국제물품매매계약상 물품적합성에 관한 고찰

윤광운(Kwang woon Yun) 한국국제상학회 2014 國際商學 Vol.29 No.4

본 논문은 CISG 제35조의 물품적합성의 기준과 시기에 관한 요건과 매도인의 면책을 중심으로 CISG 및 각국 국내법의 제규정과 관련사례를 검토하였다. 먼저 물품적합성(conformity of the goods)의 개념에서 CISG 제35조와 각국 국내법상에 차이점이 없지 않으며, 특히 UCC상의 보증(warranty) 개념과 우리 민법(Korean Civil Law)상의 규정과의 상이한 부분도 있다. 또한 CISG 제35조 2항의 물품적합성의 기준에 대해 만약 매도인이 그 물품적합의무를 위반한 경우 매수인은 그 부적합(lack of conformity)에 대해 CISG 제45조 1항 이하의 구제수단을 사용할 수 있지만, CISG 제35조 3항의 매수인이 그 부적합을 계약체결시에 "알았거나 알지 못했을 리 없었을(knew or caught not have been unaware)" 경우나 또는 제39조 1항의 부적합 사실을 매도인에게 통지하지 아니한 경우에는 매도인에 대하여 부적합을 활용하지 못한다. 거래실무상 부적합(lack of conformity)에 따른 매도인의 면책과 관련하여 당사자 간의 명시의 특약으로서 불가항력조항(force majeure clause)의 활용시 가능한 한 명확히 그리고 많은 면책사유를 열거하는 것이 실무상 중요하다. 특히 부적합에 대한 매도인이 면책을 원용하고자 하는 경우 그 부적합을 매수인이 입증하는 것이 필요하다. 결론적으로, 국제매매거래에서 당사자의 기본적 의무로 다루어지는 매도인의 물품적합의 무의 중요성을 고려한다면 물품부적합에 관한 상기에서의 쟁점사항에 관해 무역업계에서 유의할 필요가 있다. Purpose : This paper is to review the legal differences between the regulations of CISG, focusing on the Articles 35, and domestic laws of several countries regarding the important issues in the contract for international sale of goods, the requirement for the standard; the time of conformity of goods; and seller's exemption from liability, to provide the solid academic background for the international commercial transactions. Research design, data, methodology : Research methodology taken in this paper are the literature and comparative legal research. Results : It is found that there are significant differences between the Articles 35 of CISG and domestic laws of several countries in terms of the concept of conformity of the goods. A disagreement on the concept of 'warranty' in between UCC and Korean Civil Law is considerable. In addition, CISG provides notable rules relating to the conformity issue. In the case that sellers are in breach of their obligation for conformity of the goods as stated in Article 35(2) of CISG, buyers can utilize remedies under Article 45(1) of CISG for the lack of conformity. However, when the buyers in Article 35(3) of CISG "knew or caught not have been unaware" of the lack of conformity at the moment of a contract completion, or when they did not give notice of the sellers of the lack of conformity, the lack of conformity to the sellers is not allowed to be invoked. Conclusions : Considering the importance of seller's obligation for conformity of the goods as a basic duty in the international sale of goods, it is necessary to pay attention to the above issues about non-conformity of the goods in practice.

