RISS 학술연구정보서비스

검색
다국어 입력

http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.

변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.

예시)
  • 中文 을 입력하시려면 zhongwen을 입력하시고 space를누르시면됩니다.
  • 北京 을 입력하시려면 beijing을 입력하시고 space를 누르시면 됩니다.
닫기
    인기검색어 순위 펼치기

    RISS 인기검색어

      검색결과 좁혀 보기

      • 좁혀본 항목

      • 좁혀본 항목 보기순서

        • 원문유무
        • 음성지원유무
        • 원문제공처
        • 등재정보
        • 학술지명
        • 주제분류
        • 발행연도
        • 작성언어
        • 저자

      오늘 본 자료

      • 오늘 본 자료가 없습니다.
      더보기
      • 무료
      • 기관 내 무료
      • 유료
      • KCI등재

        개정 국제사법(國際私法)의 소개 : 국제거래(國際去來)에 미치는 영향을 중심으로

        석광현,Suk, Kwang-Hyun 한국무역상무학회 2003 貿易商務硏究 Vol.20 No.-

        The Law amending the Conflict of Laws Act of the Republic of Korea ("Korea"), which had taken two years to prepare, was promulgated on April 7, 2001 and finally took effect as of July 1, 2001. Accordingly, the old earlier Conflict of Laws Act which was called "Seoboesabeop" in Korean ("Prior Act"Old Act) was replaced by the new Conflict of Laws Act called "Gukjesabeop" in Korean ("New Act"). In fact the Old Act Prior Act was promulgated in 1962, but it was regarded as outdated from the moment of its promulgation. However, since the Old Act because it was modeled after the chapter of the Private International Law of the Einfuehrungsgesetz zum Buergerlichen Gesetzbuch (EGBGB) of the Federal Republic of Germany ("German PIL") and the Japanese Private International Law ("Japanese PIL") which had been promulgated toward the end of the 19th century., the Old Act was viewed as outdated from the moment of its promulgation. As a result of the drastic change of the environment for international trade of which that has taken took place in parallel with the global information technology revolution on a global basis, the scope of issues to be addressed which should be resolved by the conflict of laws principles has been remarkably expanded, and various new issues of an entirely which are quite new in its type and nature have arisen been raised. In the field of conflict of laws in its narrow sense, a revolution or crisis of the traditional conflict of laws has been brought about by the advent in the United States rise of a the new methodology for of the conflict of laws, of the United States of America and in the process of overcoming the such crisis the conflict of laws of the European continent has undergone substantial changes such as the diversification of the connecting principles, the expansion of the principle of party autonomy and the consideration of the value of the substantive law to protect socio-economically weaker parties of. The Prior Act, which was based on However, with the mechanical connecting principles and contained various outdated the inappropriate provisions, the Old Act could not cope with the issues raised by the internationalization and globalization of the Korean society. Furthermore In addition, the Old Act Prior Act was regarded as insufficient in that it lacked rules on international jurisdiction to adjudicate, or international adjudicatory jurisdiction, whereas the expectation of the public was that the Conflict of Laws a Act should function as the "Basic Law of the International Legal Relationships"encompassing rules on international jurisdiction given the increase of international disputes. Furthermore the private international law has also attracted more attention from the Korean At the beginning of the new Millennium, thanks to the promulgation of the New Act, I believe that Korea has succeeded in achieving the modest goal of reflecting in the its codification substantial parts of the major developments of the private international law which the leading advanced continental European countries had achieved during the last century. The New Act has followed the approach of the traditional conflict of laws of the European continent. It is a product of the efforts to eliminate the then existing problems of the Prior Old Act and to adapt the Korean private international law regime to the standard of international conventions and national laws of advanced countries. Unlike the Prior Old Act which was heavily dependent upon the prior Japanese PIL and the prior German PIL, the New Act has been prepared by taking into full account the Rome Convention, the Swiss PIL, the new German PIL which took effect in 1986 and various conventions adopted by the Hague Conference. Therefore, the New Act has substantially reduced dependence upon the Japanese PIL and the German PIL, and has gained relatively greater universal validity. The fact that the New Act expressly declares that the determination of international jurisdiction

