국제비즈니스계약에 적용되는 법

류병운 홍익대학교 2007 홍익법학 Vol.8 No.2

국제비즈니스계약에 적용되는 법을 결정하는 문제는 계약의 적용법과 준거법을 파악하는 문제이다. 국제계약은 일단 물품매매계약과 비(非)물품계약으로 크게 나누어볼 필요가 있다. 물품매매계약의 경우 2005년 3월 1일부터는우리나라에 대해서는 효력을 발생하여 우리나라에 영업소를 둔 당사자가 외국 당사자와 체결하는 물품매매계약에 CISG가 적용될 가능성이 매우 높아졌기 때문이다. 모든 물품계약에 CISG가 적용되는 것은 아니다. CISG 자체가 적용이 배제되는 물품거래를 규정하고 있기 때문이다. 또한 이문제와 관련해서는 "신종 물품”들이 과연 CISG의 적용대상이 되는 물품인가 하는 해석문제가 제기될 것이다. 또한 물품매매 계약과 비물품계약이 서로 혼합된 경우에 CISG의 적용여부를 판단하는 것은 쉽지않다. 당사자들이 명시적으로 CISG의 적용을 배제한 경우와 국제비물품계약에는 당사자가 계약에서 지정하는 법이 그 계약에 적용되는 법이다. 당사자가 계약에서 계약에 적용되는 법을 지정하지 않는 경우 법정지 국제사법에 의하여 계약에 적용되는 법을 결정하게 된다. 즉 특정 국가의 국내법이 당사자 간의 국제비물품계약에 적용되게 된다. 대체로 계약과 "밀접한 관련성”이 있는 법이 적용되게 되는데 계약의 본질적 이행을 담당하는 당사자가 속하는 곳의 법이 계약과 가장 밀접한 관련이 있는 법으로 판단된다. 법정지 국제사법에 의하여도 계약에 적용되는 법을 확정할 수 없는 경우는 국제 상관습법(lex mercatoria)이 적용된다. The article focuses on how to decide the applicable law to international business contracts. Also, the article will summarize the interpretations of contract laws with the various cases related to the issue. International Business Contract is "an legally enforceable agreement" of which the contractors' places of business exist in different countries which includes sales of good, distributorship or agency for overseas sales, franchise contract, license contract, energy sales contract, plant contract, etc. The international contract needs an applicable contract law for the interpretation or supplementation of the meaning of contract clauses. After the 1st of March, 2005, a contractor of sales of goods who has a business place in Korea would be under the high possibility of application of CISG the contract between him/her and his/her foreign contract partner. In other words, a contractor who has a business site in Korea goes into the sales of goods contract with a contractor who has a business site in a foreign country would be applied to CISG if there's no Opt-out agreement concerning the CISG or if the foreign contractor's country doesn't reserve the indirect application of CISG. Of course, CISG doesn't apply to all of the sales of goods contracts. The CISG itself defines some product transactions which are excluded from its application. So, we should decide the applicable law in the Opt-out situation or contracts concerning sales of goods which are excluded from the application of CISG. Non-sales of goods contracts, such as distributorship or agency contract, joint-venture contract, franchise contract, license contract, or plant contract, the proper law would be the law chosen by the parties or decided by the principle of conflicts of law. In the vacancy of the proper or applicable law, lex mercatoria could be applied to the contracts. Sometimes, there are two or more the applicable laws or the proper laws. We should apply the laws in a harmonized way of without any conflict.

