國際統一契約規範下에서 契約解除의 效果에 관한 比較法的 考察 -CISG, PICC, PECL의 規定體系 및 判決例를 중심으로-

심종석 한국경영법률학회 2005 經營法律 Vol.16 No.1

In the case of CISG, main articles for terminate of contract are 25, 49, 51, 72, 64, 79 and so forth. To sum up these article, breach of contract committed by one of the parties is fundamental if it results in such detriment to the other party as substantially to deprive him of what he is entitled to expect under the contract, unless the party in breach did not foresee and a reasonable person of the same kind in the same circumstances would not have foreseen such a result. In the other hand PICC, are 6.2.1, 6.2.2, 7.1.1, 7.1.3, 7.3.1, 7.3.3 an so on. Not only there is hardship where the occurrence of events fundamentally alters the equilibrium of the contract either because the cost of a party's performance has increased or because the value of the performance a party receives has diminished but in the case of hardship the disadvantaged party is entitled to request renegotiations. the request shall be made without undue delay and shall indicate the grounds on which it is based. Finally PECL are regulatory articles are 6:111, 8:103, 8:106, 9:301. to summarize of these article, a non-performance of an obligation is fundamental to the contract if strict compliance with the obligation is of the essence of the contract or the non-performance substantially deprives the aggrieved party of what it was entitled to expect under the contract, unless the other party did not foresee and could not reasonably have foreseen that result or the non-performance is intentional and gives the aggrieved party reason to believe that it cannot rely on the other party's future performance.

국제상사계약에 관한 일반원칙(PICC)상 계약해제의 사유에 관한 법적 기준

심종석 한국경영법률학회 2014 經營法律 Vol.25 No.1

‘Principles of International Commercial Contract’(PICC) art. 3.2.1 equates a mistake relating to facts with a mistake relating to law. Identical legal treatment of the two types of mistake seems justified in view of the increasing complexity of modern legal systems. This article indicates that a mistake must involve an erroneous assumption relating to the factual or legal circumstances that exist at the time of the conclusion of the contract. Article 3.2.2 states the conditions necessary for a mistake to be relevant with a view to avoidance of the contract. Article 3.2.3 equates an error in the expression or transmission of a declaration with an ordinary mistake of the person making the declaration or sending it and thus the rules of article 3.1.4, article 3.2.2 and articles 3.2.9 to 3.2.16 apply also to these kinds of error. Article 3.2.4 is intended to resolve the conflict which may arise between the remedy of avoidance for mistake and the remedies for non-performance. Avoidance of a contract by a party on the ground of fraud bears some resemblance to avoidance for a certain type of mistake. Fraud may be regarded as a special case of mistake caused by the other party. Fraud, like mistake, may involve either representations, whether express or implied, of false facts or non-disclosure of true facts(Article 3.2.5). And next article permits the avoidance of a contract on the ground of threat(Article 3.2.6). Article 3.2.7 permits a party to avoid a contract in cases where there is gross disparity between the obligations of the parties, which gives one party an unjustifiably excessive advantage. Not only must the advantage be excessive, it must also be unjustifiable. Article 3.2.8 deals with situations, frequent in practice, in which a third person has been involved or has interfered in the negotiation process, and the ground for avoidance is in one way or another imputable to that person. Article 3.2.9 lays down the rule according to which the party entitled to avoid the contract may either expressly or impliedly confirm the contract. Article 3.2.10 deals with Performance of the contract as understood by the mistaken party Decision to be made promptly Loss of right to avoid and Damages. Article 3.2.11 states the principle that the right of a party to avoid the contract is exercised by notice to the other party without the need for any intervention by a court. Article 3.2.12 states Time limits, furthermore article 3.2.13 deals with situations where the grounds of avoidance affect only individual terms of the contract. Article 3.2.14 states the rule that avoidance takes effect retroactively. In other words, the contract is considered never to have existed. In the case of a partial avoidance under article 3.2.13 the rule applies only to the avoided part of the contract. Article 3.2.15 mentioned right of parties to restitution on avoidance, restitution in kind not possible or appropriate, the allocation of risk, compensation for expenses, and benefits. Article 3.2.16 deals with damages if ground for avoidance known to the other party, the measure of damages. Finally, Article 3.2.17 takes account of the fact that, apart from the contract itself, the parties, either before or after the conclusion of the contract, often exchange a number of communications of intention which may likewise be affected by invalidity.