      • KCI등재

        Convention on International Interests in Mobile Equipment

        석광현,Suk, Kwang-Hyun 한국무역상무학회 2000 貿易商務硏究 Vol.13 No.-

        Under the co-sponsorship of UNIDROIT and I.C.A.O., a preliminary draft Convention on International Interests in Mobile Equipment and a preliminary draft Protocol on Matters Specific to Aircraft Equipment has been prepared. The purpose of the Convention is to provide for the creation and effect of a new international interest in mobile equipment. The Convention's approach is quite novel in that it purports to create an international interest based upon the convention itself. The Convention is intended to be supplemented by Protocols, each of is intended to provide equipment-specific rules necessary to adapt the rules of the Convention to fit the special pattern of financing for different categories of equipment. To date, two sessions of governmental experts were held in Rome and Montreal. Korean delegations attended the two sessions. One of the members of the Korean delegation published a report on the first session. He expressed his objection to the so called self-help remedy contemplated by the current preliminary draft of the Convention which enables the holder of a security interest to repossess and dispose of the subject of the security interest by private sale rather than public auction on the occurrence of an event of default of the debtor. His view is based upon his understanding that under Korean law, the only remedy available to the holder of a security interest in mobile equipment, such as an airplane, is to apply to the competent court for a public auction. In my view, his understanding is not quite correct and is inconsistent with the current practice in Korea. Under Korean law, the parties' agreement for private sale is in principle valid unless there is an interested party who has acquired a security interest after the creation of the prior security interest or a creditor who has caused the subject of the security interest to be attached by a competent court. In this article, I discuss the current Korean law and practice relating to the enforcement of security interests by private sale in more detail.