새로운 유럽공동체법 (Rome II Regulation)상 불법행위에 관한 준거법

최광준(Choi, Kwang Joon) 한국재산법학회 2010 재산법연구 Vol.26 No.3

As of 11 January 2009, Regulation (EC) No 864/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 July 2007 on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations (Rome II) will be applicable in twenty-six European Union Member States. The Rome II Regulation applies to events giving rise to damage which occur after its entry into force on 19 August 2007 in proceedings commenced after 11 January 2009. This Regulation provides conflict of law rules for tort and delict, unjust enrichment and restitution, negotiorum gestio and culpa in contrahendo. It has a wide scope covering almost all issues raised in cases of extra-contractual liability. The majority of the rules in the Rome II Regulation are inspired by existing rules from European countries. Others are pioneering, innovative new rules. Compared to many of the national systems of private international law of non-contractual obligations, Rome II Regulation introduces precise, modern and well-targeted rules on the applicable law that are well adapted to the needs of European actors. It provides, in particular, specific rules governing a certain number of specific torts (e.g. product liability, unfair competition and acts restricting free competition, environmental damage, infringement of intellectual property rights, and industrial action). The provisions of the Regulation will considerably increase legal certainty on the European scale, while at the same time giving courts the freedom necessary to deal with new or exceptional situations. The material scope of the Rome II Regulation is set out in Article 1. The Regulation applies to non-contractual obligations in “civil and commercial matters”, a term which is to be understood in the same sense as in the Brussels I Regulation. The Regulation would therefore not apply to revenue, customs or administrative matters. Article 1(2) specifically excludes non-contractual obligations arising out of family relationships, matrimonial property regimes and succession, obligations under negotiable instruments, the personal liability of officers and members for the debts of a corporate and incorporated body, the personal liability of persons carrying out a statutory audit, the liability of settlors, trustees and beneficiaries of a trust, and, finally, non-contractual obligations arising out of nuclear damage. The approach taken by the Commission in the Regulation is to divide non-contractual obligations into two major categories, those that arise out of a tort or delict and those that do not. The latter category would include quasi-delictual or quasi-contractual obligations, including, in particular, unjust enrichment and negotiorum gestio (agency without authority). Article 2 provides that the Regulation is to have universal application so the uniform conflict rules laid down in the Regulation can designate the law of an EU Member State or of a third country. Rome II is not restricted to cross border or intra Community disputes. Its rules would apply and could lead to the application of Californian law in a case before a United Kingdom court brought by an American claiming damages for a traffic accident caused by a United Kingdom citizen when driving on holiday in California. Article 3 lays down the general rules for determining the law applicable to non-contractual obligations arising out of a tort or delict. The law applicable is to be the law of the country in which the damage arises or is likely to arise irrespective of the country in which the event giving rise to the damage occurred or of the country or countries in which indirect consequences of that event arise. There are two exceptions to the general rule. Article 3(2) contains a special rule that where the person claimed to be liable and the person who has allegedly sustained damage are habitually resident in the same country, the law of that country would be applicable. Article 3(3) contains a more general exception. Where it is clear from all the circumstance