자연채무와 약정헌금에 관한 판례평가와 성서적 해석

심종석 한국로고스경영학회 2023 로고스경영연구 Vol.21 No.1

Offering is respected as a duty that believers should do under the authority of God. Concerning offering, special problems can be highlighted when a dispute arises according to the legal relationship between an individual and the church. A typical legal issue is natural financial obligation. This study focuses on the problems and legal issues arising from the conflict between the religious conscience that breaking the covenant with God in relation to offering is a sin and the legal principle that legal obligations under covenant cannot be enforced through lawsuits. First, the meaning of offering is a gift given to God in gratitude for God's grace, which is a natural financial obligation and privilege of a believer. Second, from a biblical point of view, promised offerings are identified with vows. Soon, the non-performance of the vow becomes a sin. But positive law does not ask for legal responsibility in this regard. Third, offering is a sign of gratitude for God's grace and at the same time a sign of joy in participating voluntarily. Fourth, if believer decide to donate promised offerings to the church, it must be strictly implemented even if it is recognized as a natural financial obligation. Fifth, the voluntary intention of the believer must be respected for the promised offerings. Sixth, promised offerings based on vows should not be forced. Lastly, the promised offerings must be offered generously and joyfully according to religious conscience and determination. 헌금은 하나님의 주권적 권능 아래 신앙인이라면 마땅히 행해야 할 의무이자 규례로서 존중되고 있다. 이러한 신앙적 위상을 점하고 있는 헌금은 헌납자로서 개인과 피헌납자로서 교회 간 사회적 법률관계에 따라 권리ㆍ의무관계가 다투어지는 경우 특단의 문제점이 부각될 수 있는데 대표적인 법적 사안이 본고에서 특정한 자연채무이다. 본고는 헌금과 관련하여 하나님과의 약정을 파기하는 것이 죄라는 신앙적 양심과 현행법상 약정에 의한 채무는 그 이행의 강제를 소로써 구할 수 없다는 법리와의 충돌에서 비롯된 문제점 및 법적 사안에 주안점을 두었다. 그 결과를 요약하면 다음과 같다. 첫째 헌금의 본원적 의미는 하나님 은혜에 감사하여 하나님께 드리는 예물로서 신앙인의 당연한 의무이자 특권으로 존중되고 있다. 둘째 성서적 시각에서 약정헌금은 서원과 동일시하여 곧 서원의 불이행을 명백한 죄로 취급하고 있음에 반하여 사회법은 이에 관하여 하등의 책임을 묻지 않고 있어 이에 상반된 시각을 견지하고 있다. 셋째 헌금은 하나님 은혜에 대한 감사임과 동시에 자발적으로 하나님이 하시는 일에 동참하는 기쁨의 표시로 볼 수 있다. 넷째 약정헌금이나 헌물을 교회에 헌납하기로 작정하였다면 당해 헌금이나 헌물은 그것이 자연채무로 인정될 수 있다고 하더라도 엄격히 이행되어야 한다. 다섯째 약정헌금은 증여자의 자발적 의사가 존중되어야 하고 또 그 용처 또한 약정된 명목 그대로 집행되어야 한다. 여섯째 서원에 기한 약정헌금의 경건함과 성결함이 교회의 맹목적 의사결정에 따라 어떠한 형태로든 임의처분되거나 강제ㆍ강요되어서는 안 된다. 마지막으로 오늘날 크리스천에게 부과된 헌금 또는 서원으로서 약정헌금의 진정한 모습은 신앙적 양심과 결단에 따라 아낌없이 그리고 즐겁고 기쁜 마음으로 봉헌하여야 한다.