      • KCI등재
      • KCI등재

        국제사법상 소비자계약의 범위에 관한 판례의 소개와 검토

        석광현(Suk, Kwang Hyun) 한국국제사법학회 2016 國際私法硏究 Vol.22 No.1

        오늘날 국제거래에 참여하는 소비자를 보호하고자 다수의 국제사법은 일정한 소비자계약의 경우 국제계약 일반과 다른 특칙을 도입하고 있다. 이것이 ‘국제사법에서 약자보호’의 문제이다. 2001년 7월 발효된 우리 국제사법은 제27조를 도입하였는데 이는 유럽공동체의 1980년 “계약채무의 준거법에 관한 협약(Convention on the Law Applicable to Contractual Obligations)”(“로마협약”)을 본받은 것이다. 근자에 해외직구가 폭발적으로 증가함에 따라 소비자계약에 관한 국제사법의 특칙의 중요성이 주목을 끌고 있다. 로마협약은 소비자계약의 특칙을 규정하면서도 운송계약과, 상거소지 국가 이외의 장소에서 소비자에 대한 용역이 배타적으로 제공되는 계약에 대하여는 특칙의 적용을 배제하였고, 로마Ⅰ(제6조)도 그런 태도를 유지하면서 더 정치하게 규정한다. 그러나 우리 국제사법은 소비자보호를 취한 연결규칙을 도입하면서도 제외조항을 두지 않으므로 소비자계약의 범위를 둘러싸고 다양한 의문이 제기된다. 근자에 대법원 2014. 8. 26. 선고 2013다8410 판결(에어프랑스 사건)은, 운송계약과 상거소지 외 용역제공계약에도 제27조의 적용을 긍정하였고, 국제재판관할에 관한 서울중앙지방법원 2015. 10.16. 선고 2014가합38116 판결(구글 사건)은 무상계약에도 제27조가 적용된다고 판시하였다. 위 판결들은 국제사법의 문언에 충실한 것이나, 이 글에서 필자는 ‘목적론적 축소(대법원 판결에 따르면 목적론적 축소해석)’를 통하여 제27조의 적용범위를 제한할 수 있는지를 검토한다. 이는 국제사법의 맥락에서 법학방법론의 문제이다. 국제사법은 고도로 추상화된 법률이고, 민법이나 상법처럼 오랜 세월 동안 정비되어 온 법전과 비교할 때 흠결이 더 많으므로 법원의 적극적 역할이 요청된다. 구체적으로 필자는 이 글에서 국제사법 제27조의 적용범위를 개관한 뒤(Ⅱ.), 소비자는 자연인에 한정되는가(Ⅲ.), 무상계약인 소비자계약(Ⅳ.), 운송계약(Ⅴ.), 상거소지 외 용역제공계약(Ⅵ.)과 일부 금융 관련 소비자계약(Ⅶ.)의 순서로 제27조의 적용 여부를 논의하고, 이어서 법학방법론과 관련하여 제27조의 목적론적 축소(Ⅷ.)를 다룬 뒤에 마지막으로 소비자보호와 일반적 예외조항인 제27조의 관계를 논의한다(Ⅸ.). 요컨대 국제사법에서는 다른 법률과 비교할 때 상대적으로 목적론적 축소의 가능성을 더 적극적으로 검토할 필요가 있다. 잊지 말아야 할 것은, 그와 동시에 변화하는 상황에 대응하여 국제사법을 더욱 정치하게 다듬어야 하므로 입법론에도 항상 관심을 가져야 한다는 점이다. Nowadays, private international law legislations of many countries have introduced special rules applicable to consumer contracts in order to protect consumers participating in international transactions. This is an issue regarding the protection of weaker parties in the context of private international law. Article 27 of the Private International Law Act of Korea (“KPILA”), which took effect in July of 2001, is modeled after the “Convention on the Law Applicable to Contractual Obligations” (“Rome Convention”) of 1980 of the then European Communities. With the drastic increase in overseas direct purchases, the importance of special rules of the KPILA applicable to consumer contracts have drawn the attention of the public. The Rome Convention (Art. 5), which sets forth special rules applicable to consumer contracts, includes several exceptions for contracts of carriage and contracts for the supply of services, where the services are to be supplied to the consumer exclusively in a country other than that of which he has his habitual residence (“contracts for the supply of services in a foreign country”). The Rome I Regulations (Art. 6) have introduced more refined rules, while in principle, maintaining the position of the Rome Convention. However, the KPILA does not include any exceptions to the special rules applicable to consumer contracts, and because of it, various questions arise under the KPILA with respect to the proper scope of the consumer or the consumer contract. Recently, the Supreme Court Judgment of August 26, 2014 (Air France Case) held that Article 27 is applicable to contracts of carriage and contracts for the supply of services in a foreign country. In addition, the lower court judgment of the Seoul Central District Court on October 16 of 2015 held that Article 27 is applicable to gratuitous contracts (Google Case). The conclusions of the court judgments are true to the text of the KPILA. The author examines whether the scope of application of Article 27 can be restricted by the so-called “teleologische Reduktion (teleological reduction)(according to the Supreme Court judgment, teleological restrictive interpretation)”. This is an issue of the so-called “Methodenlehre” in the context of KPILA. The KPILA is an act with a high degree of abstraction and has more lacunae than the Civil Act and the Commercial Act, which have been refined over a long period of time. Korean judges, therefore, are required to take a more active role when interpreting or dealing with the provisions of the KPILA. More concretely, this article deals with the following issues: overview of the scope of Article 27 of the KPILA (Chapter Ⅱ.), whether the consumer is limited to natural persons (Chapter Ⅲ.), gratuitous consumer contracts (Chapter Ⅳ.), international contract of carriage (Chapter Ⅴ.), contracts for the supply of services in a foreign country (Chapter Ⅵ.), consumer contracts related to finance (Chapter Ⅶ.), and the teleological reduction of Article 27 in the context of methodological theory of law (Chapter Ⅷ.). Finally, this article discusses the relationship between Article 27 and Article 8, the general exception clause of the KPILA (Chapter Ⅸ.). In short, Korean judges should take a more active role when dealing with the provisions of the KPILA compared to when dealing with other acts. At the same time, it needs to be kept in mind that we should continue to pay attention to the legislation, so that the KPILA can keep pace with ever-changing circumstances.