국제물품매매계약에 관한 유엔협약 상의 물품의 계약적합성에 관한 연구

오수용 ( Soo Yong Oh ) 제주대학교 법과정책연구소 2014 法과 政策 Vol.20 No.1

“국제물품매매계약에 관한 유엔협약(United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International sale of Goods, 이하 CISG 또는 비엔나협약)”은 물품의 부적합과 물품의 불인도(nondelivery)를 구분하고 있다. 특히, 비엔나 협약 제35조는 매도인이 적합한 물품을 인도할 의무를 규정함과 동시에 그 의무를 충족시킴에 있어서 매도인이 만족시켜야할 제기준을 제시함으로써 물품의 부적합과 관련된 비엔나 협약상의 제조항의 기초를 이룬다. 본 논문은 계약이 비엔나협약의 적용을 받을 때 매도인이 인도한 물품이 계약에 적합한 지 여부를 어떻게 판단할 지의 문제를 다룬다. 제 35조는 대부분의 국제거래 상의 대부분의 다툼이 인도된 물품이 적합한지 여부와 관련되어 있기 때문에 매우 중요하다. 실제 계약 위반 사례 중에 물품 인도를 하지 않은 경우는 극히 드물며 부적합한 물품의 인도(흔히 하자있는 인도라 하기도 한다)가 대부분을 차지하기 때문이다. 그리고 매도인이 물품을 인도하지 않은 경우와 달리 부적합 물품을 인도할 경우 매수인에게 몇 가지 특수한 의무가 부과된다는 점도 간과할 수 없다. 매수인이 적시에 물품을 검사해서 매도인에게 통지되지 않으면 매수인은 매도인에게 그 부적합을 주장할 권리를 상실한다. 더욱이 시효의 기산점이 물품의 인도의무 위반인가 아니면 물품의 적합물품 인도 의무 위반인가 아니면 명시적 보증위반이냐에 따라 다르다. 따라서 물품의 부적합과 물품의 불인도를 구분하는 것은 중요한 문제이다. “United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International sale of Goods" (“CISG") distinguishes lack of conformity from nondelivery. Art. 35, as a foundation of the CISG`s regime for liability for non- conformity, is designed to stipulate seller`s duty to deliver conforming goods and establish which requirements the seller has to meet in order to fulfil his delivery obligation concerning conformity of the goods. The question this paper addresses is how to determine whether goods tendered by the seller conform to the contract when the contract is governed by the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods. Its importance in practice results from the fact that most disputes arising from sales transactions relate to whether the goods delivered conform to the contract. Delivery of non-conforming goods, often also referred to as “defective delivery", is in practice by far the most frequent breach of contract. In comparison, the complete failure to deliver any goods, i.e. cases of an actual “non-delivery", are fairly seldom. When the seller`s breach consists in the tender of nonconforming good, special duties are imposed on the buyer: The buyer loses the right to reply on the lack of conformity unless timely notice is given to the seller or the lack of notice is reasonably excused. Furthermore, under the Convention on the Limitation Period, the point at which claims accrue -- and the prescription period begins to run -- differs according to whether the action is based on breach of contract, nonconformity, or breach of an express guaranty. The question then arises how (and whether) to distinguish nonconformity from other breach of contract, particularly from the seller`s failure to deliver the goods.

국제물품매매에서 물품의 계약적합성에 관한 연구

오현석(Hyon Sok OH) 한국무역상무학회 2015 貿易商務硏究 Vol.66 No.-

The purpose of this paper is to provide a legal implication about conformity of goods in the international commercial transactions. There are so many legal relationship after the formation of contract. The most of important thing among the obligations of seller is to provide conformal goods which are of quantity, quality and description required by the contract and which are contained or packaged in the manner required by the contract. If seller violate above duties, seller take the warranty liability. However, CISG describe the conformity of the goods instead of the warranty as follows. First, CISG Art.35(1) states standards for determining whether goods delivered by the seller conform to the contract and Art.35(2) describes standards relating to the goods' quality, function and packaging that, while not mandatory, are presumed to be a part of sales contracts. Article 35(2) is comprised of four subparts. Two of the subparts (article 35(2) (a) and article 35(2)(d)) apply to all contracts unless the parties have agreed otherwise. Second, CISGArt.36 and 38 deals with the time at which a lack of conformity in the goods must have arisen in order for the seller to be liable for it. If seller lack of conformity becomes apparent only after that time, seller is liable for a lack of conformity existing when risk passed to the buyer. Third, CISG Art.49 describe that a buyer who claims that delivered goods do not conform to the contract has an obligation to give the seller notice of the lack of conformity. The most of important things about CISG articles and precedents is that buyer is aware of the lack of conformity and notice it to seller. Failure to satisfy the notice requirements of article 39 eliminates a buyer's defence, based on a lack of conformity in delivered goods, to a seller's claim for payment of the price. Consequently, parties of contract had better agree to the notifying times about lack of conformity. Also, If seller fined the non-conformity, seller has to notify this circumstance to the buyer within short period or agreed time.

