• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제58권
• /
• pp.215-236
• /
• 2013

It is quite true that the more Korean contractors receive overseas contracts, the more they need guarantees. The top market for them is the Middle East countries, consisting of more than the half of the total amount awarded last year and the trend is increasing as well. The problem, however, is that employers in these countries are reluctant to use international rules for guarantee such as URDG or ISP98 and easily make unfair callings. However, Korean contractors(applicants), especially small and medium sized enterprises(SMEs) tend to hurriedly enter a contract without looking into its contents as well as guarantees. They do not realize the importance of the guarantees until they receive callings from the employers(beneficiaries). Being independent from the underlying contracts, guarantee is the equivalent to cash in that it usually does not require any proof of demand when calling and the guarantor should make a payment within usually 5 business days after the request. It is often observed these days that several Korean SMEs go bankrupt due to liquidity risks after receiving unfair callings from employers in the Middle East countries. In retrospect, some cases could be obviated if contractors were a little more careful in checking the contents of a guarantee at the time of concluding a contract. For example, there is one case where the underlying contract includes a reduction clause in the Advance Payment bond and the guarantee does not have that clause. In the end, the Korean contractor had to take the whole burden of the bond amount though it had finished 81% of the project. Nobody could argue that contractors should take a full responsibility if they fail in their obligations. However, the employer's wrongful callings need to be prevented in the first place, if possible. As there shouldn't be a case where one party is at a disadvantage against the other like the case mentioned above, useful insight is being sought to minimize unfair calling risks for the benefit of the applicant. First, the applicant should carefully look into every detail of the potential guarantee before signing a contract, heeding especially that there is a reduction clause in the AP bond. Second, the governing principles for guarantee should be the ones that are internally used such as URDG758 that is objective in terms of callings given that, for example, it specifies that the requirement for a supporting statement when making a demand is a default rule. It is also recommended that the form of guarantees be the standard demand guarantee. Third, parties involved in issuing guarantees are advised to understand international rules for guarantee like URDG758 and ISP98 and to play a key role in guiding SME contractors in Korea so that they can protect themselves from possible wrongful callings, particularly from employers in the Middle East countries. I hope this study would give a wake-up call for Korean SMEs wishing to do business in the Middle East countries and remind them of the importance of guarantee itself and its governing principles.

• 국제지역연구
• /
• 제12권2호
• /
• pp.277-295
• /
• 2008

한국상법 제671조에서 당사자간에 보험가액을 정하지 아니한 때에는 사고발생시의 가액을 보험가액으로 한다고 규정하고 있으나 이 규정은 해상보험에서는 적용되지 아니하고 법정보험가액이 적용되고, 상법 제670조와 같이 당사자간에 보험가액을 정한 때에는 그 가액은 사고발생시의 가액으로 정한 것으로 추정한다. 그러나 그 가액이 사고발생시의 가액을 현저하게 초과할 때에는 사고발생시의 가액을 보험가액으로 한다라는 규정 때문에 해상보험에 있어서 협정보험가액의 과대평가에 대한 비교대상이 사고발생시의 가액인지 아니면 해상보험에 관한 법정보험가액이 되는지 불투명하게 된다. 해상보험의 경우 기간이 짧고 경기변동이 적으므로 법정보험가액제도를 두고 보험가액불변경주의를 도입하였다. 그러나 이는 임의규정으로서 만약 기간이 길거나 경기변동이 크다면 법정보험가액이 아닌 사고발생시의 가액으로 대체된다. 그러나 기평가보험에서 협정보험가액이 과대평가되었을 경우 그 과대평가의 비교대상을 법정보험가액이라고 하고 있는데 이는 논리적인 모순을 가지고 있다. 따라서 해상보험에서 협정보험가액의 과대평가시 사고발생시의 가액을 보험가액으로 본다고 하고 있으므로 협정보험가액의 과대평가의 비교대상은 사고발생시의 가액으로 되며 법정보험가액을 적용할 여지가 없다.