선박보험계약의 준거법이 규율하는 사항(변제공탁과 비현명대리의 포함 여부)과 선체용선계약 및 부당이득의 준거법

석광현 경희대학교 법학연구소 2021 경희법학 Vol.56 No.1

The plaintiff (a Korean company)(“Plaintiff”), the charterer under the charter party in question (“Charter Party”), filed an action against the defendant (a Panamanian company)(“Defendant”), the shipowner, seeking confirmation that the Plaintiff had the right to claim for payment of the deposit into court made by the insurer (Hyundai Merchant & Marine Corp.)(“Hyundai”) and requested restitution for unjust enrichment as a secondary claim. In this review of the Supreme Court decision, the author will deal with the following three governing law issues that other reviewers have neglected. First, the law governing the insurance contract in this case. While the law governing the insurance contract (“Insurance Contract”) which Suseung (a Korean company) entrusted with ship management by the Plaintiff entered with Hyundai is English law, there are two issues here. First, while English law does not know the concept of deposit into court (consignation), Hyundai has deposited insurance proceeds with Korean courts because it was unsure whether the Plaintiff or the Defendant was entitled to claim said insurance proceeds under the Insurance Contract. Does this deposit have the effect of extinguishing Hyundai’s obligations? The author denies this. Second, the Insurance Contract was concluded by Suseung as agent. After characterizing the issue as a matter of interpretation of the Insurance Contract, the Supreme Court and the court of second instance held that the Plaintiff, which was not described as an insured in the insurance policy, could not be treated as such under English law on agency. However, in the author’s view, this issue should be characterized as a matter of attribution of the agency effect, and consequently be governed by the law applicable to voluntary agency, which is Korean law. Second, the law governing the Charter Party. The Charter Party did not include any governing law clause, but the court of second instance held that Korean law was the governing law by express or implied designation or implied change during the course of court hearing. However, not only was there no explicit designation of the governing law, but also it is difficult to say that there had been any implied designation of the governing law from the beginning. Although there is room for admitting that there had been an implied change based upon the parties’ pleading before the court, this is difficult to admit considering the Supreme Court precedent which held that the lawyers representing the parties must have been authorized by the parties for such change of governing law. Accordingly, in the author’s view, the governing law of the Charter Party should be determined by way of objective connection and it should be the law of Panama under Article 26 of the Private International Law Act of Korea, as the Defendant was the party who was to effect the characteristic performance under the Charter Party. Third, the law governing the Plaintiff’s claim for unjust enrichment against the Defendant (the person entitled to the right to claim for payment of the deposit into court). The court of second instance assumed that the Defendant had become unable to transfer ownership to the Plaintiff, and since it had received the charter hire from the Plaintiff and had also received the full amount of the insurance proceeds from the insurer (Hyundai), the amount equivalent to the ship delivery fee was an unjust enrichment. The court of second instance held, without offering any legal basis, that the law applicable to unjust enrichment was Korean law. However, its determination in the present case is not easy since the unjust enrichment is the result of the cumulation of the Plaintiff’s payment of charter hire and Hyundai’s deposit into court for payment (consignation). If we consider that the law governing the Charter Party is the law of Panama, the law governing unjust enrichment shall be the law of Panama, regardless of whether a... 선체용선계약상의 용선자인 원고(한국 회사)는 선박소유자인 피고(파나마 회사)를 상대로 이 사건 공탁금출급청구권이 원고에게 있음의 확인을 구하고, 예비적 청구로 부당이득반환을 청구하였다. 필자는 대법원 판결에 대한 평석에서 다른 평석들이 소홀히 취급한 아래 3개의 준거법 논점들을 다룬다. 첫째, 이 사건 보험계약의 준거법이 규율하는 사항의 범위. 보험계약의 준거법은 영국법인데 여기에서 두 가지 논점이 있다. ① 영국법은 공탁제도를 알지 못하는데 현대해상은 우리 법원에 보험금을 변제공탁을 하였다. 이는 채무소멸의 효력이 있는가. 필자는 부정한다. ② 보험계약은 선박관리를 위탁받은 수승이 체결한 것인데, 대법원과 원심은 이를 보험계약의 해석의 문제로 성질결정하고, 보험증권상의 피보험자로 기재되지 않은 원고는 대리에 관한 영국법상 피보험자가 될 수 없다고 보았다. 그러나 이는 대리효과 귀속의 문제로 성질결정해야 하므로 대리의 준거법인 한국법에 따를 사항이다. 둘째, 이 사건 선체용선계약의 준거법의 결정. 선체용선계약에 준거법조항은 없었으나, 원심은 명시적 또는 묵시적 지정 및 변경에 의하여 한국법이 준거법이라고 판단하였다. 그러나 준거법의 명시적 지정은 없고, 당초부터 준거법의 묵시적 지정이 있었다고 보기도 어렵다. 당사자의 변론에 기한 사후적 변경을 인정할 여지는 있으나, 당사자들의 수권이 있어야 한다는 대법원 판결에 따르면 그를 인정하기는 어렵다. 선체용선계약의 준거법은 객관적 연결을 규정한 국제사법 제26조에 의하여 파나마법이 된다고 본다. 셋째, 원고의 피고에 대한 부당이득의 준거법의 결정. 원심은, 피고가 원고에게 소유권을 이전할 수 없게 되었으면서 원고로부터 용선료를 수령하고 또한 현대해상으로부터 보험금 전액을 받았으니, 선박인도금에 해당하는 금액은 부당이득이라고 보았다. 원심은 근거 제시 없이 부당이득의 준거법이 한국법이라고 보았다. 그런데 이 사건에서 부당이득은, 원고의 용선료 지급과 현대해상의 공탁이 중첩되어 발생한 결과이므로 준거법의 결정이 쉽지 않다. 선체용선계약의 준거법이 파나마법이라고 본다면 종속적 연결을 하든 이득지법(파나마법)을 적용하든 부당이득의 준거법은 파나마법이 된다.

매매협약(CISG) 적용 사안에 있어서의 상계

박영복 국제거래법학회 2010 國際去來法硏究 Vol.19 No.1

This article discusses whether or not the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods [hereinafter, CISG] is applicable to set-off cases. After examining of the view indicates that the issue of set-off lies inside the CISG’s scope of application, this article concludes that the set-off falls out of the field of application of the CISG, even in cases where mutual claims arise from contracts that are governed by the CISG(Ⅱ in this article). Therefore set-off is dealt with by the recourse under the applicable domestic law, the article discusses the question of which law should be applied to a case in which the claims are governed by the different laws (Ⅲ in this article). The Rome Convention (1980) does not contain a general conflict-of-laws rule of set-off. Although it is needless to say that set-off can be qualified as a means of extinguishing the obligation, Article 10(1)(d) of the Convention does not reflect the difficulties that is inherent in the set-off mechanism which is applicable to the two obligations subject to different jurisdictional laws. In the view of substantial law, the rules that govern choice-of-law vary depending on the legal system of that jurisdiction. Where set-off can be affected by an extrajudicial and unilateral declaration, the law of the claim against the person declaring set-off is applicable (Germany and the Netherlands). If set-off is in principle effective ipso iure, the conflict-of-laws rules provide a cumulative application of the laws of both claims (France and Italy). In case where set-off is traditionally characterized as a procedural relief, the lex fori governs the set-off (England). The article comes to the conclusion that the applicable law in that case is the law that governs the claim against what the defense of set-off is directed. This approach is simple to apply in countries where set-off has to be declared to be effective, and it is also in line with the approach shown in Article 16 of the EC Regulation on the Law Applicable to Contractual Obligations (Rome I).

