FCA매매계약조건(賣買契約條件)의 정형화(定型化)에 따른 문제점(問題點)에 관한 연구(硏究)

최명국,Choi, Myung-Kook 한국무역상무학회 1990 貿易商務硏究 Vol.1 No.-

UNCITRAL의 해상화물운송협약의 예비초안에 관한 연구

최명국,Choi, Myung-Kook 한국무역상무학회 2003 貿易商務硏究 Vol.20 No.-

UNCITRAL considered a proposal to include in its work program a review of current practices and laws in the area of the international carriage of goods by sea, with a view to establishing the need for uniform rules where no such rules existed and with a view to achieving greater uniformity of laws. And UNCITRAL Working Party, as of April, 2003, is reviewing the UNCITRAL's Preliminary Draft Instrument which was originally prepared by CMI. As said above, the Preliminary Draft Instrument has a lot of improved provisions in relation to the scope of application, period of responsibility, obligations and liability of carrier, obligations of shipper and so on, but it has also some provisions which should be reconsidered in light of changed environments. Therefore, UNCITRAL Working Party has to prepare more complete and widely adoptable new uniform rules under the sufficient discussion.

산업설비수출(産業設備輸出)의 절차(節次)에 관한 고찰(考察)

최명국,Choi, Myung-Kook 한국무역상무학회 1995 貿易商務硏究 Vol.8 No.-

A Case Study on the Straight Bill of Lading

최명국(Choi Myung Kook) 한국무역상무학회 2004 貿易商務硏究 Vol.24 No.-

It is our common understanding that the carrier is bound to deliver the goods to the consignee named in a non-negotiable straight bill of lading without its presentation. But recently Court of Appeal, Singapore, held that "where a straight bill of lading is issued it is necessary for the bill of lading to be presented by the consignee to the carrier by sea in order to obtain delivery of the goods. A straight bill of lading, just like a bill of lading to order, confers title including the right to receive the goods mentioned on the bill of lading. Only the possibility of negotiation is excluded. The carrier by sea is liable where he delivers the goods to the consignee named in the straight bill of lading without delivering the bill of lading itself."

FIDIC의 DBO 프로젝트용 표준계약조건에 관한 연구

최명국(Choi, Myung Kook) 韓國貿易商務學會 2010 貿易商務硏究 Vol.46 No.-

The incentive and reasons to publish FIDIC Conditions of Contract for Design, Build and Operate Projects(DBO Form) are manifold. It is partly a response to the increasing need for sophisticated project delivery methods in both the public and private sectors and the already widespread use of the FIDIC Yellow Book with operation and maintenance obligations and partly a response to the challenge to decrease maintenance cost to a minimum by means of a new procurement route. As a result, FIDIC has developed a new model form to meet this market place requirement. On the other hand, FIDIC did not simply adapt the Yellow Book but has developed a new form from it, whilst preserving the style of the already known FIDIC Forms and maintaining the wording where it was not necessary to change it for the purposes of a DBO Form. Moreover DBO Form fills up supposed gaps in other FIDIC Forms and ameliorates the claim management and dispute management framework. FIDIC DBO approach may be shortly summarized as follows. First, DBO Form provides for single project responsibility. Second, DBO Form has the clear objective of ensuring the use of a most reliable and efficient technology at the lowest life-cycle cost. Third, DBO Form is intended to operate as an effective quality increase in the design and construction of projects. Fourth, DBO Form is intended to provide significant benefits with regard to system integration and reduction of risks. Fifth, DBO Form accelerates and enhances completion schedule compliance. Sixth, DBO takes care of all three supporting pillars of sustainability(including economical, environmental and social elements). DBO Form is obviously a good starting point for negotiations and the preparation of calls for tenders, thus saving the parties time and money. However, existing cultural and legal differences, particular local conditions and the particular needs of some branches of the industry may require the form to be adapted according to the particular needs of a project. And Civil law practitioners are strongly recommended to verify carefully the underlying legal concepts and background of each clause of the General Conditions in order to avoid unnecessary and sometimes unnatural changes and amendments being made. Note that when preparing the Particular Conditions ensure that terminology is consistent and that existing inherent concepts should not be ignored.