국제물품매매에서 물품의 적합성에 관한 연구 - CISG를 중심으로

허광욱(Heo KwangUk) 한국해양비즈니스학회 2005 해양비즈니스 Vol.- No.5

  The Purpose of this paper is to examine seller"s obligation for the conformity of the goods to the international sale of goods under United Nations Convention on Contract for the international Sales of Goods, 1980, except where both parties have agreed expressly, and to give suggestions in actual transactions.   The conformity of the goods means that the seller must deliver the goods which are required by the contract and which are contained or packaged in the manner required by the contract. We can classify the conformity of the goods to contract into two groups. One group is that the seller must deliver goods which are of the quantity, quality and description required by the contract and which are contained or packaged in the manner required by the contract. Other group is that the seller must deliver the goods which are free from any right or claim of a third party and which are free from any right or claim of a third party based on industrial property or other intellectual property.   The buyer must examine the goods or cause them to be examined within as short a period as is practicable in the circumstance. If buyer does not give notice to the seller specifying the nature of the lack of conformity within a reasonable time, the buyer lose the right to rely on a lack of conformity of the goods.

특정물매수인의 하자보수청구권

김봉수(Bong-Su Kim) 한국비교사법학회 2010 비교사법 Vol.17 No.1

When the goods that the specific goods seller provided have defects, according th toe Korean civil code §580, the buyer can have the right for the avoidance of contract and the rights to claim for the damages due to the defect, while he/she cannot have the right to repair. But when the seller delivers the goods that do not conform to the contract, it is the non-performance, because he has a duty to deliver goods that have no defect. In this regard, when such a non-performance occurs, the buyer's right to require the seller's performance must be considered.And also the right of the buyer to repair needs to be allowded, considering the systematical point of view of civil law by the principle of priority of require performance and with the idea of favoring contracts, the fact that the repair is the remedy which considers the interests of contract parties, the law economical point of view, and the fact that theseller’s liability for non-conformity goods are adjusted to today’s reality. The legal basis of buyer's right to repair is Art. 581(2) of the Korean Civil Code, which provides the generic goods buyer’s right to require delivery of substitute goods. The buyer is able to avoid the contract when it may not be accomplished dueto the defect of the goods. In this case, the possibility to cure the defect of the goods must be considered, with the consideration of whether the contract may be accomplished. Accordingly when the defect of the goods is severe, and may not possible for the seller to cure it, the buyer may be able to avoid the contract. However, when the defect may be repaired by the seller, although it is severe, or when it is only minor, the seller may not be able to avoid the contract. In this context, the competition between the right to avoid the contract and the right to require performance may not be allowed. However, the issue may occur – exceptavoidance of contract, the buyer may choose her remedies? The answer is positive, because the Art. 581 ⑴, ⑵ of the Korean Civil Code provides the buyer choose her remedies and also because the Art. 667 ⑴, ⑵ of the Korean Civil Code provides that the person who ordered the work, may claim damages in lieu of, or together with, rectification of the defect. If the buyer may require the seller to perform concerning non-conformity goods, there must be defect of the goods. The defect may be judged according to the parties’ agreement. If there is no such agreement, the defect may be considered by ordinary usage of use of the goods. The seller’s performance concerning non-conformity goods occurs from seller’s non-performance. In this regard, the seller has to pay for the cost of later performance. In addition, the place of the seller’s performance may be the place where the goods are located. However, the buyer’s right to require the seller’s performance concerning non-conformity goods may not be possible due to impossibility, extremely high costs, or inconvenience. In these cases, the seller may refuse his later performance.