국제적 근로관계에 대한 준거법 결정에 대한 시론

김동욱 노동법이론실무학회 2017 노동법포럼 Vol.- No.21

There seems to be no firmly-established principle with regard to determining the applicable law for the international employment contract yet despite the growing importance of the matter in the modern day global economy. In order to solve such problem, the ‘Foreign Factor’ in the Article 1 of the Private International Law is needed to be widely interpreted to cover the international employment matters. However, there still remains a problem with such application of Private International Law to the international employment contract: the interpretation theory of the Private International Law itself is yet to be firmly established. Against such backdrop, it is believed that, in principle, an international employment contract shall be governed by the law of the country where the employee habitually provides his/her service as stipulated in the Article 28 of the Private International Law, provided however, the parties may decide which law to apply by mutual agreement unless such application does not work unfavorably to the employee (Article 25). Of course, in case the applicable law specified by such reasoning is found less related to the corresponding legal relations and the law of another country is found most closely connected with such legal relation, the law of the other country should apply as prescribed in the Article 8 of the Private International Law. However, the Article 8 should only be acknowledged as an exception. Thus, it is believed that there are two criteria that should be considered in determining the applicable law to the international employment contract: one, which law governs the country where the employee habitually provides his/her services, two, whether the parties have made a mutual agreement on which law to apply regarding the employment contract. Further, the question of who the employer is should be differentiated from which law is applicable to the relevant employment relationship. Though it is required to confirm who the employer is as a prerequisite matter to the decision of applicable law, the applicable law should not decided by the factors like who the employer is or whether a global company has established a corporate personality or not. That is to say, the applicable law should not be decided upon whether the employer is a Korean corporation or foreign. For instance, if the employment relationship retains some Foreign Factors since the employee mainly works outside Korea, it should be first considered which law is applicable in the light of the principles of Private International Law, even when the both parties belongs to the Korean nationality.

복합운송계약과 그 준거법의 결정

최성수(Choi Sung Soo) 중앙대학교 법학연구원 2013 法學論文集 Vol.37 No.2

International transport has a high proportion in international commerce. In international transport, there are land transport, maritime transport and air transport, and multimodal transport combines two or more of these means of transport. Multimodal transport-related disputes can be resolved by international arbitration or international litigation, if international lawsuit is issued, the problem of determining of the international jurisdiction and the applicable law will be arisen. In this paper, we deal with the law applicable to the multimodal transport that is now discussing the amendments in the Korean Commercial Code. On the process of reviewing the law applicable to the multimodal transport contract, first we review the applicable law of the general maritime carriage contract. Especially most of the international transportation includes the maritime transport alone or as part of a multimodal transport, in this paper, we review the applicable law to the charter party and bill of lading, which is closely related to the maritime transportation. Multimodal transport contract agreement is a kind of the contract, so we review the law applicable to the general contract theory. The discussion of Korean Commercial Code revision of multimodal transport clause also will be briefly mentioned. The revision of the Commercial Code relating to multimodal transport is under operation, so if the applicable law is determined by the laws of the Republic of Korea, the substantive content can be differently determined. In this point, the choice of the network liability system is important in conjunction with the contents of the applicable law. It is urgent to pass the multimodal transport related bill, so that, if the applicable law to the multimodal transport is specified by the Republic of Korea, the law can fulfill the international standard of multimodal transport.

