• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.47
• /
• pp.129-156
• /
• 2010

Since the 1970s, international construction employers have commonly requested first demand guarantees upon their contractors as a form of security for due performance of their works. Contractors prefer the greater protection offered by more traditional forms of security requiring presentation of an arbitral award or other evidence of the caller's entitlement to compensation. Many contractors nonetheless feel that they have no alternative but to provide these unconditional guarantees in order to compete. However, these unconditional first demand guarantees are controversial and have given rise to numerous disputes both in arbitration and litigation. Disputes arising from first demand guarantees can be broken down into a) applications to prevent a perceived fraudulent or otherwise unfair or improper calling of a guarantee, b) claims arising from such abusive calls and c) claims relating to the consequences of such calls even if the call itself may not be abusive as such. The contractors should carefully assess the risk of an abusive call being made bearing in mind the difficulties he may face in seeking to prevent such a call. He should also bear in mind the difficulties, delays and cost he is likely to encounter in seeking to recover any monies wrongfully called. One option would be to provide that the call can only be made once and to the extent that the employer's damages have been assessed or even incurred or even for the default to have been established by an arbitral tribunal or court. Another option would be to provide that any call be accompanied by a decision of a competent and impartial third party stating that the contractor is in breach. For example, such a requirement could be incorporated into a construction contract based on the FIDIC Conditions by submitting this decision to a Dispute Adjudication Board. Another option would be to provide for the "ICC Counter-Guarantee Scheme". In sum, there would appear to be room for compromise between the employer and the contractor in respect of first demand guarantees by conditioning the entitlement to call such guarantees to the determination of a competent and impartial third party.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.51
• /
• 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.

• Proceedings of the Korean Society of Computer Information Conference
• /
• 2016.07a
• /
• pp.141-143
• /
• 2016

2016년 5월 19일 대법원은 전원합의체판결에서 부동산 매수자가 본인 명의로 소유권이전등기를 하지 않고 등기를 매도인에게서 직접 명의수탁자로 이전하는 제3자간 명의신탁(중간생략등기형 명의신탁)의 경우 명의수탁자가 신탁부동산을 임의로 처분하여도 형사처벌를 할 수 없다는 판결을 하였다. 본 논문에서는 민법과 형법의 교차영역인 명의신탁에서 민사사건의 형사화를 지양했다는 점에서 긍정적인 평가를 하지만 이에 따른 관련법의 정비를 통한 법개정을 제안한다. 즉, 명의신탁에 관한 법제 간 모순을 극복하기 위해 '부동산 실권리자명의 등기에 관한 법률'의 개정이 요구된다. 또한 부동산소유자가 그 등기명의를 타인에게 신탁하기로 하는 명의신탁약정을 맺고 그 등기명의를 명의수탁자에게 이전하는 소위 2자간 명의신탁의 경우도 비범죄화를 함으로써 법체계의 논리성과 통일성을 확보할 필요가 있다.

• Asia-Pacific Journal of Business Venturing and Entrepreneurship
• /
• v.10 no.5
• /
• pp.127-135
• /
• 2015

The initial start-up founders are also often successful and sometimes unsuccessful. Conditions of establishment, it is necessary to management strategies such as site selection and strong entrepreneurial spirit with matching funds force to their aptitude. However, novice founder, in real estate transactions, there is a case in which a freak accident, such as the double sale occurs. South Korea's real estate transactions practice, difficult subject to systematic support, even as has been resolved legally, the damage of the victim so that the difficult issues that remain intact occurs. Therefore, beyond the problem to punish the perpetrators in such breach of trust crimes a legally double trade to this, is the strategy through the management histological approach received victim now of damage is required. We want to be viewed as discussion of What about the management strategy for accident prevention of real estate transactions in elementary founder accident concerning transactions such as real estate of double trafficking.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.15 no.2
• /
• pp.227-251
• /
• 2014

In current law, the premium medical treatment system gives patients the right of choice between normal medical treatment service and premium medical treatment service. Only the doctors having a career more than a certain period of time fixed in the law are eligible for providing the premium medical treatment service. So, the premium medical treatment system is highly related to the patients' right to know and the right of self-determination. The system is also relevant to the so-called 'economic explanation' notion because patients should pay additional fee when they want to use this system. Meanwhile, the situation as follows is problematic as to this system. Although a patient applied for using the premium medical treatment system and the patient also chose his or her own doctor specifically, another doctor who was not selected as premium doctor could make a medical accident. Then, is the another doctor liable for damages because the accident was a medical malpractice or a breach of medical contract? In this study, we are going to examine the problems related with the premium medical treatment system. First, we examine the current law related to the system. Second, we look into the economic explanation duty and its application to the premium medical treatment system. Finally, we examine a real judgment case about a medical practice against the premium medical treatment system and we propose our solution to this case.