CISG하에서 계약의 형식요건에 관한 규정해석과 판결례에 관한 고찰

심종석 한국경영법률학회 2013 經營法律 Vol.23 No.2

Subject to article 12, article 11 provides that a contract of sale need not be concluded in writing and is not subject to any other specific requirement as to form. The provision thus establishes the principle of freedom from form requirements or in other words, as one court has stated, under article 11 CISG, a contract of sale can be concluded informally. According to case law this means that a contract can be concluded orally and through the conduct of the parties. Article 11 has also been invoked in holding that a party’s signature was not required for a valid contract. Furthermore writing includes telegram and telex under CISG. Article 29 addresses modification of an already concluded contract by agreement of the parties. According to article 29 (1), the mere consent of the parties is sufficient to effect such a modification or termination. If, however, the parties have agreed in writing that a modification or termination of their contract must be done in writing, paragraph 2 provides that the contract cannot be otherwise modified or terminated although a party’s conduct may preclude it from asserting such a provision to the extent that the other party has relied on that conduct. Related to the declarations that CISG rules which dispense with requirements of written form do not apply when a party is located in a declaring contracting state as article 96.

CISG의 적용범위에 관한 법적 기준과 판결례에 관한 고찰

심종석 한국경영법률학회 2013 經營法律 Vol.24 No.1

Article 1 provides some of the rules for determining whether the CISG applies. Article 1 should be read in connection with articles 2 and 3, which respectively narrow and extend the CISG’s substantive sphere of application. Article 2 identifies sales that are excluded from the CISG’s sphere of application. The exclusions are of three types: those based on the purpose for which the goods were purchased, those based on the type of transaction, and those based on the kinds of goods sold. Article 3 makes clear that the CISG’s sphere of application encompasses some contracts that include acts in addition to the supply of goods. The first sentence of article 4 lists matters as to which the CISG’s provisions prevail over those of domestic law; the formation of contract and the rights and obligations of the parties; the second sentence contains a non-exhaustive list of issues with which, except where the CISG expressly provides otherwise, it is not concerned namely the validity of the contract or any of its provisions or any usage, as well as the effect which the contract may have on the property in the goods sold. The issues referred to in the second part of article 4 were excluded from the CISG because dealing with them would have delayed the conclusion of the CISG. Pursuant to Article 5, the CISG does not deal with liability for death or personal injury caused by the goods to any person, regardless of whether the injured party is the buyer or a third party. Consequently, national law applies to those matters. According to article 6 of the CISG, the parties may exclude the CISG’s application; totally or partially or derogate from its provisions. Thus even if the CISG would otherwise be applicable, in order to decide whether it applies in a particular case one must determine whether the parties have excluded the CISG or derogated from its provisions. According to several courts, opting-out requires a clear expression of intent by the parties. By allowing the parties to exclude the CISG or derogate from its provisions, the drafters affirmed the principle that the primary source of rules for international sales contracts is party autonomy. Thus the drafters clearly acknowledged the CISG’s non-mandatory nature and the central role that party autonomy plays in international commerce specifically, in international sales.

