• 한국항만경제학회지
• /
• 제17권2호
• /
• pp.139-166
• /
• 2001

Globalization and regionalization are major trends in the international economic system. The severe competition among countries has signalled the need for a new international trade system as prescribed by the WTO, which regulates international trade practices. Additionally, expanding the activities and role of the Pan-Yellow Sea area in the world has a very important function in terms of regional cooperation and logistics environment. In this paper, the trading conditions and shipping transport problems of the Pan-Yellow Sea area (North-East Asia) were investigated. Shipping transport conditions in the Pan-Yellow Sea area, particularly Korea-China routes, were surveyed as well. A new Incheon-China container liner route was suggested as a partial remedy to some of the shipping transport problems of the Pan-Yellow Sea Area (North-East Asia). The Incheon-China Container Liner route is more efficient than Pusan and Pyungtaek Ports or the car ferry route to China in terms of transport time and expense. The transport burden indicator which includes the time and expense of transport, can be a useful tool in comparing these routes. Accordign to the transport burden indicator, the Incheon-China Container Liner route is more efficient than the Pusan, Pyungtaek, or car ferry routes. To establish a successful liner route between the ports of Inchon and China, there is a need to prepare three measures that contain short-term medium-term and long-term strategies. Furthermore, these measures should be prepared and adopted in phases, in accordance with considerations of future conditions for shipping and logistics in the Pan-Yellow Sea area.

• 아태비즈니스연구
• /
• 제10권1호
• /
• pp.117-133
• /
• 2019

This paper examines the most-favored-nation treatment clause on the BITs concluded by China and examines the attitudes of China on the application of the most-favored-nation treatment clause to the ISDs by period as the scope of arbitration increases. Moreover, this study pointed out the problems that would be exposed if the most-favored-nation treatment clause applies to ISDs and then also suggested solutions. The conclusions of this study are as follows; if the Chinese government strictly restricts the applicable expansion of the most-favored-nation treatment clause to the dispute settlement procedure by considering only the position of the capital importing country, it implies a contradiction against the development trend of the arbitration system related to international investment disputes. Of course, in order to protect the rights of Chinese investors investing abroad, expanding the applicability of the most-favored-nation treatment clause to the ISDs procedure unconditionally may have a negative impact under China's dual status of being a capital-importing country and a capital-exporting country. Therefore, China should clearly define the scope of application of the most-favored-nation treatment clause, the completion of the local remedy for the host country in cases of BIT to be concluded in the future or amended, and also clearly define that the most-favored-nation treatment clause should not be retroactively applied into BITs already concluded as an exception of applicability of the most-favored-nation treatment.

• 고무기술
• /
• 제22권2호
• /
• pp.119-149
• /
• 2021

Domestic materials & components industry is making a shift from quantitative growth to qualitative growth, while the paradigm of a future society is changing rapidly to energy, mobility, smartification and etc. The main features of materials & components industry are analyzed broadly based on three aspects that are: ① industry Status, ② the value chain structure, ③ the competitiveness. With regard to the national aspect, it is shown that the number of an export and a trade surplus increased consistently after the government advanced the policy on materials & components and Korea's trade deficit with Japan has been decreased. Moreover, the state's export ranking increased from tenth place in 2001 into sixth place in 2017, dedicating to the growth of a national economy. The analysis of the chain value indicates that specifications of an end product are set when the materials & components are combined with manpower, infrastructure and technologies. In terms of the competitiveness, it requires a long time and high costs to develop technologies on materials and it is important for components to have a process innovation and credibility wired. Following the industry structure with priority given on materials, Jeonnam Province accounts for 14.8% of national material production. As a result of analyzing Jeonnam's export competitiveness, it is measured that a serious polarization exists, revealing there are 6 major technology industries by 11 categories for materials & components, Jeonnam has presented 6 major materials & components considering the key industry and the new industry in future to remedy the mentioned problem so far, and plans to knock on the industry development through 10 different strategies.

• 통상정보연구
• /
• 제16권4호
• /
• pp.79-102
• /
• 2014

병행수입은 진정상품을 제3자가 국내의 상표권자 또는 전용사용권자의 허락 없이 수입하는 행위를 말한다. 이는 국가 간 가격 차이에 의해서 발생하게 되고 일반적으로 국제무역과 지적재산권에 영향을 주게 된다. 본 논문은 한국과 중국의 병행수입제도에 대해 특허권, 상표권, 저작권 등 지적재산권법을 중심으로 살펴보고 양국의 병행수입 허용여부와 그 기준을 비교분석한다. 양국 모두 지적재산권법 상에서 병행수입제도를 규정하고 있지 않으나 법원의 판례를 통해 병행수입이 허용되고 있다. 중국은 특히 상표법과 저작권법과 달리 특허법상에 병행수입의 이론의 근거가 되는 권리소진에 대해 최초로 규정하고 있다. 한국은 권리소진에 대한 규정 또한 두고 있지 않지만 관세청고시를 통해 병행수입의 허용과 상표에 있어서 그 기준을 고시하고 있다. 그러나 양국의 이러한 규정은 병행수입의 지적재산권 침해 여부의 실체법적인 기준이 되지 못하는 한계가 있다. 향후 양국에 있어 병행수입이 더욱 확대될 것으로 예상될 때 무역마찰을 피하고 지적재산권을 보호하기 위해 이에 대한 대책이 필요하다. 즉 지적재산권법상 병행수입에 대한 정의, 절차, 책임문제와 상대방의 구제 등에 대한 규정이 마련되어야 할 것이며, 병행수입의 활성화를 위해 독점수입대리점의 권리남용을 억제할 수 있어야 하고 소비자 보호를 위한 사후서비스 관리 등의 조치가 필요하다. 나아가 병행수입에 대한 양국의 실무적인 논의의 장이 마련될 수 있도록 하여야 할 것이다.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제22권
• /
• pp.71-106
• /
• 2004