국제적 기업인수계약의 준거법을 다룬 하급심판결에 대한 평석

석광현(Suk Kwang Hyun) 경희법학연구소 2018 경희법학 Vol.53 No.2

이 사건은 한국 회사인 원고가 보유하는 베트남 자회사에 관한 지분을 한국인인 피고에게 양도하는 지분양도계약을 체결하고 베트남 법상 필요한 투자허가를 받은 뒤 지분양도가 무효라고 주장하면서 서울중앙지압법원에 그 반환을 요구한 사건이다. 이 사건 지분양도계약의 당사자들인 원고와 피고는 준거법을 명시적으로 지정하지 않았고, 이 사건 지분을 양도하기 위하여 구 상법상 원고 주주총회의 특별결의가 필요하나 원고는 이를 거치지 않았다. 이 사건은 국제 M&A 계약의 객관적 준거법을 다룬 판결로서 의미가 있고, 특히 (가정적 판단이기는 하지만) 원고가 이 사건 지분을 양도하기 위하여 주주총회의 특별결의를 거쳐야 한다는 구 상법 조문이 준거법에도 불구하고 적용되는 국제적 강행규정이라고 명확히 판단한 점에서 주목할 만하다. 첫째, 원심이 이 사건 지분양도계약의 객관적 준거법을 명확히 판단하고, 부당이득반환의 준거법까지도 판단한 점은 높이 평가할 만하다. 그러나 이 사건 지분양도계약의 객관적 준거법을 결정하는 과정에서 ‘특징적 이행에 기초한 깨어질 수 있는 추정’을 규정한 국제사법 제26조 제2항을 적용하지 않은 것은 국제사법 제26조 제2항에 반한다. 둘째, 원심이 가정적 판단을 하는 과정에서, 주주총회의 특별결의를 요구하는 구 상법을 적용한 결과 이 사건 지분양도계약이 특별결의가 없어 무효라고 본 결론은 타당하다. 그러나 그 근거를 구 상법 조문이 국제사법 제7조 소정의 국제적 강행규정이라는 데서 구한 것은 잘못이다. 이 사건 지분양도를 위하여 원고의 주주총회의 특별결의를 요구하는 구 상법 조문은 국제적 강행규정이기 때문에 적용되는 것이 아니라, 회사법의 쟁점이기 때문에 지분양도계약의 준거법과 관계없이 한국 회사인 원고의 속인법으로서 적용될 뿐이다. In this case, the Plaintiff (a Korean company) entered into a share purchase agreement (“Agreement”) with the Defendant (a Korean) whereunder the Plaintiff sold the Defendant its shares in a Vietnamese company with limited liability and obtained the investment permit required under the laws of Vietnam. Thereafter, the Plaintiff filed a suit before a Korean court against the Defendant seeking recovery of the shares arguing that the Agreement was null and void. The Parties to the Agreement, namely the Plaintiff and the Defendant, did not expressly select the law applicable to the Agreement, and the Plaintiff has not obtained a special resolution of the Shareholders’ meeting of the Plaintiff required under the then current Commercial Code of Korea. This case deserves attention in two respects: first, it deals with the objective governing law of an international M&A agreement (share purchase agreement), and second, the court in this case expressly held that the provisions of the Commercial Code of Korea requiring a special resolution of the Shareholders’ meeting of the Plaintiff were internationally mandatory rules in that they should be applicable even when the law applicable to the Agreement is Vietnamese law (assuming that this was the case). This is a rare case in which a Korean court expressly declared that certain provisions of Korean law are internationally mandatory rules. First, the author thinks highly of the decision of the Seoul Appellate Court (“Court”) in that it has clearly determined the objective governing law of the Agreement and the law applicable to the unjust enrichment. However, in determining the objective governing law of the Agreement, the Court has violated Article 26 of the Private International Law Act (“PILA”) in that it has not applied Article 26(2) of the PILA which sets forth the rebuttable presumption based upon characteristic performance. Second, the Court’s holding to the effect that the Agreement was null and void due to the lack of a special resolution of the Shareholders’ meeting of the Plaintiff is also correct. However, the grounds upon which the Court based its conclusion cannot be justified. The provisions of the Commercial Code are applicable to the case at hand not because they are internationally mandatory rules, but because they are part of the lex societatis, which is a part of Korean law that is applicable to the Plaintiff as a Korean company regarding the company law issues, regardless of the fact that the Agreement is governed by Vietnamese law.