국제상사계약에 있어 계약불이행의 요건과 그 적용사례에 관한 연구

심종석,서민교 한국무역학회 2008 무역학자 전국대회 발표논문집 Vol.2008 No.8

계약불이행은 그 유형ㆍ효과에 관한 법리구성에 있어 국제사법상 또는 법계간 일정한 시각차가 존재하는데, 그 주안점은 고의ㆍ과실에 기한 불이행 당사자의 귀책사유를 당해 계약불이행의 성립요건으로 두고 있는지의 여부가 그 핵심이다. 본 고는 국제상사계약에 있어 기축 법규범이 되고 있는 「국제물품매매계약에 관한 UN 협약」 (CISG)과 「국제상사계약에 관한 일반원칙」 (PICC) 및 「유럽계약법원칙」 (PECL)을 중심으로 계약불이행의 요건과 그 적용사례를 고찰한 논문으로서 그 주요 내용은 다음과 같다. 곧 PICC는 CISG상의 계약위반을 불이행으로 구성하고 있는데, 그 구성요건은 묵시적 의무에 한하여 계약의 성질과 목적ㆍ당사자간 확립된 관행과 관습ㆍ신의칙과 공정거래ㆍ합리성 등의 고려에 두고 있다. PICC는 이행에 대한 권리에 하자있는 이행의 보수와 대체 또는 기타 보완에 대한 권리를 포함하고 있으며, 불가항력에 기한 의무불이행의 경우 당사자로 하여금 그 책임을 면할 수 있도록 하고 있다. 물품의 계약부적합에 대한 매수인의 구제수단은 순차적으로 불완전이행치유청구권, 손해배상청구권 및 계약 해제권의 행사가 인정되는데, CISG와는 달리 대체불급부청구의 경우 중대한 계약위반의 요건은 적용되지 않는다. PECL은 PICC와 마찬가지로 계약위반을 불이행으로 통합하여 규정하고 있는데, CISG 및 PICC와 구별되는 차이점은 합리성에 대한 규정을 두고 있는 점과 통지의무에 대한 보다 구체적인 요건을 두고 있다는 점이다. 계약위반의 효과 및 법적 구제수단과 관련하여 PICC는 CISG에 비하여 중대한 불이행의 판단기준이 상세하고, 면책의 주장이 보다 명료하며, 손해배상범위에 관해 예견가능성을 포함하여 손해의 확실성을 기준으로 한 명시적 규정을 두고 있는 특징이 있다. 계약불이행의 책임체계와 관련하여 PICC와 PECL은 유사한 법적 시각을 보이고 있으나, PICC의 경 우 불이행 당사자의 추완권을 PECL에 비하여 보다 광범위하게 인정하고 있으며, 그 방법에 있어서도 보다 상세하다는 차이점이 있다. 계약해제의 효과에 있어 PICC 및 PECL에서는 편무계약에 대해서도 법정해제를 인정하고 있다. 계약해제의 요건에 관해 CISG의 경우 중대한 계약위반의 내용은 일부 단서를 두어, 상대방이 기대할 권리가 있는 바를 실질적으로 박탈할 정도의 손해를 야기한 경우로 특정하고 있다. 한편 PECL에 있어 사정변경에 의한 계약해제의 내용은 PICC에 비하여 보다 구체적이다. 예컨대 급부의 이행비용 증가시 급부의 부담이 현저히 과중된 경우에 대한 내용을 포함하고 있는 것과, 신의칙 및 공정거래에 반하여 교섭을 거부하거나 또는 교섭을 파기하는 경우 그 결과 야기된 손실에 대하여 법원이 배상을 명할 수 있게 한 것 등이 그것이다. The CISG uses the term fundamental breach, in various setting. The concept of fundamental breach is a milestone in its remedial provisions. Its most important role is that it constitutes the usual precondition for the contract to be avoided(Art. 49, 51, 64, 72, 73). In addition, where the goods do not conform with the contract, a fundamental breach can give rise to a requirement to deliver substitute goods. Furthermore, a fundamental breach of contract by the seller leaves the buyer with all of his remedies intact, despite the risk having passed to him(Art. 70). Basically, PECL, PICC generally follows CISG. it was similar to all the regulation's platform though the terms and content sometimes differ .. For example regarding to the non-performance and remedies, in the case of non-performance, that is the PECL, PICC term analogous to breach of contract as used in the clsa. Furthermore the PECL, PICC used fundamental non-performance refered to in PECL Art. 8: 103, PICC Art. 7.1.1 correspond generally to the concept of fundamental breach referred to in CISG Art. 25. The main significance of the fundamental non-performance, in any systems, is to empower the aggrieved party to terminate the contract. The need for uniformity and harmony in international commercial contracts can be expected to lead to growth of international commerce subject to the CISG, PICC, and PECL. It is hoped that the present editorial remarks will provide guidance to improve understanding between the contractual party of different countries in this respect. In the case of CISG, main articles for terminate of contract, Art. 25, 49, 51, 72, 64, 79 and so forth. To sum up these article, breach of contract committed by one of the parties is fundamental if it results in such detriment to the other party as substantially to deprive him of what he is entitled to expect under the contract, unless the party in breach did not foresee and a reasonable person of the same kind in the same circumstances would not have foreseen such a result. In the other hand PICC, are Art. 6.2.1, 6.2.2, 7.1.1, 7.1.3, 7.3.1, 7.3.3 and so on. Not only there is hardship where the occurrence of events fundamentally alters the equilibrium of the contract either because the cost of a party's performance has increased or because the value of the performance a party receives has diminished but in the case of hardship the disadvantaged party is entitled to request renegotiations. the request shall be made without undue delay and shall indicate the grounds on which it is based. Finally PECL are regulatory articles, that is to say, Art. 6:111, 8:103, 8:106, 9:301 to summarize of these issues, a non-performance of an obligation is fundamental to the contract if strict compliance with the obligation is of the essence of the contract or the non-performance substantially deprives the aggrieved party of what it was entitled to expect under the contract, unless the other party did not foresee and could not reasonably have foreseen that result or the non-performance is intentional and gives the aggrieved party reason to believe that it cannot rely on the other party's future performance.

