• 무역학회지
• /
• 제44권6호
• /
• pp.285-302
• /
• 2019

Good faith is difficult to define due to the facts that there is not an objective and concrete concept of good faith, and good faith in contracts for the international sale of goods is a principle that parties to the contract must act with sincerity as members of a social community. The Korean Supreme Court shall pay attention to setting the applicable standards that can be universally applied to good faith based on the self-established criteria. Through such effort, it is possible not only to realize the value of concrete validity pursued by the general clause of good faith but also to realize the value of legal stability by assuring the predictability of results when applying good faith. In the modern sense, it can be said that the arbitrary application of general rules rather than the escape and general clauses is a problematic situation in the application of good faith, but this problem can be solved by setting a reasonable standard of good faith. This paper studies good faith in the view of Korean law, international laws, and related cases in contract law. The purpose of this paper is to find the problems and solutions of the practical application of good faith by analyzing the Korean case (2009Da86000), which undermined the legal stability of good faith in Korea.

• 통상정보연구
• /
• 제11권1호
• /
• pp.309-331
• /
• 2009

In 25th April. 2008, the Korea legislature gave advance notice on the Revision Bill of Commercial Law in Insurance Division in partial, one of which is the principle of utmost good faith to be codified in accordance with the effectuation of the Revision Bill enforcement. For this, even though the disclosure duty is not included in the Revision Bill, it should also be discussed in relation to the principle of utmost good faith because it is based upon the principle of utmost good faith and forms a part of utmost good faith. In Marine Insurance industry in Korea, there are the sections and the clauses in relation to the English governing law included in the Policies and the Clauses used in Korea and, also, they still come into effect for the Korea Courts' judgements. So. we, Korea, should carefully pay attention to the trend of English courts' leading case, academic world and insurance industry on the disclosure duty in U.K. This study is thus based upon sections 17 and 18~20 of the Marine Insurance Act 1906 and sections 651, 652 and 655 of Commercial Law in Insurance Division, which appear throughout this work. The objective of this work is to analyse the duty of disclosure on Korean and English Insurance Laws including cases cited in this work, comparing the differences resulted from the analysis of the two countries‘laws and legal cases.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제13권
• /
• pp.365-387
• /
• 2000

One of the central and primary doctrine of the law of marine insurance is that the contract of indemnity entered into by assured and insurer is a contract of the utmost good faith. The notion of utmost good faith is a well established doctrine derived from the celebrated case of Carter v. Boehm(1766), decided long before the inception of the Marine Insurance Act(MIA). With the codification of the law, the principle found expression in sections $17{\sim}20$ of the MIA 1906. In section 17 is presented the general duty to observe the utmost good faith, with the following sections introducing particular aspects of the doctrine, namely, the duty of the assured and brokers to disclose material circumstances, and to avoid making misrepresentations. It is somewhat surprising that section 17, being a long founded doctrine, has not attracted the attention of the courts until very recently. Given that the most significant manifestations of uberrimae fidei are non-disclosure and misrepresentations, fulfillment of the obligation of utmost good faith was, not unreasonably, for a long time perceived in terms of the duty to disclose and not to misrepresent. However, Black King Shipping Corporation v. Massie, 'Litsion Pride'(1985) has clarified that the duty of disclosure stems from the duty of utmost good faith, and not vice versa. The duty of utmost good faith is an independent and overriding duty, with the ensuring sections on disclosure and representations providing mere illustrations of that duty. It is now clear that there are important questions with regard to the general doctrine and as to the nature and scope of any duty of good faith continuing after the contract of insurance is made which require separate and fuller discussion. The purpose of this paper is to review the nature and scope of the duty of utmost good faith.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제62권
• /
• pp.135-178
• /
• 2014

The Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) sets the standards of good faith in a commercial transaction for the sale of goods. With every sales contract, there is an implied obligation for both the seller and the buyer to negotiate the contract and perform under the terms of the contract in good faith. The agreement between both parties and the customs in the industry determine how the good faith standard should be applied to a particular transaction. Generally, the meaning of good faith, though always based on honesty, may vary depending on the specific context in which it is used. A person is said to buy in good faith when he or she holds an honest belief in his or her right or title to the property and has no knowledge or reason to know of any defect in the title. In section 1-201 of the UCC good faith is defined generally as "honesty in fact in the conduct or transaction concerned." Article 2 of the UCC says "good faith in the case of a merchant means honesty in fact and the observance of reasonable commercial standards of fair dealing in the trade." The sales contract will generally determine which party is required to perform first. This provision helps to determine if the buyer or the seller is in breach of the agreement due to failing to perform as stated by the contract. Either the seller must deliver the items before the buyer is required to accept and pay or the buyer must pay for the items before the seller has the duty to act in good faith and deliver the items in a reasonable manner. If the contract does not specifically define who is required to perform, industry customs and fair trade may determine what is acceptable for the transaction. Under the UCC, the buyer is required to pay for the goods when they are delivered, unless the contract states otherwise. Therefore, the UCC imposes an obligation of good faith on the performance of every contract or duty under its purview. The law also generally requires good faith of fiduciaries and agents acting on behalf of their principals. This article discusses problems of the principles of good faith under the UCC. Specifically, this paper focuses on the interpretation of UCC sections and analysis of various cases. By comparing, also, UCC and Korean law, the paper proposes some implications of good faith issues for Korean law.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제22권
• /
• pp.173-197
• /
• 2004