      • KCI등재후보
      • KCI등재
      • KCI등재

        국제사법 제2조 제2항을 올바로 적용한 2019년 대법원 판결의 평석: 일반관할과 재산소재지의 특별관할을 중심으로

        석광현(SUK, KWANG HYUN) 동아대학교 법학연구소 2020 國際去來와 法 Vol.- No.29

        여기에서는 대법원 2019. 6. 13. 선고 2016다33752 판결을 평석한다. 이는 중국인들 간의 소송에 대하여 한국에 국제재판관할이 있는지가 다투어진 점에서 다소 이례적인 사건이다. 제1심은 한국의 국제재판관할을 부정한 데 반하여 원심과 대법원은 이를 긍정하였다. 필자가 평석을 하는 이유는 대상판결이 아래와 같은 점에서 주목할 만한 가치가 있기 때문이다. 첫째, 국제사법 제2조 제2항의 취지(Ⅲ.). 둘째, 보통재판적을 정한 민사소송법 조문을 고려한 일반관할(Ⅳ.). 셋째, 한국내 재산 소재에 근거한 특별관할을 인정하기 위한 요건의 설시(Ⅴ.). 넷째, 한국에서의 제소에 대한 예측가능성의 의미(Ⅵ.). 다섯째, 부적절한 법정지의 법리와의 접점(Ⅶ.) 대법원은 국제사법 제2조 제2항의 의미를 정확히 파악하였다. 즉 대법원은 대상판결에서 모든 토지관할규정에 대해 동등한 가치를 부여하면서 「토지관할규칙=국제재판관할규칙」이라는 공식을 신봉하던 과거의 태도와 결별하고, 토지관할규정들을 ① 그대로 국제재판관할규칙으로 사용할 수 있는 것과 ② 수정함으로써 국제재판관할규칙으로 사용할 수 있는 것으로 구분하고, 보통재판적을 정한 민사소송법 제2조와 제3조는 전자에, 재산소재지의 특별재판적을 정한 민사소송법 제11조는 후자에 속하는 것으로 구분하고 후자의 수정방법을 제시하였다. 과거 대법원 판결들이 국제사법 제2조 제2항을 형식적으로 언급하고 토지관할규정을 고려함이 없이 다양한 고려 요소들만을 열거한 뒤 실질적 관련과 국제재판관할의 유무를 판단함으로써 국제사법 제2조 제2항을 위반한 데 반하여, 대상판결은 대법원 판결로서는 처음으로 국제사법 제2조 제2항을 제대로 적용하고 구체적인 지침을 제시한 판결이다. 이는 종래 필자의 견해와 부합하므로 이를 환영한다. 국제사법이 개정되기까지 대법원이 대상판결을 전환점으로 삼아 국제사법 제2조에 충실한 판단을 해 줄 것을 기대한다. In this article, the author comments on the Supreme Court judgment (“Judgment”) of June 13, 2019, Docket No. 2016Da33752. This is a rather unusual case in that the dispute was over whether the Korean courts have international jurisdiction over lawsuits between Chinese individuals. The first instance court denied Korea’s jurisdiction over the case, while the Appeal Court and the Supreme Court of Korea affirmed it. The author writes the present commentary because the Judgment deserves our attention in light of the following. First, the purpose of Article 2(2) of the Private International Law Act of Korea (“KPILA”) (Chapter III). Second, the international general jurisdiction taking into account the provisions of the Civil Procedure Act setting forth the generally-affiliating basis for venue (Chapter IV). Third, the requirements for the recognition of special jurisdiction based on the location of property in Korea (Chapter Ⅴ). Fourth, the meaning of predictability for lawsuit in Korea (Chapter VI). Fifth, the Judgment’s implication for the doctrine of forum non conveniens (Chapter Ⅶ). The Supreme Court of Korea (“KSC”) has rightly interpreted the meaning of Article 2(2) of the KPILA. In the Judgment, the KSC departed from the past attitude that adhered to the formula “venue rules = international jurisdiction rules” while giving equal value to all venue rules, and classified the venue rules of the Civil Procedure Act into (i) rules that can be used as international jurisdiction rules and (ii) those that can be used as international jurisdiction rules subject to modification. In addition, the KSC classified the general venue rules under Articles 2 and 3 of the KCPA as belonging to the former category, while classifying the special venue rules under Article 11 of the KCPA as belonging to the latter category, while making suggestions on to how to modify the latter. In the past, KSC judgments merely referred to Article 2(2) of the KPILA, and decided whether the case at hand has a substantial connection with Korea and whether Korean courts have international jurisdiction after only enumerating various factors of the case without actually considering the venue rules of the CPA, thereby violating Article 2(2) of the KPILA. In contrast, the Judgment correctly applies Article 2(2) of the KPILA and provides specific guidelines, and it is the first to do so among KSC judgments. The author welcomes the Judgment in that it is consistent with the view which the author has been suggesting. Pending the revision of the KPILA, the author truly hopes that the KSC will continue to render good judgments under Article 2(2) of the KPILA in the future, using the Judgment as a turning point.