콘크리트충전 각형강관기둥의 내력에 관한 연구 - 중심축력을 받는 단주를 중심으로 - ( A Study on the Strength of Concrete-Filled Steel Square Tubular Columns - in case of Axial Loaded Stub-Columns - )

심종석,한덕전,김규석 대한건축학회 1999 大韓建築學會論文集 : 構造系 Vol.15 No.1

국제계약규제하에서 사정변경원칙의 적용기준과 법규제에 관한 비교 연구 - CISG, PICC, PECL의 규정과 판결례를 중심으로 -

심종석 한국법제연구원 2005 법제연구 Vol.- No.29

Taking into consideration the problems relating to the renegotiation or adaptation in the cases of radical change of circumstances where the CISG applies, it is suggested that the contracting parties should make clear their intentions, that is, whether they will provide for the possibility of renegotiation where the price of goods has been altered by inserting a hardship clause or for the possibility of mutual discharge from liability in the cases of economic impossibility or hardship by inserting a force majeure clause. Such provision will be desirable especially in situations where there is a long term contract, the price of goods sold tends to fluctuate in the international commerce, or where especially in contracts subjected to arbitration, the parties subject their contract to legal sources or principles of supranational character. This study has shown that the hardship provisions in the CISG, PICC, PECL has similarities to each a validity defense and an excuse defense. it was provisions that CISG governs this issue in Article 79, PICC Article 6.2.1, 6.2.2, 6.2.3(in addition to Article 7.1.7), PECL Article 6.111(in addition to 8.108).

북한 경제주체와의 CISG 적용에 따른 법적 논점 —북한 무역 관련 법률과의 비교를 중심으로—

심종석,심민섭 한국경영법률학회 2022 經營法律 Vol.33 No.1

First, North Korea's trade-related laws seem to guarantee the principle of contract autonomy, but in reality, it imposes restrictions on supervision and control. Second, North Korea is adhering to the formal requirements of domestic law through a declaration of reservation. Therefore, when concluding a contract with North Korea, it must be concluded in writing. Third, the legal requirements for the concluding a contract are strengthening supervision and control by combining complex requirements such as formalities and approvals in writing. Fourth, exemption from liability in the performance of the contract has the characteristic of being implemented at the national level. Fifth, North Korea intends to implement the country's trade policy by establishing the Central Trade Guidance Agency and the Chamber of Commerce in order to strengthen guidance on trade business and to enforce the national trade policy. Sixth, North Korea includes reasons for breach of contract such as delay in performance, impossibility of performance, incomplete performance, liability for security, and violation of incidental obligations as conditions for contract can- cellation. This is largely the same view as the CISG. Recommendation rules and methods for contract cancellation can be treated as supervisory and control rules. Finally, North Korea states that dispute resolution will be resolved according to the arbitration procedure established by North Korea. However, this purpose is intended to indirectly resolve disputes through North Korea's arbitration laws and procedures. 본고는 CISG 체약국인 북한 경제주체와의 무역에 있어 제반 법적 문제점 및 예견 가능한 장애 등을 추론하여 법적 유의점 및 시사점 제공에 목적을 두었다. 그 결과를 요약하면 다음과 같다. 첫째 북한의 무역 관련 법률은 계약자치의 원칙을 보장하고 있는 듯 보이지만 실제는 제반 감독ㆍ통제 등의 제한요건을 부가하고 있다. 둘째 북한은 CISG 가입 시 유보선언을 통해 국내법상 형식요건을 고수하고 있다. 따라서 북한 경제주체와 계약에 임하는 때는 반드시 서면에 의한 계약체결이 요구된다. 셋째 계약의 성립에 관한 법적 요건은 서면에 기한 요식행위 및 승인 등 각양의 부수 요건을 결부하여 외견상 유관기관의 감독과 통제를 강화하고 있다. 넷째 계약이행에 있어 면책요건은 대개 국가 정책적 차원에서 발동하는 사례라는 특성이 있다. 다섯째 북한은 무역사업에 대한 지도 강화와 국가 무역정책을 집행하기 위해 중앙무역지도기관과 상업회의소를 두고 국가의 무역정책의 취지를 구현하고자 의도하고 있다. 여섯째 북한은 계약의 취소요건으로 이행지체ㆍ이행불능ㆍ불완전이행ㆍ담보책임ㆍ부수의무위반 등의 계약위반 사유를 포함하고 있는데 이는 대체로 CISG와 동일한 시각을 견지하고 있다. 계약취소에 대한 권고규정과 방식은 감독ㆍ통제규정으로 취급할 수 있다. 마지막으로 북한은 분쟁해결에 관하여 북한이 정한 중재절차에 따라 해결한다고 명시하고 있는데 이러한 취지는 우회적으로 북한의 중재법과 절차에 의한 분쟁해결을 의도하고 있다.