Letter of Credit between buyer and seller in International Trade Transaction is the means of payment which makes International Trade operate smoothly by guaranteeing an exporter against non-payment and an importer against non-delivery. Therefore, the parties to a sale apply UCP500 established by the International Chamber of Commerce, in accordance with principle of the freedom of contract among the parties concerned, to look to their own legal stability. However, we may recognize some cases to have been applied principle of faith and trust, one of the dominant principles of the civil law, by the Korean Supreme Court and other cases to have not been applied that principle by the Korean Supreme Court. The Court shall apply UCP500 strictly as long as the parties concerned adopt UCP500 in view of the legal stability. In other words, in case that the Court applies principle of faith and trust to the case related to L/C, this rule - principle of faith and trust - should apply to the subject matter which have not stipulated in UCP500 under certain restriction. We suggest keeping in mind points to korean companies as follows; First, the parties to a sale shall understand L/C basis transaction and principles related to L/C deeply. Second, the exporter shall prepare documents in compliance with L/C and fulfil his or her obligation according to UCP500 and L/C related to the contract. Third, as buyer or importer, when he or she receive the shipping documents with discrepancies from the notifying bank, he or she makes him or herself clear to all the parties concerned. Fourth, as bank, she shall examine all the documents according to UCP500 and L/C related to the contract, and if any document with discrepancies, the bank, by all means, shall approach applicant first, and then decide whether to pay the credit amount to beneficiary or not to.

• 무역학회지
• /
• 제44권2호
• /
• pp.83-94
• /
• 2019

Article 17 of the Marine Insurance Act (MIA) states that "A contract of marine insurance is a contract based upon the utmost good faith, and if the utmost good faith be not observed by either party, the contract may be avoided by the other party." In the Carter v. Boehm case, Lord Mansfield was the first to provide a comprehensive description of the duty of utmost good faith, which is analyzed here. This judgement not only laid the foundation for the Modern English Insurance Act, but it also influenced the draft of the English Insurance Act of 2015, which aimed at correcting distortions that occurred during the application of statue law and common law thereafter. The duty of utmost good faith, applied between Lord Mansfield's insured and insurer presents the context of information asymmetry of the insured and insurer entering contracts. In the absence of information asymmetry, in contrast to the effects of being in both sides of the duty of utmost good faith, alleviating the duty of disclosure of the insured, and it is also clear that the warning of the severity of the retrospective avoidance of the breach of duty of disclosure and the need for its limited application have already been pointed out. Furthermore, considering the principle of retrospective avoidance, the duty of utmost good faith should be understood as a concept limited to the duty of disclosure before a contract is concluded

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제46권
• /
• pp.61-104
• /
• 2010

The purpose of this work aims to analyse the principles of good faith under international transaction with CLOUT and UNILEX cases. Article 7(1) CISG sets the stage for the interpretation by promoting a uniform approach using good faith and the international charter of the convention. In other words, article 7(1) defines the purpose and the principle of interpretation and is applied to the Convention as a whole. As such, it also includes article 7(2), which goes beyond the big picture and settles the problems of gap filling. It is also important to understanding that the mandate of the CISG is to look for a solution, which is not only restricted to interpretation but extends to solving a problem. The problem in this work is to find out how gap filling is achieved and, because of the autonomous mandate of interpretation, to explain and understand its relationship with domestic law. The solution to the interpretation of article 7(2) must be found within the four corners of the CISG. To restate, article 7(2) describes two situations where gap filling is needed. First, if the matter is governed by the Convention but not expressly settled, then a gap must be filled in conformity with general principles on which it is based. Second, if the matter is not covered then the gap must be filled taking domestic law into consideration. There are two reasons why a matter may not be covered by the Convention. First and most obviously, it has been specifically exclude from the sphere of Application by the CISG itself, such as validity in article 4. Second, changes in business methods will lead to gaps. The United Nations has established a service known as CLOUT. This contains abstracts of hundreds of selected decisions of both courts and arbitration tribunals. And UNILEX is cosponsored by the Italian Centre for Comparative and Foreign Law Studies and UNIDROIT Contract Principles. The cases are in abstract format, but, when available, the full text of the case in the original language is also supplied.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제42권
• /
• pp.67-85
• /
• 2009

