• Journal of Information Technology Services
• /
• v.2 no.2
• /
• pp.31-38
• /
• 2003

The rapid growth of Korean SI (System Integration) industries have established the largest marketplaces in Korea. Due to the characteristics and importance of SI industry, SI contract between developer and outsourcer is very much important. SI contract have the specific legal characters of undertaking, trust, mandate and etc. However, this paper attempts to establish the particular legal system of SI contract.

• Proceedings of the Korean Institute of Building Construction Conference
• /
• 2021.05a
• /
• pp.155-156
• /
• 2021

Most of the construction works in domestic are not direct undertaking work, but by a contract method including subcontracting. Therefore, a general contractor for each project jointly carry out construction work with a specialty contractor for each engineering type. However, in terms of contract, this method is not a joint venture contract, but a subcontract. Accordingly, this system can cause various problems between the prime contractor and the subcontractor. Therefore, this study aims to extract and present the actual obstacle factors in terms of specialty contract company performing specialty construction work for construction project. The presented contents are expected to present the standard for the cooperation system that the prime contractor and the subcontractor can win-win.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.26
• /
• pp.35-86
• /
• 2005

International distributorship contract(IDC), as well as international agency contract is a type of contract which is most frequently used in international trade. But one of the main difficulties faced by parties of IDC is the lack of uniform rules for this type of contract. This means that both parties should be careful about each clause of the contract when they draw up it. The ICC prepared model form which incorporates the prevailing practice in international trade, and which aims at protecting and balancing the legitimate interests of both parties. This author examined the several important clauses in this model contract. The purpose of this examination is to help the contracting parties for better understanding and applying them in their actual contracting practice, which based on this model contract. When the supplier and the distributor execute their contract or use ICC Model Contract, they should be careful about the following points: First, some terminologies(like, "territory", "product", "competing products" and "exclusivity") should be clearly defined in their contract. Second, regarding the supplier's functions including "supplying products" and the distributor's responsibility including "undertaking not to compete", and "attaining guaranteed minimum targets", both parties should make clear about each party's right and obligation as well as one party's remedies available when other party makes breach of its obligation. Third, both parties should examine the relationship between the "exclusivity" or "sole" and competition law which is regarded as a mandatory rule in the territory. Forth, when both parties lay down "termination clause" in the contract, they should make clear about the indemnity in case of termination. Fifth, as there is not uniform law for the distributorship contract, it is inevitable to choose any local law as an applicable law in case of litigation. So both parties should keep in mind to insert arbitration clause to avoid the application of the local law. Besides, both parties should consider their individual and specific circumstances and try to reflect them in their contract by Annex I to XI attached to the end of model contract.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.42
• /
• pp.133-160
• /
• 2009

In International trade the buyer and seller are normally separated from on another not only by distance but also by differences in language and culture. It is rarely possible for the performance of obligations to be simultaneous and the performance of contracts therefore calls for trust in a situation in which the parties are unlikely to feel able to trust each other unless they have a longstanding and successful relationship. Thus the seller under an international contract of sale will not wish to surrender documents of title to goods to the buyer until he has at least an assurance of payment, and no buyer will wish to pay for goods until he has received them. A gap of distrust thus exists which is often bridged by the undertaking of an intermediary known and trusted by both parties who will undertake on his own liability to pay the seller the contract price in return for the documents of title and then pass the documents to the buyer in return for the reimbursement. This is a common explanation of the theory behind the documentary letter of credit in which the undertaking of a bank of international repute serves as a "guarantee" to each party that the other will perform his obligations. The independence principle, also referred to as the "autonomy principle", is at the core of letter of credit or bank guarantee law. This principle provides that the letter of credit or bank guarantee is independent of the underlying contractual commitment - that is, the transaction that the credit is intented to secure - between the applicant and the beneficiary ; the credit is also independent of the relationship between the bank and its customer, the applicant. The most important exception to the independence principle is the doctrine of fraud in the transaction. A strict interpretation of the rule that the guarantee is independent of the underlying transaction would lead to the conclusion that neither fraud nor manifest abuse of rights by the beneficiary would constitute an objection to payment. There is one major problem related to "Independent guarantees", namely abusive or unfair callings. The beneficiary may make an unfair calling under the guarantee. The countermeasure of beneficiary's unfair calling divided three cases. First, advance countermeasure namely by contract. In other words, when the formation of the contract, the parties must insert the Force Majeure Clause, Arbitration Clause to Contract, and clear statement to the condition for demand calling. Second, post countermeasure namely by court. Many countries, including the United States, authorize the courts to grant an order enjoining the issuer from paying or enjoining the beneficiary from receiving payment under the guaranty letter. Third, Export Insurance. For example, the Export Credit Guarantees Department is prepared, subject to certain conditions, to cover the risk of unfair calling. Of course, KEIC in Korea is cover the risk of the all things for guarantees. On international projects, contractor performance is usually guaranteed by either a standby letters of credit or Independent guarantee. These instruments will be care the parties.