Todays, L/C transactions in international trade are governed by UCP 500 and eUCP. But UCP 500 and eUCP do not cover all legal problem of L/C transactions. Therefore choice of laws in international L/C transactions are occurred. U.S.A. has an enacted law (UCC ${\S}5-Letter$ of Credit) to govern L/C transaction. But other countries has no special enacted law to govern L/C transaction. The reason is that there are difference between legal attitude of U.S.A. and other countries. American law considers L/C as a special device made by merchants. Therefore U.S.A. applies UCC ${\S}5-Letter$ of Credit instead of general contract law. UCC ${\S}5-Letter$ of Credit includes provisions of warranties, remedies, and so on that UCP 500 and eUCP do not include. But the liabilities of the Issuing Bank on the wrongful dishonor in L/C transaction is very important legal problem. First, this study is to justify concepts of honor and dishonor, and sufficient conditions for dishonor of the issuing bank. in UCC. Second, this study is to examine closely the liabilities of the Issuing Bank on the wrongful dishonor in L/C transaction. Third, this study is suggest distinctive features on the Liabilities to wrongful dishonor of the issuing bank in UCC ${\S}5-Letter$ of Credit and our trader's matters to be attended to L/C transactions governed by UCC.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제34권
• /
• pp.27-52
• /
• 2007

As in more than half of the litigated cases, non-conformity of the goods is alleged by the buyer and, hence, the question aries of whether the buyer has given notice within a reasonable time and is thus allowed to rely on the lack of conformity at all, differences in interpreting the meaning of "reasonable time" in Article 39(1) CISG endanger uniformity of international sales law in a core area. This uniform interpretation of the "reasonable time" in Article 39(1) CISG can, however, not be achieved by merely making recommendations to courts and arbitral tribunals that case law from other CISG jurisdictions should be considered. This can at best lead to confusing results. As you know, the determining of reasonable time is depending on the circumstances concerned with the particular case. So the term 'reasonable time' has proven too imprecise due to its flexibility without defined uniform scale to assist the practitioners in a uniform application of Art. 39(1). Therefore I suggested the factors that influenced the determining of the reasonable time. The factors currently influencing whether an Art. 39(1) notice is given within reasonable time in international practice are: any international trade usage and practices, the nature of the remedy chosen by buyer, the nature of the goods delivered and the mode of dealing with the goods.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제51권
• /
• pp.133-158
• /
• 2011

The purpose of this study is to analyze one of CIETEC(China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission) Award on the dispute arising from Cotton Sale Contact which deals with damages and reduction of the price. Especially this case focused on the effect of reduction of the price to damages. The purpose of damages is to place the aggrieved party in as good a position as if the other party had properly performed the contract. So court costs and attorney's fee should be regarded as the loss, because these are caused by consequence of the breach which is recoverable. With the same reason, overpaid taxes should also regard as the loss. It is not impossible, however, to claim both damages and reduction of the price for same loss at the same time. It means buyer could not claim damages for the same loss, once he already claimed reduction of the price. So Korean companies should consider which remedy is proper to himself under the circumstances. He should choose reduction of the price when market price is down. In case of rising market price, he should consider follows: first, it is better to choose damages based on current price(Art.76), if upswing of non-conformity price is higher then upswing of market price. Second, it is better to choose general rule for measuring damages(Art.74), if upswing of market price is higher then upswing of non-conformity price.

• 정보학연구
• /
• 제6권4호
• /
• pp.147-162
• /
• 2003

본 논문은 전자무역거래의 환경하에서 활용될 수 있는 전자결제시스템의 유형과 현재 제공되고 있는 국제전자결제시스템의 활용상의 문제점을 살펴 보고 전자무역을 활성화할 수 있는 전자결제시스템의 발전방안을 모색하는데 그 목적을 두었다. 현재 전자무역거래에서 활용될 수 있는 전자결제시스템은 전자화폐(electronic cash), 전자수표(electronic check), 전자자금이체(electronic fund transfer), 트레이드카드(tradecard) 및 스위프트 시스템에 의한 전자신용장(electronic L/C by SWIFT system) 등이 있다. 하지만 이들에 대한 전자결제시스템의 보안성, 안정성 및 연동성을 포함하는 제도와 인프라가 제대로 구축되고 있지 않아 사용하는데 한계성을 가지고 있다. 따라서 아직 정착되고 있지 못한 국제전자결제시스템의 발전을 위해서는 정보보안기술과 인증시스템의 구축이 필요하고, 걸제서류가 전자문서로 교환될 수 있도록 해야 한다. 또한 스위프트시스템의 네트워크를 스위프트넷에 의하여 모든 당사자간에 연동시켜 안정성 있게 운용되어야 하고 기업간 거래를 위한 전자신용장을 정착시켜야 한다. 이와 더불어 전자결제와 관련된 법적${\cdot}$제도적인 국내외 인프라를 구축하여 국제전자결제시스템의 통합적 지침을 제공할 수 있도록 해야 할 것이다.