In English Law it seems that it is essential to apply the principle of equilibrium in the contract, however, it does not seemed to apply as the general rule of the principle of contract. Especially it seems that English Court didn't pay attention to the principle of equilibrium in 18th century. If one of the party do not appeal the equilibrium of the contract, it does not make any difference even today. However the Court may cancel or withdraw the construction of contract between the parties where the principle of equilibrium is damaged by fundamental problems like just-price. In French Law it seems that they have more wide definition of the principle of equilibrium. The French Court may consider that the application of good faith is the performance of condition of the contract between the parties and has no power to relieve of one party of his expressed obligations or warranty. In German Law, it seems that the principle of good faith is fundamental to take into account interest of the parties. They may agree to supply information or not to interfere with a commercial agent regarding performance and maintenance of the contract.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제14권
• /
• pp.103-152
• /
• 2000

English contract law has traditionally taken the view that it is not the duty of the parties to a contract to give information voluntarily to each other. In English law, one of the principal distinctions between insurance contract law and general contract law is the existence of the doctrine of utmost good faith in insurance law. The doctrine gives rise to a variety of duties, some of which apply before formation of the contract while others apply post-formation. This article is, therefore, designed to analyse the overall structure and problems of the doctrine of utmost good faith in English marine insurance law. The results of analysis are as following : First, the requirement of utmost good faith in marine insurance law arises from the fact that many of the relevant circumstances are within the exclusive knowledge of the assured and it is impossible for the insurer to obtain the facts to make a appropriate calculation of the risk that he is asked to assume without this information. Secondly, the duty of utmost good faith provided in MIA 1906, s. 17 has the nature as a bilateral or reciprocal, overriding and absolute duty. Thirdly, the Court of Appeal in Skandia held that breach of the pre-formation duty of utmost good faith did not sound in damages since the duty did not arise out of an implied contractual term and the breach did not constitute a tort. Instead, the Court of Appeal held that the duty was an extra-contractual duty imposed by law in the form of a contingent condition precedent to the enforceability of the contract. Fourthly, the scope of the duty of utmost good faith is closely related to the test of materiality and the assured is required to disclose only material circumstances subject to MIA 1906, s. 18(1) and 20(1). The test of materiality, which had caused a great deal of debate in English courts over 30 years, was finally settled by the House of Lords in Pan Atlantic and the House of Lords rejected the 'decisive influence' test and the 'increased risk' test, and the decision of the House of Lords is thought to accept the 'mere influence' test in subsequent case by the Court of Appeal. Fifthly, the insurer is, in order to avoid contract, required to provide proof that he is induced to enter into the contract by reason of the non-disclosure or misrepresentation of the assured. Sixthly, the duty of utmost good faith is, in principle, terminated before contract is concluded, but it is undoubtful that the provision under MIA 1906, s. 17 is wide enough to include the post-formation duty. The post-formation duty is, however, based upon the terms of marine insurance contract, and the duty lies entirely outside s. 17. Finally, MIA 1906, s. 17 provides expressly for the remedy of avoidance of the contract for breach of the duty. This means rescission or retrospective avoidance of the entire contract, and the remedy is based upon a fairly crude 'all-or-nothing' approach. What is needed in English marine insurance law is to introduce a more sophiscated or proportionate remedy.

• 예술인문사회 융합 멀티미디어 논문지
• /
• 제6권7호
• /
• pp.17-26
• /
• 2016

SK컴즈, 옥션, KT 등 대형 인터넷 서비스 제공자의 부주의로 인하여 이용자의 정보가 유출되는 정보유출사고가 국내에서 여러 차례 발생하였다. 이러한 해킹으로 인한 개인정보 유출사고에서 인터넷 서비스 제공자의 법적 책임 여부를 판단하기 위해서는 기존 법령 위반 또는 법 일반원칙인 신의칙 위반 여부를 살펴보아야 한다. 그러나 현재 인터넷 서비스 제공자의 신의칙상 책임 범위를 판단할 수 있는 객관적 기준은 없는 상황이다. 이러한 신의칙상 보호조치 의무의 범위의 불확정성은 기업들에게 불만을 초래하는 요인이 되므로 이 범위를 어떻게 확정할 것인지 그 판단범위로서 객관적인 지표의 제시가 필요하다. 하지만 앞서 언급된 법의 성격상 보호조치 의무의 범위를 확정하여 법령에 규정할 수 없으므로, 이를 해결하기 위해서는 단순히 법제도 차원에서 고민할 것이 아니라 융합적 차원에서의 접근방법이 필요하다. 이에 본 연구에서는 기술적 부분, 법제적 부분, 관리적 부분으로 나누어 융합적 관점에서 사업자의 주의의무 위반의 범위를 예견할 수 있는 객관적인 기준에 대한 방안에 대해 논의한다.