선하증권상 지상약관과 종속적 연결에 의한 불법행위의 준거법 - 대법원 2018.3.29. 선고 2014다41469 판결을 중심으로 -

최성수 한국외국어대학교 법학연구소 2019 외법논집 Vol.43 No.4

대법원 2018.3.29. 선고 2014다41469 판결에서 불법행위의 준거법 중에서 종속적 연결을 인정하였다. 본 판결의 내용은 다음과 같다. 이 사건 매수인과 이 사건 매도인은 이 사건 화물에 대하여 매매계약을 체결하였다. 이 사건 매도인은 이 사건 운송인과 이 사건 화물에 대한 해상운송계약을 체결하였다. 이 사건 매수인은 이 사건 보험자와 이 사건 화물에 대한 해상보험계약을 체결하였다. 이 사건 화물의 운송중 상품성이 없을 정도로 사양이 이탈되는 사고가 발생하였다. 이 사건 보험자는 이 사건 매수인에 대하여 보험금을 지급하고 이 사건 매수인이 소지하고 있던 선하증권을 교부받았다. 이 사건보험자는 이 사건 운송인을 상대로 불법행위에 기한 손해배상책임을 구하였다. 대법원은 위 불법행위에 기한 손해배상청구의 준거법은 국제사법 제32조 제1항, 제3항에 따라 종속적 연결을 인정하여 선하증권의 준거법이라고 판시하였다. 이 사건에서 문제가 되는 것은 종속적 연결의 전제가 되는 가해자와 피해자간에 기존의 법률관계가존재하였는가 하는 점이다. 종속적 연결이란 가해자와 피해자간에 존재하는 법률관계가 불법행위에의하여 침해되는 경우에 불법행위의 준거법을 기존의 법률관계의 준거법에 의한다는 것을 말한다. 대법원은 이 사건 보험자가 이 사건 매수인으로 부터 선하증권을 우연히 교부받게 된 점을 기화로 이사건 원고인 보험자와 이 사건 피고인 운송인 사이에 선하증권의 법률관계가 존재한다고 인정하였다. 그러나 종속적 연결이 인정되기 위해서는 기존의 법률관계가 존재하여야 한다. 종속적 연결을 인정하는 이유가 기존의 법률관계의 안정성과 예측가능성을 도모하려는 것이기 때문이다. 이 사건에서 가해자와 피해자간에 존재하는 법률관계는 이 사건 매수인과 이 사건 운송인 사이에 존재한다. 물론 이 사건 보험자 역시 광의의 피해자라고 할 수 있으나, 이 사건 보험자가 우연히 선하증권을 취득하게 된것으로서 애초에 선하증권 내지 해상운송계약의 직접적인 당사자가 아니다. 이 사안에서 대법원은 운송인과 보험자간에 존재하는 법률관계가 선하증권에 관한 법률관계라고 파악하였다. 문제는 운송인과보험자간에는 애초에는 아무런 법률관계가 존재하지 않았고 후발적으로 보험자가 선하증권을 소지하게 됨으로 인하여 운송인과의 연결고리가 발생한 것이다. 이를 두고 국제사법 제32조 제3항에서 말하는 기초적인 법률관계가 존재한다고 평가할 것인지 검토할 필요가 있다고 본다. 이런 상태에서 이 사건 보험자와 이 사건 운송인 사이의 불법행위 책임의 준거법에 종속적 연결을인정한 것은 무리한 측면이 있다. 이 사건 원심과 같이 불법행위지법을 따르는 것은 부적절하다. 이사건 선하증권에 일반적 준거법과 지상약관으로서 운송인의 책임제한의 준거법이 지정되어 있으므로이를 무시하고 불법행위지법을 취하는 것은 현실과 괴리되는 측면이 있다. 이 점에서 종속적 연결이타당하나, 문제는 논리의 구성이다. 종속적 연결을 인정하려면 이 사건 보험자가 이 사건의 직접적인피해자인 이 사건 매수인의 지위를 승계한 것으로 논리를 구성할 수 있을 것이다. 이 사건 매수인과이 사건 운송인 사이에는 해상운송계약의 법률관계(이 사건에서는 선하증권의 법률관계와 동일함)가존재하고 이러한 기존의 법률관계가 불법행위에 의하여 침해가 되었다. 이러한... Supreme Court Decision 2014Da41469 Decided March 29, 2018 admitted a unity of applicable law in the applicable law of tort. The content of this ruling is as follows. The buyer of this case and the seller of this case have entered into a contract of sale for this case. The seller of this case has entered into a contract of carriage by sea with the carrier for this case. The buyer of the case entered into a marine insurance contract with the insurer for the case. In this case, an accident occurred that the specification was deviated to the point where there was no commodity during transportation of the cargo. The insurer paid the insurance to the buyer of the case and received the bill of lading held by the buyer of the case. The insurer sought liability for damages against the carrier due to tort. The Supreme Court found that the governing law on damages pursuant to the above tort was the law governing bills of lading by recognizing the unity of applicable law in accordance with Article 32 (1) and (3) of the Private International Law. The question in this case is whether there is an existing legal relationship between the perpetrator and the victim, as the premise of the unity of applicable law. The unity of applicable law means that the law governing the tort is based on the law governing existing legal relationships when the legal relationship between the offender and the victim is violated by tort. The Supreme Court acknowledged that legal relationship of bill of lading exists between the insurer who is plaintiff and the carrier who is defendant in the event that the insurer accidentally received the bill of lading from the buyer of the case. However, existing legal relationships must exist in order for the unity of applicable law. The reason for accepting the unity of applicable law is to promote the stability and predictability of existing legal relationships. The legal relationship between the offender and the victim in this case exists between the buyer of the case and the carrier of the case. The insurer of this case is, of course, also a victim of widespread, but is not a party to a direct contract with the case carrier. The insurer accidentally acquired the bill of lading and is not a party to the bill of lading or a contract of carriage by sea. In this situation, it is unreasonable to recognize the unity of applicable law to the law of tort liability between the insurer of this case and the carrier of the case. If the unity of applicable law are unreasonable, we can follow the lex loci delicti just like the original trial. If the unity of applicable law is to be recognized, we can make a logic just like the insurer of this case takes over the position of the buyer of this case who is the direct victim of this case. There is a legal relationship called a contract of carriage by sea between the buyer of this case and the carrier of this case, which in this case is the same as that of the bill of lading. And this existing legal relationship has been infringed by tort. In this case, the insurer who received the bill of lading from the buyer, can be regarded to succeed the buyer’s status of this case, seeking damages for torts against the carrier of this case. On the other hand, in the bill of lading of this case, the general governing law is chosen and the governing law of the carrier’s limitation of liability as paramount clause is also chosen. Ignoring above situation and taking lex loci delicit is inconsistent with reality. It is therefore reasonable to assume that the legal relationship of the bill of lading has been infringed by tort and that the buyer’s position in this case has been inherited by the insurer at the same time as the acquisition of the bill of lading. Through this process, the legal relationship existing between the buyer and the carrier in this case can be regarded as the legal relationship of the bill of lading, and the governing law of tort can be regarded as the governing law of...