PICC하에서 표준약관에 의한 계약체결상의 법적 기준과 판결례에 관한 고찰

심종석 한국경영법률학회 2017 經營法律 Vol.27 No.2

Related to the title of this paper, PICC are dealing with contracting under standard terms(art. 2.1.19), surprising terms(art. 2.1.20), conflict between standard terms and non-standard terms(art. 2.1.21), battle of forms(art. 2.1.22). The main legal bases are as follows; Firstly, where one party or both parties use standard terms in concluding a contract, the general rules on formation apply, and standard terms are provisions which are prepared in advance for general and repeated use by one party and which are actually used without negotiation with the other party. Secondly, not only no term contained in standard terms which is of such a character that the other party could not reasonably have expected it, is effective unless it has been expressly accepted by that party but in determining whether a term is of such a character regard shall be had to its content, language and presentation. thirdly, in case of conflict between a standard term and a term which is not a standard term the latter prevails. Finally, where both parties use standard terms and reach agreement except on those terms, a contract is concluded on the basis of the agreed terms and of any standard terms which are common in substance unless one party clearly indicates in advance, or later and without undue delay informs the other party, that it does not intend to be bound by such a contract. PICC하에서 표준약관에 의한 계약체결의 유관규정에 관한 법적 기준의 주요 골자를 요약하면 다음과 같다. 첫째, 계약을 체결함에 있어 당사자 일방 또는 쌍방이 표준약관을 사용한 경우 계약의 성립에 관한 일반규칙이 적용되는데, 이 경우 표준약관이라 함은 일반적이고 반복적인 사용을 목적으로 일방에 의해 미리 마련되고 또한 상대방과 협상됨이 없이 실제로 사용되는 계약조항을 총칭한다. 둘째, 일방이 제시한 표준약관에 담긴 계약조건의 성격에 비추어 의외의 조건이 타방이 당해 계약으로부터 합리적으로 자신의 이해를 기대할 수 없었다면, 타방에 그에 의해 명시적으로 수락되지 않는 한 효력이 없고, 계약조건이 그러한 성격을 갖는지 여부를 결정함에 있어서는 그 내용과 표현 및 표기방법을 고려하여야 한다. 셋째, 표준약관과 비표준약관이 상호 충돌하는 경우 비표준약관이 우선한다. 이 경우 계약의 일부를 구성하는 계약내용에 표준약관에 관한 특단의 변경내용을 삭제하지 않고 단지 구두로 합의하였을 때는 예상하지 못한 장애에 직면할 수 있는 개연성이 다분하다는 것이다. 따라서 이러한 변경된 표준약관은 서면에 의하여 그 배타적인 성격을 명시하고 그 우선 적용을 고려하여야 비표준약관에 기한 특단의 문제점을 불식할 수 있다. 넷째, 계약당사자가 각각 표준약관을 사용하여 이를 계약에 편입하고 합의를 이룬 서식의 교전의 경우 계약은 합의된 계약조건 및 개별 표준약관상 공통한 내용의 계약조건에 따라 체결된 것으로 본다. 다만 일방이 계약에 구속되기를 의도하지 않는다고 선언한 때는 그러하지 아니하다.