• The Journal of Fisheries Business Administration
• /
• v.43 no.1
• /
• pp.63-74
• /
• 2012

The Korean Conflict of Laws Act recently incorporated much of the European Union's recent revision in "EC Convention on the Law Applicable to Contractual Obligations (Rome 1980)"(hereinafter Rome Convention). With the revision of Rome Convention applied to contractual obligations,"Regulation (EC) No 593/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 on the law applicable to contractual obligations (Rome I)"(hereinafter Rome I) has taken effect on December 2009. Before the effectivation of Rome I, "Regulation (EC) No 864/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 July 2007 on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations (Rome II)"(hereinafter Rome II) has come into effect on January 2009. This means the revision of certain rules and its practical implications need an in-depth study on governing law rules under Rome I which provides newly effected governing laws applicable to contractual obligations. Moreover, uniform choice of law rules on non-contractual obligations needs to focus especially on marine insurance contract. Where policy assignment and subrogation causes, how to decide the governing law which will be applied to the insurer as a third party? This article attempts to analyze emerging legal issues in legal regimes determining choice of law, especially those in international marine insurance contracts. This will help Korean practitioners to be dialed in legal affairs under English Law as the governing law in their contracts.

• Journal of Legislation Research
• /
• no.44
• /
• pp.487-538
• /
• 2013

It is the most critical issue in recent international intellectual property licence disputes to decide the applicable laws to the license contracts. As Korea and the European Union(EU) reached free trade agreement(FTA), and the EU-Korea FTA entered into force on July 1, 2011, the FTA has boosted social, economic, cultural exchanges between the two. As a result of the increased transactions in those sectors, legal disputes are also expected to grow. This situation calls for extensive research and understanding of the choice of law principles applicable to international intellectual property license contracts in the EU. To decide the laws applicable to issues arising from international intellectual property license contracts disputes, the characterization of those issues is necessary for the purpose of applying private international law principles to them. In terms of characterization, intellectual property license contracts fall within contractual matters. In the EU, the primary rule of choice of law principles in contractual obligations is the Rome I Regulation. Because the choice of law rules, such as private international law principles, the Rome Convention(1980), and the Rome I Regulation, differ in the time of application, it is essential to clarify the time factor of related contracts. For example, the Rome I Regulation applies to contracts which were concluded as from December 17, 2009. Although party autonomy in international contracts disputes is generally allowed, if there is no choice of law agreement between the parties to the contracts, the objective test rule of private international law doctrine could be the best option. Following this doctrine, the Rome I Regulation Article 4, Paragraph 1 provides the governing law rules based on the types of contracts, but there is no room for intellectual property license contracts. After all, as the rule for governing law of those contracts, the Rome I Regulation Article 4, Paragraph 2 should be applied and if there are countries which are more closely connected to the contracts under the Rome I Regulation Article 4, Paragraph 3, the laws of those countries become the governing laws of the contracts. Nevertheless, if it is not possible to decide the applicable laws to the license contracts, the Rome I Regulation Article 4, Paragraph 4 should be applied in the last resort and the laws of the countries which are the most closely connected to the contracts govern the license contracts. Therefore, this research on the laws applicable to intellectual property license contracts under the Rome I Regulation suggests more systematic and effective solutions for future disputes in which Korea and the EU countries play the significant role as the connecting factors in the conflict of laws rules. Moreover, it helps to establish comprehensive and theoretical understanding of applying the Korean Private International Law to multifarious choice-of-law cases.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.23 no.4
• /
• pp.3-27
• /
• 2013

Overriding Mandatory rules are laws that purport to apply irrespective of the law chosen by the parties to govern their contractual relations. This article examines their role and applicability in international arbitration. The overriding mandatory rules pose a complex and continuing problem for arbitrators because they put the interests of states and parties in direct competition. When a law says that arbitrators must apply it, yet the parties' contract excludes it, what should the arbitrators do? Where should their allegiance lie? The answer depends on the underlying nature of arbitration - and since that can be legitimately conceptualized in different ways, a principled approach to overriding mandatory rules seems to be impossible to provide. Nevertheless, a practical solution is required, because there were European cases in which courts voided valid arbitration agreements made, reasoning that arbitrators certainly would not apply and/or take into account its overriding mandatory rules of indemnity right granted to commercial agent and distributor in Europe. Therefore, this paper first examines status of overriding mandatory rules of another law in international litigation and then explores any possibility of application of overriding mandatory rules of another law in international commercial arbitration. With this analysis, the author reaches into a conclusion that the arbitrator should and/or take into account overriding mandatory rules of another law, yet should limit to them of the country where characteristic performance is made under the contract.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.31 no.2
• /
• pp.73-98
• /
• 2016

This is a case review of the Korean Supreme Court about international jurisdiction over a foreign-related case. This case is a guideline to other following cases how Korean court has international jurisdiction over the foreign elements cases. This case was an air crash accident in Busan, Korea. And the applicant was a chinese who was parents of flight attendant. The defendant was Air China. The applicant suid the defendant in Korea court, requesting for compensation for damages based on the contract of employment between died employee and the defendant and tort. The trial court rejected jurisdiction. But Supreme court granted jurisdiction on Korean court. The court determined the jurisdiction by the Korean Private International Law Act(KPILA). The KPILA has a concept of 'substantial connection', it is a main legal analysis to determine the jurisdiction. In the act, Article 2 Paragraph 1 says "In case a party or a case in dispute is substantively related to the Republic of Korea, a court shall have the international jurisdiction. In this case, the court shall obey reasonable principles, compatible to the ideology of the allocation of international jurisdiction, in judging the existence of the substantive relations." And Article 2 Paragraph 2 declares "A court shall judge whether or not it has the international jurisdiction in the light of jurisdictional provisions of domestic laws and shall take a full consideration of the unique nature of international jurisdiction in the light of the purport of the provision of paragraph (1)." In this case review find concepts, theories and cases out to clarify the meaning about Article 2 of the KPILA. Also it quoted from the concept of "the base rule" in Rome I (Regulation (EC) 593/2008 on the law applicable to contractual obligations) to apply the contract of employment between flight attendant and Air carrier.