      • KCI등재

        한국의 헤이그국제사법회의 가입 20주년을 기념하여

        석광현(SUK, KWANG HYUN) 동아대학교 법학연구소 2017 國際去來와 法 Vol.- No.19

        “국제사법에 관한 헤이그회의”(“헤이그회의”)는 국제사법규칙을 점진적으로 통일하는 것을 목적으로 1893년에 처음 소집되었는데 그 후 상설기구가 되었다. 2017년은 한국의 가입 20주년이 되는 해이다. 이를 기념하여 헤이그회의는 한국의 법무부, 사법연수원 및 한국국제사법학회 등과 공동으로 서울에서 2017. 7. 3.부터 6.까지 “HCCH Asia Pacific Week 2017” 국제세미나를 개최하였다. 현재 한국은 헤이그회의가 성안한 협약(“헤이그협약”) 중 ① 1965년 송달협약, ② 1961년 아포스티유협약, ③ 1970년 증거협약과 ④ 1980년 아동탈취협약 등 4개 협약의 당사국이다. 아동탈취협약은 한국으로서는 여러모로 최초인데, 가족법 분야 최초이고 준거법과 관련된 분야 최초이며 가입 시 이행법률을 제정한 유일한 헤이그협약이다. 이처럼 1997년 헤이그회의 가입 이래 20년 동안 한국은 4개 헤이그협약의 당사국이 되었고 동 조약에 따라 다양한 분야의 국제적 업무를 처리하고 있다는 점에서 눈부신 발전을 이룩하였다. 그러나 여러 가지 아쉬움이 있는데 입양협약을 아직 비준하지 않은 점이 가장 아쉽다. 우리로서는 헤이그회의를 민사 및 상사사건에서 초국경적 협력 증진을 위한 세계기구로 적절히 활용해야 한다. 한국에서는 법률가들이 현행법의 해석론에 집중하는 탓에 입법론, 특히 규범의 통일을 위한 국제적 노력에 무관심하고, 심지어 그 필요성을 인식하지 못하는 법률가들이 많다. 하지만 이런 태도는 시정해야 한다. 지난 20여년 간 우리 사회가 국제사법 전문가, 특히 전문연구자를 별로 양성하지 못한 점도 매우 유감스러운 일이다. 이 글에서 저자는 한국이 가입한 헤이그협약의 주요내용과 가입 시 한국이 취한 조치(Ⅱ.), 헤이그협약이 한국 국제사법의 입법에 미친 영향(Ⅲ.), 한국이 장래 가입을 검토해야 할 헤이그협약들(Ⅳ.)-여기에서는 입양협약, 관할합의협약, 아동보호협약, 아동부양협약, 성년자보호협약, 증권협약과 신탁협약을 소개한다. 헤이그회의와 관련한 우리의 장래 과제(Ⅴ.), 필자의 개인적 경험, 추억과 단상(Ⅵ.) 및 맺음말(Ⅶ.)의 순서로 논의한다. 말미에는 관련문제로 대법원의 IP 허브코트 구상에 관하여 간단히 언급한다. 본격적인 논의에 앞서 국제사법의 개념과 범위를 먼저 언급한다. “Hague Conference on Private International Law” (“Hague Conference”) was first convened in 1893 to work for the progressive unification of the rules of private international law and later has been transformed into a standing organization. 2017 marks the 20th anniversary of Korea’s membership of the Hague Conference. In order to commemorate it, the Hague Conference, together with the Ministry of Justice and the Korean Association of Private International Law, has organized “HCCH Asia Pacific Week 2017” conferences from July 3 to 6 of 2017 in Seoul. At present, among the numerous conventions adopted by the Hague Conference (“Hague Conventions”), Korea is a state party to the following four conventions: ① the Service Convention of 1965, ② the Apostille Convention of 1961, ③ the Evidence Convention of 1970, and ④ the Child Abduction Convention of 1980. The Child Abduction Convention is a first for Korea in many aspects. It is the first Hague Convention for Korea on family law matters and issues related to applicable law. It is also the only Hague Convention for which Korea has enacted an implementation act at the time of accession. Korea has made remarkable progress since becoming a member of the Hague Conference in 1997 in that it has acceded to four Hague Conventions and come to handle various international tasks under those conventions. However, there is much room for further improvement. The fact that Korea has not yet ratified the Adoption Convention is most unfortunate. We should properly utilize the Hague Conference as the “The World Organisation for Cross-border Co-operation in Civil and Commercial Matters”. In Korea, lawyers tend to focus more on the interpretation of the current law and less on legislation. Many of them are particularly indifferent to theinternational efforts for the unification of laws and do not even realize the necessity of these efforts. However, such attitude should be changed. It is also very regrettable that the Korean society has not been able to cultivate many experts, especially expert researchers, on private international law for the past 20 years. This article deals with the following issues: the major contents of the Hague Conventions to which Korea has acceded and the measures taken by Korea at the time of accession (Chapter Ⅱ), the influences the Hague Conventions had on Korea’s legislation of private international law (Chapter Ⅲ), the Hague Conventions Korea should consider acceding to in the future (Chapter Ⅳ) (in this Chapter, the author makes a brief introduction to the Adoption Convention, the Choice of Court Convention, the Child Protection Convention, the Child Support Convention, the Adult Protection Convention, the Securities Convention and the Trust Convention), the future task of Korea with respect to the Hague Conference (Chapter Ⅴ), the author’s personal experiences, memories, and thoughts (Chapter Ⅵ), and concluding remarks (Chapter Ⅶ). At the end of the paper, the author briefly examines, as a related matter, the Supreme Court of Korea’s plan to establish the so-called “IP Hub Court” in Korea. Before delving into the discussion on the main topics, the author briefly touches upon the concept and scope of private international law.