• Korea Trade Review
• /
• v.43 no.6
• /
• pp.25-50
• /
• 2018

It is an undeniable fact that the counter-guarantees are always exposed to wrongful or fraudulent demands for payment due to its institutional hallmarks and simplicity. Generally counter-guarantees are payable by presenting a written statement indicating that the local guarantor was in receipt of the beneficiary's statement that the principal was in breach of the underlying contract without any proof of any default. No proof of actual payment of guarantee is required. These matters may lead to numerous disputes or conflicts between the parties concerned. These problems raise may legal issues such as a guarantor(or a counter-guarantor)'s dishonor, the wrongful or fraudulent demands for payment, and the fraudulent conspiracy or the acquiescence of the local guarantor in the course of the procedural demand for payment. On the other hand, the guarantor's dishonor or an injunction are sometimes misused as dispute resolution method between parties involved. Therefore, this research analyzed the guarantor's wrongful dishonor and related issues such as an injunction, fraud exception, and others under the counter-guarantee regime focusing on the relevant cases. This paper also suggested practical implications and countermeasures from a business point of view.

• Journal of Labour Economics
• /
• v.23 no.2
• /
• pp.1-37
• /
• 2000

Since the early 1990s, the Korean courts have tilted in the direction of giving greater freedom to employers by relaxing the restrictions on dismissal for economic reasons. During the Korean economic crisis of 1998, the Korean Labor Standard Act was also revised for the purpose of relieving the limitation of employer's discretion in employment adjustment. From the Coasian perspective, this article analyze how implied contracts for the employee's reliance and employer's compliance might be influenced after the formal law is revised. We demonstrate that, if the legal change results in excessive intervention, it might cause the employers to over-breach, the employees to under-rely, and the accompanying efficiency to decrease. We scrutinize the total population of unjust dismissal cases since 1987 in order to investigate how the legal changes in Korea have affected the implied contracts. Our empirical analysis raises a possibility that Korean legal changes made in 1990s might have increased the employer's opportunism and decreased the employer's reliance effort.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.19 no.2
• /
• pp.95-126
• /
• 2009

One of the controversial issues in investor-state investment arbitration is the interpretation of "umbrella clause" that is found in most BIT and FTAs. This treaty clause requires on Contracting State of treaty to observe all investment obligations entered into with foreign investors from the other Contracting State. This clause did not receive in-depth attention until SGS v. Pakistan and SGS v. Philippines cases produced starkly different conclusions on the relations about treaty-based jurisdiction and contract-based jurisdiction. More recent decisions by other arbitral tribunals continue to show different approaches in their interpretation of umbrella clauses. Following the SGS v. Philippines decision, some recent decisions understand that all contracts are covered by umbrella clause, for example, in Siemens A.G. v. Argentina, LG&E Energy Corp. v. Argentina, Sempra Energy Int'l v. Argentina and Enron Corp. V. Argentina. However, other recent decisions have found a different approach that only certain kinds of public contracts are covered by umbrella clauses, for example, in El Paso Energy Int'l Co. v. Argentina, Pan American Energy LLC v. Argentina and CMS Gas Transmission Co. v. Argentina. With relation to the exhaustion of domestic remedies, most of tribunals have the position that the contractual remedy should not affect the jurisdiction of BIT tribunal. Even some tribunals considered that there is no need to exhaust contract remedies before bringing BIT arbitration, provoking suspicion of the validity of sanctity of contract in front of treaty obligation. The decision of the Annulment Committee In CMS case in 2007 was an extraordinarily surprising one and poured oil on the debate. The Committee composed of the three respected international lawyers, Gilbert Guillaume and Nabil Elaraby, both from the ICJ, and professor James Crawford, the Rapportuer of the International Law Commission on the Draft Articles on the Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, observed that the arbitral tribunal made critical errors of law, however, noting that it has limited power to review and overturn the award. The position of the Committee was a direct attack on ICSID system showing as an internal recognition of ICSID itself that the current system of investor-state arbitration is problematic. States are coming to limit the scope of umbrella clauses. For example, the 2004 U.S. Model BIT detailed definition of the type of contracts for which breach of contract claims may be submitted to arbitration, to increase certainty and predictability. Latin American countries, in particular, Argentina, are feeling collectively victims of these pro-investor interpretations of the ICSID tribunals. In fact, BIT between developed and developing countries are negotiated to protect foreign investment from developing countries. This general characteristic of BIT reflects naturally on the provisions making them extremely protective for foreign investors. Naturally, developing countries seek to interpret restrictively BIT provisions, whereas developed countries try to interpret more expansively. As most of cases arising out of alleged violation of BIT are administered in the ICSID, a forum under the auspices of the World Bank, these Latin American countries have been raising the legitimacy deficit of the ICSID. The Argentine cases have been provoking many legal issues of international law, predicting crisis almost coming in actual investor-state arbitration system. Some Latin American countries, such as Bolivia, Venezuela, Ecuador, Argentina, already showed their dissatisfaction with the ICSID system considering withdrawing from it to minimize the eventual investor-state dispute. Thus the disagreement over umbrella clauses in their interpretation is becoming interpreted as an historical reflection on the continued tension between developing and developed countries on foreign investment. There is an academic and political discussion on the possible return of the Calvo Doctrine in Latin America. The paper will comment on these problems related to the interpretation of umbrella clause. The paper analyses ICSID cases involving principally Latin American countries to identify the critical legal issues arising between developing and developed countries. And the paper discusses alternatives in improving actual investor-State investment arbitration; inter alia, the introduction of an appellate system and treaty interpretation rules.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.1
• /
• pp.147-162
• /
• 1989

