there has been discomfort if the seller gains the windfall profit of the new goods. Moreover, regarding tracing proceeds of sale by the buyer, the courts held that the seller must establish fiduciary relationship with the buyer. If the fiduciary requirement cannot be established, the extended retention of title clause is seen as a charge over the proceeds, and void if not registered. For these reasons, it is difficult that the claims based on the extended retention of title clause would be upheld.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.30 no.2
• /
• pp.83-153
• /
• 2015

As our economy grows and the number of aircraft increase, the number of civil execution against aircraft cases are likely to increase as well in the future. The purpose of this article is to present the legal theory on the civil execution against aircrafts by drawing on the legal theory on the civil execution against vessels which constitute a relatively large number of cases thus observed. The provisions of the civil execution against immovables or vessel, shall basically apply mutatis mutandis to the civil execution against aircraft or light aircraft. The civil execution against ultra-light flying devices or a foreign aircraft shall be executed in conformity with the civil execution against movables. There are a compulsory auction, an auction to execute a security right to aircraft, and an auction under the right of retention, etc. in the civil execution against an aircraft. A compulsory execution against an aircraft means an execution carried out by a creditor against a debtor's aircraft to obtain satisfaction of claims for the purpose of payment of money. The court of execution of a compulsory execution against an aircraft shall be the district court having jurisdiction over the airport of stoppage or storage of such aircraft at the time of seizure. The forums of execution of a compulsory execution against an aircraft shall be exclusive forums. When a court has rendered an order on commencing an auction, it shall order an execution officer to receive a certificate of the aircraft's registration and other documents as required for its operation, and to submit them to the court. A court may revoke the procedures for a compulsory auction when an execution officer fails to obtain a transfer of the aircraft's registration certificate, etc. and the location of the aircraft is not evident, not later than an elapse of 2 months from the date on which an order on commencing an auction has been rendered. In the case where it is deemed that there exists a business-related need or other based on proper reasoning, the court may permit the aircraft's operation, upon the motion submitted by the debtor. In this case, there shall be a consent from the creditor, the highest bidder, the next highest bidder and successful bidder. A court may, upon a motion submitted by the creditor, make the dispositions required for observing and preserving the aircraft. When a debtor has submitted the documents under subparagraph 2 or 4 of the Article 49 of the Civil Execution Act, and furnished the guarantee equivalent to the claims of the execution creditors and the creditors demanding a distribution and to the costs for execution, before a declaration of bid, the court shall, upon request, revoke other procedures than those for distribution. The provisions of a obligatory auction against vessel or aircraft and an auction to execute a security right to real estate or vessel, shall apply mutatis mutandis to an auction to execute the security right to aircraft. In an auction to execute the security right to aircraft case, an executive title is not necessary. An executory exemplification is not necessary in an application for an auction to execute the security right to aircraft. A court should examine the existence of security right and claim secured. No order on commencing an auction procedure shall be issued with non-existence or invalidity of the security right and absence or extinguishment of the claim secured. Furthermore, these prohibitions are the reason of a decision on non-permit for sale, the court overlooked these prohibitions, and the decision on a permit for sale became final and conclusive, the successful bidder who paid the price and registered of ownership could not acquire ownership of the aircraft sold. A court may render a ruling to put plural aircrafts up for a blanket auction, only when they are in restraint and related matter (Supreme Court Order 2001Ma3688 dated on August 22, 2001). A righter of retention on aircraft may file a request for an auction against the aircraft. The provisions of an auction to execute a security right to aircraft shall apply mutatis mutandis to the formal auction. Airport facility fee and an aircraft are not in restraint and related matter, so an airport management corporation does not hold the right of retention on the aircraft (Supreme Court Decision 2011Da29291 decided on April 10, 2014). In an auction in accordance with the right of retention, all encumbrances (e.g., mortgages) on the sold aircraft shall be extinguished by a sale under the legal conditions for sale. Not only creditors who have claims for preferential payment but also general creditors could demand for distribution. The precedence of the claim of the right of retention on aircraft and that of general creditor's claims are equal.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.22 no.1
• /
• pp.125-162
• /
• 2007

The Convention on International Interests in Mobile Equipment and the Protocol to the Convention on International Interests in Mobile Equipment on Matters specific to Aircraft Equipment were adopted on 16 November 2001 at a diplomatic conference held in Cape Town under the joint auspices of UNIDROIT and ICAO. The entry into force of the Cape Town Convention and Protocol have occurred on 1 March 2006. The Cape Town Convention and Protocol provides an international legal regime for the creation, perfection and priority of security, title retention and leasing interests in aircraft equipment, which will be underpinned by an international registry. The purpose of this paper is to explain the objectives and principles of the Cape Town Convention and Protocol, to review the provisions relating to the international interests in aircraft equipment and international registry for their protection under the Cape Town Convention and Protocol, and to discuss the Issues on Korea's accession to the Cape Town Convention and Protocol. As the anticipated results of this paper, it will contribute to facilitate the financing of the acquisition and use of aircraft equipment of high value or particular economic significance in an efficient manner, and to save very large sums of money annually in financing charges, also the international interests in aircraft equipment will be recognized and protected universally.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• no.spc
• /
• pp.105-135
• /
• 2007

The Convention on International Interests in Mobile Equipment and the Protocol to the Convention on International Interests in Mobile Equipment on Matters specific to Aircraft Equipment were adopted on 16 November 2001 at a diplomatic conference held in Cape Town under the joint auspices of UNIDROIT and ICAO. The entry into force of the Cape Town Convention and Protocol have occurred on 1 March 2006. The Cape Town Convention and Protocol provides an international legal regime for the creation, perfection and priority of security, title retention and leasing interests in aircraft equipment, which will be underpinned by an international registry. The purpose of this paper is to explain the objectives and principles of the Cape Town Convention and Protocol, to review the provisions relating to the international interests in aircraft equipment and international registry for their protection under the Cape Town Convention and Protocol, and to discuss the Issues on Korea's accession to the Cape Town Convention and Protocol. As the anticipated results of this paper, it will contribute to facilitate the financing of the acquisition and use of aircraft equipment of high value or particular economic significance in an efficient manner, and to save very large sums of money annually in financing charges, also the international interests in aircraft equipment will be recognized and protected universally.