CISG에 있어서의 매수인의 물품검사⋅통지의무에 관한 쟁점 검토

양석완 국제거래법학회 2010 國際去來法硏究 Vol.19 No.2

Buyer must examine the goods and give notice of the lack of conformity, if any, to the seller in order to retain his right to rely on the fact. The concept of the lack of conformity contains the conformity of quality, quantity, description, delivery of different goods and documents. The buyer’s examination of goods forms the basis of his obligation to notify the seller of defects under Article 39(1) in the CISG. And the obligation to examine the goods can give seller the econd opportunity to complete his duty fully, if possible, by delivering the missing goods or ubstitute goods, by repair, or by educing the buyer’s loss in some other way. As the determining of ‘within as short a period as is practicable in the circumstances’ in Article 38 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). Article 38 is silent about the method the buyer should employ in examining the goods. In general, the manner of inspection will depend on the parties’s agreement, trade usages and practices in the absence of such indicators, a reasonable examination, through and professional examination is required. When determining which requirement must be satisfied by the buyer is specifying the nature of any lack of conformity, a mixed objective-subjective standard should be applied, which has regard to the respective commercial situation of the buyer and seller, to any cultural differences, but above all, to the nature of the goods. The obligations of the seller to deliver the goods which are free from third party rights or claims are examined, including the claims of third party for general rights, the claims for intellectual or industrial property, the buyer’s obligation to give notice of the third party claims compared with the obligation to notice the lack of conformity of the goods. The purpose of the Article 38 and 39(1) deadline for examination and notice of the lack of conformity is to allow the buyer an opportunity to discover defects before the buyer resells, and permit prompt clarification of whether the buyer accepts the goods as conforming.

CISG상의 물품검사와 부적합 통지에 관한 판례연구

박은옥 법무부 2010 통상법률 Vol.- No.96

Among the provisions under the United Nations Convention on the International Sales of Goods(hereinafter, CISG), article 38 dealing with the requirements to examine the goods and article 39 asking the buyer to give notice of any lack of conformity had caused lots of debates. There are big differences in the domestic sales law of the participants regarding the requirements to examine the goods and to give a notice about non-conformity. Especially, the procedure to follow in cases of non-conformity was the most controversial issue. Moreover, article 38 and 39 have different aspects from the buyer's other obligations stipulated in the CISG in terms of their effects and consequence as they are prerequisite steps before the buyer exercises other rights due to non-conformity of the goods. However, the ultimate purpose of these articles is maintaining the business relationship between the buyer and the seller; article 38 and 39 require the buyer to examine the goods within a short period considering the goods and delivery conditions and to give a notice to the seller if there is a lack of conformity of the goods. By doing so, the seller can get an opportunity to take proper actions like delivering an alternative goods, repairing the non-conformity, reducing the price, an so on. Therefore, this paper aims to discuss how article 38 and 39 have been interpreted and applied to the cases for the settlement of the disputes by studying the recent cases. Although the provisions as to the buyer's obligation of examining the goods and noticing the non-conformity have been carefully drafted after a long discussion, there are still some unclear words which can cause disagreement in interpreting and understanding the provisions. In the end, the interpretation of these vague words relies on the previous cases or the attitude of the court when the judges or arbitrators settle the disputes. Consequently, it is worth studying the cases in order to understand how these two articles are being interpreted and applied in practice. 국제물품매매계약에 관한 유엔협약(이하 CISG)의 조항들 중에서 매수인의 물품검사의무를 규정한 제38조와 계약부적합 통지에 관한 규정인 제39조는 각 국가들의 국내법의 차이와 이 규정들이 개도국에게 불리하게 작용할 것이라는 개도국의 우려 속에서 국가들 간에 가장 논쟁이 많이 되었던 조항들이다. 또한, 동 협약 제38조와 제39조의 매수인의 물품검사의 의무와 부적합에 대한 통지의 의무는 매수인이 물품 부적합에 대한 다른 권리를 행사하기 위해서 반드시 거쳐야 하는 단계로서 그 효과나 결과 면에서 매수인의 다른 의무들과는 차이가 있다. 하지만 동 조항들이 추구하는 궁극적인 목적은 물품자체의 특성과 인도 조건 등 여러 상황들을 고려하여 매수인이 단기간 내에 물품을 검사하고, 부적합이 존재하는 경우 그 사실을 매도인에게 통지하도록 함으로써 매도인이 부적합에 대하여 대체물의 인도, 부적합의 수리, 대금 감액 등 적절한 대처를 할 수 있도록 하여 매도인과 매수인간의 국제매매거래를 유지하기 위함이다. 이에 본 논문에서는 판례연구를 통하여 물품 검사와 부적합 통지에 관한 제38조와 제39조를 어떻게 해석하고 적용하였는지를 살펴보고자 한다. 매수인의 물품검사와 부적합 통지에 관한 규정들은 오랜 논쟁 후에 최종안이 만들어졌음에도 불구하고 규정에 쓰인 용어들을 해석하고 적용함에 있어 분명하지 않은 부분들이 여전히 존재하는데 이러한 용어들의 해석은 양당사자간의 분쟁을 해결함에 있어 판례나 법원의 해석 태도에 의지하게 된다. 따라서 본 논문에서는 동 조항들을 해석하고 원용함에 있어 법원이나 중재인들 간에 논쟁의 중심이 되었던 용어들을 중심으로 동 규정에 쓰인 용어의 해석과 적용에 있어서의 실무적인 태도를 살펴보고자 한다.