로테르담 규칙에서 FOB 계약의 매도인의 법적지위 문제

최명국(Myung Kook CHOI) 한국무역상무학회 2015 貿易商務硏究 Vol.65 No.-

The Rotterdam Rules are not phrased in favour of FOB seller's legal status. Whether it will be wise under the Rotterdam Rules to trade on the basis of cash against M/R largely depends on the interpretation of various provisions of the Rotterdam Rules. To protect his interests the M/R holder and his assigns must have a right of delivery of the cargo at the port of destination. The M/R holder and his assigns must be entitled to the bill of lading or at least be able to prevent the carrier from issuing the bill of lading to the shipper. Besides, any additional right of instruction on the part of the shipper must be blocked. Article 35 of the Rules entitles only the shipper to the bill of lading while 47 entitles only the holder of the bill of lading to delivery. When no bill of lading has been issued Article 45 grants to the shipper a right of instruction whereby the shipper is allowed to advise the carrier as to the name and the address of the consignee. I have suggested that by lack of a specific provision to the contrary the Rotterdam Rules have to be considered to be embedded in the system of law as a whole. From the Common Law it follows that a M/R holder, as owner of the cargo, can ask for delivery of the cargo. As owner of the cargo a M/R holder can also claim the bill of lading, if he does so in time, because it must be implied in the contract of carriage that the carrier must deliver the bill of lading to the owner of the goods. It is for the same reason that a M/R holder can prevent the carrier from issuing the bill of lading to any third party but the M/R holder and from taking instructions from the shipper as to name and address of a consignee other than the M/R holder.

인코텀즈 2010의 주요 개정내용과 적용상의 유의점

최명국(Choi, Myung Kook) 韓國貿易商務學會 2011 貿易商務硏究 Vol.49 No.-

In this article, the author have studied on main revisions and some recommendations of the Incoterms? 2010. Main revisions are as belows. 1. Two new Incoterms rules -DAT and DAP- have replaced the Incoterms 2000 rules DAF, DES, DEQ and DDU. 2. New classification of the Incoterms? 2010 are adopted. First class is Rules for any mode or modes of transport(EXW, FCA, CPT, CIP, DAT, DAP and DDP belong to this class.) and second class is rules for sea and inland waterway transport(FAS, FOB, CFR and CIF belong to this class.). 3. Incoterms? 2010 rules formally recognizes that they are available for application to both international and domestic sale contracts. 4. The Guidance Notes and Introduction are not part of the actual Incoterms? 2010 rules. 5. Under the FOB, CFR and CIF, all mention of the ship's rail as the point of delivery has been omitted in preference for the goods being delivered when they are "on board" the vessel. 6. Incoterms? 2010 rules include the obligation to 'procure goods shipped' as an alternative to the obligation to ship goods in the relevant Incoterms rules. 7. Incoterms? 2010 rules give electronic means of communication the same effect as paper communication. 8. Incoterms? 2010 rules have allocated obligations between the buyer and seller to obtain or to render assistance in obtaining security-related clearances. such as chain-of custody information. Some recommendations are as belows. 1. The parties must incorporate the Incoterms? 2010 rules into their contract of sale. 2. The parties must choose the appropriate Incoterms? 2010 rules. 3. Specify the place or port as precisely as possible in their contract of sale. 4. Remember that Incoterms? 2010 rules do not give the parties a complete contract of sale. 5. Incoterms? 2010 rules do not prohibit alteration of Incoterms rule, but there are dangers in so doings. In order to avoid any unwelcome surprises, the parties would need to make the intended effect of such alterations extremely clear in their contract.

國際貿易環境의 變化에 따른 1906년 英國 海上 保險法의 問題點과 向後 發展方向에 관한 硏究

崔銘國(Choi Myung Kook) 한국무역학회 1998 貿易學會誌 Vol.23 No.1

國際物品賣買契約에 있어서의 “書式條項不一致에 따른 紛爭(The Battle of Forms)”에 관한 一考察

崔銘國(Choi Myung-Kook) 한국무역학회 1988 貿易學會誌 Vol.13 No.-

撒貨物賣買에서의 所有權과 危險의 移轉에 관한 硏究

崔銘國(Choi Myung-Kook) 한국무역학회 1995 貿易學會誌 Vol.20 No.2