• International conference on construction engineering and project management
• /
• 2009.05a
• /
• pp.995-999
• /
• 2009

Before a contractor embarks on exporting its services, it needs to know if it is likely to succeed. This research developed two prediction models to help contractors in Singapore predict the number of projects (Y1) and the contract values (Y2) that they are likely to secure from overseas. Detailed characteristics of 60 contractors who export their services (exporters) were obtained from the database of registered contractors in Singapore. Multiple linear regression models were developed and tests showed that Y1 is a robust model. A contractor's chance of winning more overseas projects may be predicted by the number of projects it acted as a subcontractor; the variety of projects it undertakes; the total contract value in the domestic market; and the number of countries it exported its services to. It is recommended that contractors who are planning to export their services be flexible instead of adopt a focused policy of undertaking only one or two project types in a few selected countries.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.31 no.2
• /
• pp.37-72
• /
• 2016

In the aerospace field, besides special purpose airplanes, contracts for supply of various types of products such as prototypes, unmanned aerial vehicles and space launch vehicles are increasing. In the case of the contractor, it was planned to spend a large amount of money to supply the production, but if the purchase specification that presents the quality and performance standard of the product is poor or lacks the capacity to judge the performance, consuming enormous amounts of time and money. Even if the undertaker does not have the ability to supply the products with the required performance and quality to achieve the purpose of the contract, he/she must pay the cost of burial due to the incompleteness of the work and the compensation for the cancellation of the contract. In this case, the defendant ordered the plaintiff to supply the aircraft by the Happy Box method, which is capable of ILS Offset flight as specified in the Purchase Specification, but the plaintiff attempted to supply the aircraft by the RNAV method. Although the ILS ground signal can be inspected by the RNAV method, the aircraft manufactured in the manner claimed by the plaintiff does not have the ILS Offset flight function required by the purchase specification, so the defendant can not achieve the purpose required by the purchase specification. It was a question of whether a defendant's cancellation of contract was legitimate. The aircraft, which is the object of this contract, is a subordinate substitute, so the case contract is of undertaking. Therefore, in order to complete the work in this contract, the major structural parts of the aircraft must be manufactured as agreed and have the performance generally required in the social sense. However, the aircraft delivered by the plaintiff has serious defects because the defendant can not achieve the purpose required by the purchase specification due to the lack of the ILS Offset flight function required by the purchase specification. This deficiency is impossible for the plaintiff to repair, so the defendant 's cancellation of the contract is legitimate.

• Journal of the military operations research society of Korea
• /
• v.31 no.1
• /
• pp.14-25
• /
• 2005

Defense offset is considered to be all effective way of acquiring defense critical technologies and arms components as a counter-trade obligation ill defense acquisition contracts. Although arranging the offset contracts is wide]y perceived as necessary, there hardly exists an acceptable model of valuation of the offset technology. By undertaking the technology valuation approach and applying the option approach tn the offset program, we present an offset technology valuation model that maximizes social net benefit of the countries transferring the technology. This article applies our model to an actual case of defense technology transfer in the Republic of Korea. The contribution of this paper is in applying the option approach to the valuation of defense onset technology, providing for the additional flexibility to tile analysis. Our research suggests several policy implications that can be applied to the actual process of defense offsets. Our results elucidate managers' role and responsibilities in designing such a process by applying option approaches.

• Korea Trade Review
• /
• v.43 no.4
• /
• pp.89-110
• /
• 2018

This paper reviews the practical operations and exceptions to the independent principle by analyzing the leading cases of English documentary credit transactions. A bank's undertaking in L/C transactions differentiates between underlying contract and other contracts. The autonomy principle is the key principle governing L/C, but this principle may be connected with unfair (unjust) payment. English Law is strongly influenced by the developments in American Law in the case of fraud, but traditionally, British courts has been very reluctant to interfere in banks' independent undertaking under the L/C. The position of British case law relating to fraud is based on Sztejn. In practice, British courts recognize fraud as an exception to the autonomy principle in which the case is sufficiently serious to render it unjust to permit the beneficiary to receive payment. British case law has historically taken a narrow approach toward intervention in the independent principle of documentary credit. Therefore, innocent parties including beneficiaries are protected by these regulations regarding fraud.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.16 no.1
• /
• pp.277-314
• /
• 2006

This article aims at analysing the reality of banks' liability resulting from the breach of contract on its part to keep the business secrecy with the supplier in the transferable credit, focusing on a English decision, Jackson v. Royal Bank of Scotland [2005] UKHL 3. In this case, the applicant, 'Econ', had purchased various varieties of pre-packed dog chews in bulk through 'Sam'(lst beneficiary) from 'PPLtd'(2nd beneficiary) in Thailand, using a transferable letter of credit issued by 'RBank'. 'Sam' charged a tremendous amount of mark-up on each transaction and it had not been disclosed to 'Econ', although the identity of 'PPLtd' was revealed to 'Econ' by various documents. However, 'RBank' made an unfortunate error to send an completion statement and other documents including 'PPLtd.'s invoice to 'Econ' instead of to 'Sam'. The effect of the Bank's error was to reveal to 'Econ' the substantial profit that 'Sam' was making on these transactions. CEO of 'Econ' was furious and, as a result, decided to cut 'Sam' out of its importing system and terminated their relationship. 'Sam' sued 'RBank' for damages to recover the loss of profits which could have been possibly made, if the information on the mark-up would not have been exposed to 'Econ'. The House of Lord held that 'RBank' was in breach of its duty of confidence, so 'Sam' was entitled to recover damages on a decreasing scale over 4 years, since there was no specific undertaking from the letter of credit.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.47
• /
• pp.157-182
• /
• 2010

A counter-guarantee is an independent undertaking and it functions in the same way as an ordinary independent guarantee. However, the typical notion of independence which applies to the relationship between the guarantee and the underlying contract cannot be exactly transposed to the relationship between the counter-guarantee and the primary guarantee, because the primary guarantor bears its duties that derive from the mandate. In this respect, this study reviews, with some critics, a Korean appellate court's decision and argues that, in spite of the principle of independence between the counter-guarantee and the primary guarantee, the primary guarantor may not be entitled to reimbursement from the counter-guarantor, if it is objectively evident that the primary guarantor has failed to perform its duty of verifying compliance under the primary guarantor or if it is objectively evident that the primary guarantor knows that it is objectively evident that there was fraudulent calling by the beneficiary under the primary guarantee.