물건하자에 대한 매도인의 추완권 - 추완의 효율성과 소비자보호관점을 고려하여 -

김봉수 한국경제법학회 2014 경제법연구 Vol.13 No.1

According to Korean Civil Code, when there are nonconformity defects in the sales of generic goods, the buyer can request delivery of substitute goods with no defects. But these remedies for generic goods seller shall be decided only by the seller, and the generic goods seller, who delivers non-conformity goods, shall have the opportunity of re-performance to cure of defects in goods only when the buyer choose ‘the right to cure concerning non-conformity goods’ among those remedies. And when there is defect in the target of specific goods sales, despite some differences by theory, even the opinions who affirm the right to repair also accept the choices between right to repair and other remedies given to the buyer. In this way, the seller who delivers nonconformity goods can have a second chance to perform to cure defect, unless the buyer exerts the right to cure nonconformity goods preferentially. In comparative law perspectives, the international laws such as CISG, PECL or German Civil Code which had big influences to our civil law admit the second chance to the seller to perform the cure of defects. This is based on the principles of maintaining contracts and theory of mitigation of damages. Also, to admit the seller’s right to cure concerning non-conformity goods coincides with the actual state, and promotes the contracting parties according to the continuous of contract. In this point of view, our current law which gives full option to choose the remedy to buyer and not giving any opportunity for re-performance to seller has problem. In lex ferenda, this author had the idea that the buyer’s right to require seller’s performance must be considered first of all compared with other remedies. To give seller the chance to perform subsequent accomplishment more suits to the performance priority principle and contract maintaining principle. 매수인이 수령한 물건에 하자가 있더라도 많은 경우 매도인에 의한 하자보수나 대체이행을 통해서 그 하자는 치유될 수 있다. 이와 같이 하자치유를 통해서 계약의 이행을 완료하는 것을 추완이라고 하는데, 물건하자담보책임에 관한 현행 규정은 종류물매수인의 대체이행청구권(완전물급부청구권)만을 규정하고 있을 뿐이다. 따라서 특정물매매와 종류물매매에서 매수인의 하자보수청구권이 인정될 수 있는지가 문제되나, 당사자의 급부이익과 민법상 이행우선의 원칙 등을 고려할 때, 이를 해석론으로서 충분히 도출할 수 있다고 본다. 이때 매수인이 여러 구제수단 중에서 추완청구권을 먼저 행사해야 하는지, 아니면 구제수단 중 어느 하나를 선택할 수 있는지가 문제되는데, 이는 다른 구제수단에 대한 추완의 우선성과 효율성, 계약위반적 행태에 따른 이익상황, 그리고 소비자보호의 관점 등으로 고려해서 판단할 수 있다. 현행 법규정과 입법취지를 고려하면 매수인의 선택권을 인정하는 것이 타당하다. 그러나 입법론으로는 추완청구권이 다른 구제수단보다 우선적으로 행사되는 것이 바람직하다. 왜냐하면 추완청구권의 우선행사는 하자 없는 물건의 수령을 의도하였던 매수인의 이익에도 부합할 뿐만 아니라 다른 구제수단(계약해제․손해배상․대금감액)에 따른 부담을 면할 수 있는 매도인에게도 유리하기 때문이다. 매수인이 다른 구제수단보다 먼저 하자보수나 대체이행을 내용으로 하는 추완청구권을 행사하게 되면, 반사적으로 매도인에게 제2의 이행의 기회인 추완권이 인정된다. 추완청구권의 우선행사로부터 주어지는 매도인의 추완권의 보장은 우리 민법의 이행우선의 원칙과 계약유지의 원칙에도 부합하는 것이다. 또한 이러한 입법론은 국제적 차원의 입법례(CISG)나 우리 민법의 큰 영향을 끼친 독일민법도 추완청구권의 우선행사를 인정한다는 점에서 충분히 지지될 수 있다. 다만 추완의 양방식인 하자보수와 대체이행 간의 선택권은 해석론은 물론이고 입법론 측면에서도 매수인에게 인정되어야 한다.