      • KCI등재

        가집행선고의 실효로 인한 가지급물 반환의무의 준거법

        석광현(Kwang Hyun SUK) 전북대학교 법학연구소 2017 法學硏究 Vol.51 No.-

        선박건조회사의 요청에 따라 보험회사인 피고는 발주자에게 선수금환급보증서를 발행하였고 이는 선박건조금융을 제공한 원고들에게 양도되었다. 원고들은 피고가 발행한 선수금환급보증에 따른 선수금의 지급과 그에 대하여 특례법에 따른 지연손해금의 지급을 구하였다. 대법원은 대상판결에서 법정이율에 관한 특례법(제3조 제1항)은 비록 소송촉진을 목적으로 소송절차에 의한 권리구제와 관련하여 적용되지만 절차법적 성격을 가지는 것이라고만 볼 수는 없고 그 실질은 금전채무 불이행으로 인한 손해배상 범위를 정하기 위한 것이므로, 본래채권의 준거법이 영국법인 이 사건에는 적용할 수 없다고 판시하였다. 그러나 필자는 지연손해금은 실체의 문제임을 부정할 수 없지만 위 조문에서는 한국 법원에 계속중인 소송절차를 신속하게 하려는 사법정책적 고려가 더 중요한 의미를 가지므로 법정지가 한국이라면 채권의 준거법에 관계없이 적용된다고 본다. 원고들은 제1심판결에서 전부 승소하였고 판결에는 가집행이 붙었다. 피고는 강제집행을 피하고자 원고들에게 가지급금을 지급하였다. 피고는 항소하면서 가지급물반환신청을 하였다. 항소심에서 제1심판결이 일부취소되고 가집행선고가 일부실효됨에 따라 원고들은 가지급금의 일부를 피고에게 반환하게 되었는데 그에 대한 지연손해금의 이율이 쟁점이 되었다. 원고들은 선수금환급보증의 준거법이 영국법이므로 국제사법 제31조 단서의 ‘종속적 연결원칙’에 따라 부당이득의 준거법이 영국법이라며 그에 따른 저율(당시 8%)이 적용된다고 주장하였으나, 대상판결은 한국법(특례법)에 따른 고율(당시 20%)을 적용하였다. 대상판결의 근거는, 원고들의 반환의무는 민사소송법이 인정한 법정채무이므로 국제사법 제31조 단서는 적용되지 않는다는 것이다. 대상판결이 국제사법 제31조 단서의 적용 여부를 논의한 것은 국제사법의 적용을 전제로 하므로 가지급물 반환의무를 실체로 성질결정하였다고 볼 여지도 있다. 그러나 필자는, 대상판결이 국제사법(제31조)을 적용하여 부당이득의 준거법을 판단하는 과정을 거치지 않고 곧바로 한국법을 적용한 것은, 가지급금반환의무를 절차로 성질결정하고 이른바 법정지법원칙을 적용한 때문이라고 이해한다. 피고가 가지급금의 반환을 신청하면서 지연손해금을 특례법에 따라 산정해야 한다고 주장한 데 대하여 원고들은 영국법을 적용해야 한다고 주장하였다. 대법원은 지연손해금에 대해 특례법의 적용을 긍정하였는데 이는 아마도 절차로 성질결정하였기 때문일 것이다. 그러나 첫째 논점에서 선급금에 대한 지연손해금을 실체로 보아 특례법의 적용을 배척한 대법원이 가지급물반환의무의 지연손해금을 절차로 파악하여 특례법을 적용한 것은 일관성이 없다. At the request of a shipbuilding company, an insurance company (“Defendant”) issued a refund guarantee of advance payment in favor of the buyer, which was later assigned to the financing institutions (“Plaintiffs”) that provided the shipbuilding finance. The Plaintiffs filed a suit against the Defendant seeking the return of advance payment pursuant to the refund guarantee and default interest thereon calculated at the rate set forth by the “Special Act on Acceleration of Litigation, etc.” (“Special Act”). The Supreme Court held that the Special Act on statutory interest rate cannot be characterized only as a matter of procedure, even though it is applied in relation to remedies through litigations in order to expedite litigations. Since the purpose of the Special Act is to set the extent of damages resulting from failure to duly perform monetary obligations, the Supreme Court decided that the Special Act was not applicable to the present case which centered around an obligation governed by English law. However, even though the author acknowledges that the default interest accruing from late payment is a matter of substance, the author still believes that the Special Act should be applicable to the case at hand as the law of the forum, since the Special Act’s purpose of promoting judicial economy is more important. The Plaintiffs won the case