FIDIC 조건을 사용하는 국제건설계약의 준거법 결정과 그 실익

석광현 사법발전재단 2014 사법 Vol.1 No.29

It is widely known that many Korean construction companies have won numerous overseas construction projects since the 1960’s, and it has been reported that the accumulated contract amount of the Korean construction companies all together reached 600 billion US Dollars in December, 2013. If Korea is truly a decent constitutional state, there should have been Korean lawyers whose prestige and reputation are widely acknowledged in the international construction community, which is apparently not the case at the moment. This is probably because the governing laws of the international construction contracts entered into by the Korean construction companies are frequently foreign laws, such as the laws of the state of construction site or English law. It is evident that in order to properly understand the rights and obligations of the parties and accurately assess the legal risks that either party bears, one must first know the contents of the relevant construction contract. In addition, one should know the law applicable to the construction contract and the contents of the applicable law. In this article, I explain principal terms and condition of the standard construction contract conditions drafted by the FIDIC (The International Federation of Consulting Engineers) and discusses various issues resulting from the determination of the law applicable to international construction contracts. In doing so, I will distinguish litigation on the one hand and arbitration on the other, because different choice of law rules are prevailing in litigation and arbitration. The most important principle is the principle of party autonomy in both litigation and arbitration; however, it should be remembered that in certain countries party autonomy is not allowed and parties are mandatorily required to apply the law of the country where the construction site is located. More concretely, I will discuss the following issues: first, the determination of the law applicable to international construction contracts in international litigation (Chapter Ⅱ); secondly, the determination of the law applicable to international construction contracts in international arbitration (Chapter Ⅲ); thirdly, the practical consequences from the determination of the law applicable to international construction contracts (Chapter Ⅳ); fourthly, the limit to party autonomy in international construction contracts; and finally, the internationally mandatory rules (Chapter Ⅴ). I hope that in the future Korean lawyers and practitioners will pay more attention to the various issues of international construction contracts and thereby will be able to accumulate more expertise on the international construction contracts. In this regard, I hope that the sub-committee on the international construction law established in September 2013 under the Korea International Trade Law Association could contribute to the future development of the international construction law in Korea. 주지하는 바와 같이 1960년대 이래 우리 건설사들은 중동 기타 전 세계에 진출하여 수많은 건설공사를 수주하였고 마침내 2013년에는 “대한민국 해외건설 누적수주액 6,000억 달러”를 달성하였다고 한다. 따라서 우리나라가 제대로 된 법치국가라면 지금쯤은 국제건설업계에서 저명한 국제건설계약법의 한국인 전문 법률가도 나왔어야 하나 현실은 그렇지 않다. 이는 아마도 우리 건설사들이 체결하는 국제건설계약의 준거법이 공사지국법 또는 영국법 등 외국법인 경우가 많기 때문일 수도 있다. 그러나 국제건설계약에 따른 당사자들의 권리와 의무, 나아가 각 당사자가 부담하는 법적 위험을 정확히 평가하자면 우선 관련 계약의 내용을 정확히 파악하여야 한다는 점은 명백하다. 그와 함께 당해 계약의 준거법과 그 내용을 정확히 알아야 한다. 여기에서는 국제적으로 널리 이용되는 FIDIC(국제엔지니어링컨설팅연맹, The International Federation of Consulting Engineers)이 작성한 표준계약조건을 중심으로 국제건설계약의 몇 가지 주요 논점을 소개하고, 그와 관련된 준거법의 결정방법과 그에 따른 실익을 검토한다. 그 과정에서 소송과 중재를 나누어 검토하는데 그 이유는 양 영역에서 상이한 준거법 결정원칙이 지배하고 있기 때문이다. 소송이든 중재든 간에 국제계약의 준거법 결정에 있어 가장 중요한 원칙은 당사자자치의 원칙이나, 일부 국가에서는 특히 소송의 경우 당사자자치가 허용되지 않고 공사지국을 반드시 적용해야 한다는 점도 잊지 말아야 한다. 보다 구체적으로 여기에서는 국제소송에서 국제건설계약의 준거법의 결정(Ⅱ.), 국제상사중재에서 국제건설계약의 준거법의 결정(Ⅲ.), 국제건설과 관련된 준거법 결정의 실익(Ⅳ.)과 국제건설계약에서 당사자자치의 한계, 국제적 강행법규의 문제(Ⅴ.)를 차례대로 논의한다. 앞으로는 우리 법률가들과 실무가들도 국제건설계약의 제문제에 대해 좀 더 관심을 가지고 전문성을 축적해 나아가기를 기대해 본다. 2013년 9월 국제거래법학회 산하에 설립된 국제건설법연구회가 그러한 개선에 기여할 수 있기를 희망한다.