CISG상의 물품검사와 부적합 통지에 관한 판례연구

박은옥 법무부 2010 통상법률 Vol.- No.96

국제물품매매계약에 관한 유엔협약(이하 CISG)의 조항들 중에서 매수인의 물품검사 의무를 규정한 제38조와 계약부적합 통지에 관한 규정인 제39조는 각 국가들의 국내법의 차이와 이 규정들이 개도국에게 불리하게 작용할 것이라는 개도국의 우려 속에서 국가들 간에 가장 논쟁이 많이 되었던 조항들이다. 또한, 동 협약 제38조와 제39조의 매수인의 물품검사의 의무와 부적합에 대한 통지의 의무는 매수인이 물품 부적합에 대한 다른 권리를 행사하기 위해서 반드시 거쳐야 하는 단계로서 그 효과나 결과 면에서 매수인의 다른 의무들과는 차이가 있다. 하지만 동 조항들이 추구하는 궁극적인 목적은 물품자체의 특성과 인도 조건 등 여러 상황들을 고려하여 매수인이 단기간 내에 물품을 검사하고, 부적합이 존재하는 경우 그 사실을 매도인에게 통지하도록 함으로써 매도인이 부적합에 대하여 대체물의 인도, 부적합의 수리, 대금 감액 등 적절한 대처를 할 수 있도록 하여 매도인과 매수인간의 국제매매거래를 유지하기 위함이다. 이에 본 논문에서는 판례연구를 통하여 물품 검사와 부적합 통지에 관한 제38조와 제39조를 어떻게 해석하고 적용하였는지를 살펴보고자 한다. 매수인의 물품검사와 부적합 통지에 관한 규정들은 오랜 논쟁 후에 최종안이 만들어졌음에도 불구하고 규정에 쓰인 용어들을 해석하고 적용함에 있어 분명하지 않은 부분들이 여전히 존재하는데 이러한 용어들의 해석은 양당사자간의 분쟁을 해결함에 있어 판례나 법원의 해석 태도에 의지하게 된다. 따라서 본 논문에서는 동 조항들을 해석하고 원용함에 있어 법원이나 중재인들 간에 논쟁의 중심이 되었던 용어들을 중심으로 동 규정에 쓰인 용어의 해석과 적용에 있어서의 실무적인 태도를 살펴보고자 한다. Among the provisions under the United Nations Convention on the International Sales of Goods(hereinafter, CISG), article 38 dealing with the requirements to examine the goods and article 39 asking the buyer to give notice of any lack of conformity had caused lots of debates. There are big differences in the domestic sales law of the participants regarding the requirements to examine the goods and to give a notice about non-conformity. Especially, the procedure to follow in cases of non-conformity was the most controversial issue. Moreover, article 38 and 39 have different aspects from the buyer's other obligations stipulated in the CISG in terms of their effects and consequence as they are prerequisite steps before the buyer exercises other rights due to non-conformity of the goods. However, the ultimate purpose of these articles is maintaining the business relationship between the buyer and the seller; article 38 and 39 require the buyer to examine the goods within a short period considering the goods and delivery conditions and to give a notice to the seller if there is a lack of conformity of the goods. By doing so, the seller can get an opportunity to take proper actions like delivering an alternative goods, repairing the non-conformity, reducing the price, an so on. Therefore, this paper aims to discuss how article 38 and 39 have been interpreted and applied to the cases for the settlement of the disputes by studying the recent cases. Although the provisions as to the buyer's obligation of examining the goods and noticing the non-conformity have been carefully drafted after a long discussion, there are still some unclear words which can cause disagreement in interpreting and understanding the provisions. In the end, the interpretation of these vague words relies on the previous cases or the attitude of the court when the judges or arbitrators settle the disputes. Consequently, it is worth studying the cases in order to understand how these two articles are being interpreted and applied in practice.