The current status of the application and interpretation of the Warsaw Convention and its subsequent Protocols in Asian countries is in its fredgling stages compared to the developed countries of Europe and North America, and there is thus little published information about the various Asian governments' treatment and courts' views of the Warsaw System. Due to that limitation, the accent of this paper will be on Korea and Japan. As one will be aware, the so-called 'Warsaw System' is made up of the Warsaw Convention of 1929, the Hague Protocol of 1955, the Guadalajara Convention of 1961, the Guatemala City Protocol of 1971 and the Montreal Additional Protocols Nos. 1,2,3 and 4 of 1975. Among these instruments, most of the countries in Asia are parties to both the Warsaw Convention and the Hague Protocol. However, the Republic of Korea and Mongolia are parties only to the Hague Protocol, while Burma, Indonesia and Sri Lanka are parties only to the Warsaw Convention. Thailand and Taiwan are not parties only to the convention or protocol. Among Asian states, Indonesia, the Phillipines and Pakistan are also parties to the Guadalajara Convention, but no country in Asia has signed the Guatemala City Protocol of 1971 or the Montreal Additional Protocols, which Protocols have not yet been put into force. The People's Republic of China has declared that the Warsaw Convention shall apply to the entire Chinese territory, including Taiwan. 'The application of the Warsaw Convention to one-way air carriage between a state which is a party only to the Warsaw Convention and a state which is a party only to the Hague Protocol' is of particular importance in Korea as it is a signatory only to the Hague Protocol, but it is involved in a great deal of air transportation to and from the united states, which in turn is a party only to the Warsaw Convention. The opinion of the Supreme Court of Korea appears to be, that parties to the Warsaw Convention were intended to be parties to the Hague Protocol, whether they actually signed it or not. The effect of this decision is that in Korea the United States and Korea will be considered by the courts to be in a treaty relationship, though neither State is a signatory to the same instrument as the other State. The first wrongful death claim in Korea related to international carriage by air under the Convention was made in Hyun-Mo Bang, et al v. Korean Air Lines Co., Ltd. case. In this case, the plaintiffs claimed for damages based upon breach of contract as well as upon tort under the Korean Civil Code. The issue in the case was whether the time limitation provisions of the Convention should be applicable to a claim based in tort as well as to a claim based in contract. The Appellate Court ruled on 29 August 1983 that 'however founded' in Article 24(1) of the Convention should be construed to mean that the Convention should be applicable to the claim regardless of whether the cause of action was based in tort or breach of contract, and that the plaintiffs' rights to damages had therefore extinguished because of the time limitation as set forth in Article 29(1) of the Convention. The difficult and often debated question of what exactly is meant by the words 'such default equivalent to wilful misconduct' in Article 25(1) of the Warsaw Convention, has also been litigated. The Supreme Court of Japan dealt with this issue in the Suzuki Shinjuten Co. v. Northwest Airlines Inc. case. The Supreme Court upheld the Appellate Court's ruling, and decided that 'such default equivalent to wilful misconduct' under Article 25(1) of the Convention was within the meaning of 'gross negligence' under the Japanese Commercial Code. The issue of the convention of the 'franc' into national currencies as provided in Article 22 of the Warsaw Convention as amended by the Hague Protocol has been raised in a court case in Korea, which is now before the District Court of Seoul. In this case, the plaintiff argues that the gold franc equivalent must be converted in Korean Won in accordance with the free market price of gold in Korea, as Korea has not enacted any law, order or regulation prescribing the proper method of calculating the equivalent in its national currency. while it is unclear if the court will accept this position, the last official price of gold of the United States as in the famous Franklin Mint case, Special Drawing Right(SDR) or the current French franc, Korean Air Lines has argued in favor of the last official price of gold of the United States by which the air lines converted such francs into us Dollars in their General Conditions of Carriage. It is my understanding that in India, an appellate court adopted the free market price valuation. There is a report as well saying that if a lawsuit concerning this issue were brought in Pakistan, the free market cost of gold would be applied there too. Speaking specifically about the future of the Warsaw System in Asia though I have been informed that Thailand is actively considering acceding to the Warsaw Convention, the attitudes of most Asian countries' governments towards the Warsaw System are still wnot ell known. There is little evidence that Asian countries are moving to deal concretely with the conversion of the franc into their own local currencies. So too it cannot be said that they are on the move to adhere to the Montreal Additional Protocols Nos. 3 & 4 which attempt to basically solve many of the current problems with the Warsaw System, by adopting the SDR as the unit of currency, by establishing the carrier's absolute liability and an unbreakable limit and by increasing the carrier's passenger limit of liability to SDR 100,000, as well as permiting the domestic introduction of supplemental compensation. To summarize my own sentiments regarding the future, I would say that given the fact that Asian air lines are now world leaders both in overall size and rate of growth, and the fact that both Asian individuals and governments are becoming more and more reliant on the global civil aviation networks as their economies become ever stronger, I am hopeful that Asian nations will henceforth play a bigger role in ensuring the orderly and hasty development of a workable unified system of rules governing international commercial air carriage.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.16 no.1
• /
• pp.3-82
• /
• 2015