국제혼인에서 혼인의사의 부존재와 준거법

이선미 대한변호사협회 2022 人權과 正義 : 大韓辯護士協會誌 Vol.- No.509

Marriage annulment actions are frequently raised for international marriages between Korean nationals and foreigners, claiming that one of the spouses does not intend to marry. Matter of choice of applicable laws for those cases has been a confusing issue, until the Supreme Court of Korea recently ruled that both Korean Civil Act and Vietnamese Law on Marriage&Family should be the applicable laws for the marriage annulment action brought by a Korean husband who wed a Vietnamese wife. The Supreme Court made that judgement based on the Article 36 (1) of Korean Private International Law Act of 2001, resolving past disagreements of the lower courts. However, although the Supreme Court stated that both the Korean Civil Act and the Vietnamese Law on Marriage&Family are applicable laws, it did not review the effect of the absence of mutual agreement of marriage according to each law, which led the Supreme Court to the mistake of choosing the Korean Civil Act as a law on litigation as for no reason. Complicated problems remain for choosing the applicable law according to the Article 36 (1) of Korean Private International Law Act of 2001, especially when the effects of the absence of mutual agreement of marriage differ by each spouse’s home country law. This paper examines how to decide the applicable law for each case according to the theories about the choice-of-law rules for international marriage. Though these theories presuppose that intention to marry is one-sided requirement of marriage, it should be regarded as two-sided requirement, considering the nature and components of marriage. It can be assumed that the Supreme Court and the lower courts also see that mutual agreement of marriage as the two-sided requirement for entering marriage. If the intention or mutual agreement to marry is viewed as a two-sided requirement, the matter to choose the applicable law in the absence of agreement would be solved much clearer than considering it as one-sided requirement. Further study is suggested whether the intention to marry can be viewed as two-sided requirement, contrary to the current theories. 우리나라 국민과 외국인 사이의 국제혼인에서 일방 당사자에게 혼인의사가 없었음을 주장하면서 혼인무효확인을 구하는 사건이 빈번하게 제기되고 있는데, 그에 관하여 준거법을 어떻게 결정하여야 하는지에 관하여는 실무상 혼란이 있어 왔다. 최근 대법원은 우리나라 국민과 베트남 국민 사이의 국제혼인에서 혼인합의의 부존재가 주장된 사건에 있어서 우리나라 민법과 베트남 혼인·가족법이 모두 준거법이 된다고 하여 준거법 결정에 관한 설시를 한 판결을 선고하였다. 대상판결 이전에 하급심 실무에서는 대체로 우리나라 민법을 준거법으로 하면서 그 근거가 되는 조문이나 이유에 관하여 통일되지 않거나 잘못된 태도를 취하여 왔는데, 대상판결은 준거법 결정의 근거가 되는 조문을 구 국제사법 제36조 제1항(현행 국제사법 제63조 제1항에 해당)으로 명시함으로써 혼란을 바로잡았다. 그러나 대상판결은 우리나라 민법과 베트남 혼인·가족법이 모두 준거법이 된다고 하면서도 각 법률에 따른 효과에 대해서는 검토하지 않고, 쟁송 방법은 구 국제사법 제36조 제1항에 따라 결정되지 않으므로 대한민국 민법에 따라 혼인무효 여부를 판단할 수 있다고 판시하였는데, 이는 베트남 혼인·가족법에 따른 혼인의사 부존재의 효과를 엄밀히 검토하지 않음에서 비롯된 부적절한 판시이다. 구 국제사법 제36조 제1항에 따라 각 당사자의 본국법을 준거법으로 하더라도, 각 당사자의 본국법이 혼인의사 부존재의 효과를 서로 다르게 규정하고 있을 때에는 복잡한 문제가 발생한다. 이에 관하여 학설의 입장에 따라 경우를 나누어 준거법 결정에 관하여 검토해 본다. 이러한 학설은 혼인의사를 일면적 성립요건으로 보는 것을 전제로 하고 있으나, 혼인의 본질에 비추어 볼 때 혼인의사는 쌍면적 성립요건으로 보아야 한다. 대상판결 이전의 하급심 실무는 혼인의사를 쌍면적 성립요건으로 보는 태도를 취하고 있었으며, 대상판결 역시 혼인의사를 쌍면적 성립요건으로 보는 인식을 기저에 깔고 있다고 보인다. 혼인의사를 쌍면적 성립요건으로 본다면 혼인의사 부존재의 경우 준거법 결정 역시 간명해질 것으로 보인다. 현재의 통설과 달리 혼인의사를 쌍면적 성립요건으로 볼 수 있는지에 관하여는 앞으로의 추가적인 연구가 필요하다.