국제물품매매협약(CISG)상 매수인의 검사의무와 물품부적합 통지의무 -국내외 판례와 중재판정을 중심으로-

정홍식 국제거래법학회 2011 國際去來法硏究 Vol.20 No.1

Article 38 of CISG directs a buyer to whom goods have been delivered to examine them or cause them to be examined. Article 38(1) specifies a general rule that the examination must occur “within as short a period as is practicable in the circumstances.” Article 38(2) provides a special rule for cases involving carriage of goods, permitting the examination to be deferred until the goods arrive at their destination. Under Article 39 of CISG, a buyer who claims that delivered goods do not conform to the contract has an obligation to give the seller notice of the lack of conformity. The provision is divided into two subsections addressing different time periods for the required notice: Article 39(1) requires that notice of lack of conformity be given within a reasonable time after the buyer has discovered or ought to have discovered the lack of conformity; Article 39(2) specifies that, in any event, the buyer must give the seller notice of the claimed lack of conformity within two years of the date on which the goods were actually handed over to the buyer, unless this time limit is inconsistent with a contractual period of guarantee. Both Articles 39(1) and 39(2) state that failure to give the requisite notice results in the buyer losing the right to rely on the lack of conformity. Article 40 relieves the buyer from the consequences of failing to meet the requirements of above articles 38 and 39. The relief provided by Article 40 is available only if the buyer’s failure to meet its examination and/or notice obligations relates to a lack of conformity that is known to the seller, or of which the seller “could not have been unaware.” In addition, Article 44 softens-although it does not eliminate-the consequences suffered by a buyer that has failed to give the notice called for by Article 39(1). Normally, a buyer that does not comply with these notice provisions loses its remedies against the seller for the alleged lack of conformity or third party claim. Under Article 44, however, if a buyer has “a reasonable excuse” for its failure to give proper notice under Article 39(1), some of the buyer’s remedies are restored: “the buyer may reduce the price in accordance with Article 50 or claim damages, except for loss of profit…” However, other remedies that the buyer would have if it had satisfied the notice requirements are not restored, such as remedies associated with avoidance of contract. This paper closely examines the above articles of 38, 39, 40, and 44 by focusing on relevant domestic and foreign cases and arbitral awards because those articles may oftentimes involve in a typical dispute concerning lack of conformity of the goods delivered. There are so many foreign decisions that have dealt with those articles, although there has been only one domestic case reported in which Article 39 was in issue. It is naturally expected that Korean court will have many more cases where the buyer’s duties to examine the delivered goods and to provide a notice of lack of conformity are in issue. Korean court interpreting CISG should take into account relevant foreign decisions because Article 7(1) imposes a mandate to regard the need to promote uniform application of CISG. This paper is written as an effort to provide many useful information in that regard by introducing many foreign decisions and commenting on the reported domestic decision from a critical perspective.