• Journal of Korea Trade
• /
• 제25권2호
• /
• pp.152-177
• /
• 2021

Purpose - This study analyses the excepted requirement and burden of proof of the carrier due to unseaworthiness through comparison between the marine transport contract and marine insurance contract. Design/methodology - This study uses the legal analytical normative approach. The juridical approach involves reviewing and examining theories, concepts, legal doctrines and legislation that are related to the problems. In this study a literature analysis using academic literature and internet data is conducted. Findings - The burden of proof in case of seaworthiness should be based on presumed fault, not proved fault. The burden of proving unseaworthiness/seaworthiness should shift to the carrier, and should be exercised before seeking the protections of the law or carriage contract. In other words, the insurer cannot escape coverage for unfitness of a vessel which arises while the vessel is at sea, which the assured could not have prevented in the exercise of due diligence. The insurer bears the burden of proving unseaworthiness. The warranty of seaworthiness is implied in hull, but not protection and indemnity policies. The 2015 Act repeals ss. 33(3) and 34 of MIA 1906. Otherwise the provisions of the MIA 1906 remain in force, including the definition of a promissory warranty and the recognition of implied warranties. There is less clarity about the position when the source of the loss occurs before the breach of warranty but the actual loss is suffered after the breach. Nonetheless, by s.10(2) of the 2015 Act the insurer appears not to be liable for any loss occurring after the breach of warranty and before there has been a remedy. Originality/value - When unseaworthiness is identified after the sailing of the vessel, mere acceptance of the ship does not mean the party waives any claims for damages or the right to terminate the contract, provided that failure to comply with the contractual obligations is of critical importance. The burden of proof with regards to loss of damage to a cargo caused by unseaworthiness is regulated by the applicable law. For instance, under the common law, if the cargo claimant alleges that the loss or damage has been caused by unseaworthiness, then he has the burden of proof to establish the followings: (i) that the vessel was unseaworthy at the beginning of the voyage; and that, (ii) that the loss or damage has been caused by such unseaworthiness. In other words, if the warranty of seaworthiness at the inception of the voyage is breached, the breach voids the policy if the ship owner had prior knowledge of the unseaworthy condition. By contrast, knowingly permitting the vessel to break ground in an unseaworthy condition denies liability only for loss or damage proximately caused by the unseaworthiness. Such a breach does not, therefore, void the entire policy, but only serves to exonerate the insurer for loss or damage proximately caused by the unseaworthy condition.

• Journal of Korea Trade
• /
• 제24권8호
• /
• pp.101-120
• /
• 2020

Purpose - The buyer's right to withhold performance is a useful and important self-help remedy to protect himself from the seller's breach of contract, and it is also the coercive means to induce the seller to perform his part of contract. However, the buyer's exercise of such a right often exposes himself to the risk of breaching the contract. This is generally due to his ignorance when he is entitled to the right and also uncertainties inherent in the law. Therefore, the purpose of this paper is to examine what the requirements should be fulfilled before the buyer exercises the right for the seller's actual breach of contract. Design/methodology - In order to achieve the purposes of the study, it executes a comparative study of the rules as to the requirements for the buyer's right to withhold performance for the seller's actual non-performance under the CISG and the CESL. It mainly focuses on performance due, the seller's non-performance, the buyer's readiness to perform and the requirement of notice. Findings - The main findings of this comparative study can be summarized as follows: Although the CISG has no expressive provision for the buyer's general right to withhold performance for the seller's actual non-performance, it may be inferred from the general principles the CISG underlies, synallagmatic nature of the contract. In addition, it can be drawn by analogy from relevant provisions of the CISG. On the other hand, the CESL expressively provides that the buyer has a general right to withhold performance where the seller fails to tender performance or perform the contract. Therefore, it seems that the position of CESL is rather easier and more apparent to allow the buyer to withhold performance for the seller's non-performance. Originality/value - Most of the existing studies on the right to withhold performance under the CISG have centered on the right to withhold performance for an anticipatory breach of contract. On the other hand, there have been few prior studies on the right to withhold performance for the actual nonperformance during a contractual period of performance. Therefore, this paper examined the requirements for the buyer's right to withhold performance under the CISG and the CESL in a comparative way for the seller's actual breach of obligation. In this conclusion, it may provide practical and legal considerations and implications for business people who are not certain about the right to withhold performance.