This paper is concerned in the theme of the liability for the breach of duty to inform(Haftungszurechnung der $Aufkl{\ddot{a}}rungspflichtverletzung$) and the malpractice of cosmetic surgery. Here, the terms, treatments for healing purposes and purely medical-technical cosmetic operations are well integrated in the category of "medical conduct(medizinische Handlung)" within the meaning of the public and administrative 'Medical Law'. In the judgment of 6. 13. 2013 Az. 2012DA94865 provides the KHGH(Korean Highest Court of Justice) to inform the patient about the prospects and risks of cosmetic surgery(Infrabrow Excision Blepharoplasty) stringent requirements, similar to the judicature of BGH(cf. BGH, Urt. v. 6. 11. 1990, Az.: VI ZR 8/90). Even in the judgment of 5. 12. 2014 Az. 2013GASO865646 the SZLG(Seoul Central Regional Court) recognizes the physician contract for 'cosmetic septoplasty' as a sort of contract for work. The medical treatment(${\ddot{a}}rztliche$ Heilbehandlung) is still regarded as a prototype of the medical activity, therefore in the meaning of the 'Civil Law(KBGB)', its term needs to be used immediately for healing purposes. The cosmetic operation, desired by a patient, differs from the healing treatment by the element of "indication" and the fact that the "healing purpose(Heilzweck)" itself is missing. In comparative context - methodically fully aware that the unreflective term transfer between different laws might contradict their legal purposes - a series of judgments BSG(BSGE 63, 83, BSGE 72, 96, BSGE, 82, 158, BSGE 93, 252 etc.) and some judgments of LSG are reviewed. In addition, also the dogmatic topic for the "legal natur of a medical treatment contract" is to reconsider by comparative introducing BGHZ 63, 306. Now in view of the current state of greater popularity of artificial cosmetic surgery still indeed is the sentences: The doctor is minister naturae, a helper of nature. A doctor promises regularly only the proper treatment of the patient, but the contractual liability for work should not be excluded in medical conditions for cosmetic surgeries altogether. "With cosmetic operations, seeking to eliminate the external deformities, the doctor may miss the medical profession entirely." - A. Laufs, Medical Law, 5th ed. P. 18.