전자자금이체에서의 당사자의 의무와 책임 = 미국의 법제와 유엔의 표준법 비교

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

This article explores the comparisons of the important issues on application between Article 4A of the Uniform Commercial Code(Article 4A) and the Model Law on International Credit Transfers(Model Law)proposed by the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law. The results of comparisons in connection with obligations and responsibilities parties concerned between Article 4A and Model Law are as follows:
First, The Article 4A is enacted to apply both domestic and international fund transfers. On the other hand, the Model Law is intended to enacted by national legislatures exclusively for international fund transfers.
Secondly, Most rights and obligations created by Article 4A can be varied with the agreement of affected parties. there are the exceptions. The exceptions include the money-back guarantee and a beneficiary's obligation to pay a beneficiary of the amount of an accepted. However, all the rights and obligations created by the Model Law can be varied with the agreement of an affected parties.
Thirdly, The Article 4A Acknowledges the importance of special communications facilities by defining a fund-transfers system as a wire transfer network and by allowing funds-transfer system rules to vary most Article 4A rights and obligations. Model Law also contains reference to funds-transfer systems, but the term is undefined. Moreover, funds-transfer systems rules cannot deviate from the Model Law.
Fourthly, The Article 4A admits consequence damages under exceptional circumstance. But Model Law prohibits perfectly them.
Fifthly, The Article 4A imposes notice duty to originator with respect to an unaccepted order. However, the Model Law stipulates that receiving bank is obligated notice duty.
Finally, While The Article 4A imposes duty to detect errors to originator in relation to the establishment of commercially reasonable security procedure, the Model Law imposes the duty to detect errors to receiving bank.