in its entirety at the first instance, and the court of first instance’s judgement included a declaration of provisional execution. In order to avoid compulsory execution of the judgment, the Defendant made a provisional payment according to the judgment. The Defendant later filed an appeal and applied for the return of the provisional payment. At the second instance, the Plaintiffs were required to return the provisional payment, since part of the judgment of the first instance was repealed and the declaration of provisional execution was partly invalidated. The interest rate applicable to the provisional payment to be returned became the issue. The Plaintiffs argued that English law applicable to the refund guarantee should also be applicable to the unjust enrichment pursuant to the accessory connecting principle under the proviso of Article 31 of the Private International Law Act (“PILA”). Under this view, the interest rate would be 8%. However, the Supreme Court held that the Special Act was applicable to the case and applied the higher interest rate of 20% under the Special Act. The Supreme Court’s rationale was that the proviso of Article 31 of the PILA was not applicable to the Plaintiffs’ obligation to return the provisional payment, since such obligation is a statutory one prescribed by the Civil Procedure Act. The fact that the Supreme Court discussed the application of the proviso of Article 31 of the PILA could be interpreted as an indication that the Supreme Court characterized the obligation to return provisional payment as a matter of substance. However, the author believes that the fact that the Supreme Court applied Korean law directly without first applying the PILA in order to determine the law applicable to unjust enrichment indicates that the Supreme Court characterized the obligation as a matter of procedure and therefore applied Korean law as the law of the forum according to the so-called “lex fori principle”. While applying for the return of the provisional payment, the Defendant argued that the default interest should be calculated at the rate set forth by the Special Act, whereas the Plaintiffs argued that the rate under English law should be applied. The Supreme Court applied the interest rate under the Special Act. This is probably because the Supreme Court regarded the default interest resulting from the late payment of the return of the provisional payment as a matter of procedure. However, the author believes that the Supreme Court’s conclusion on this point is inconsistent with the holding of the Supreme Court on the first issue, namely, that the defa

      • KCI등재

        중재법의 개정방향 -국제상사중재의 측면을 중심으로-

        石光現 ( Kwang Hyun Suk ) 서울대학교 법학연구소 2012 서울대학교 法學 Vol.53 No.3

        한국의 현행 중재법은 UN국제거래법위원회(UNCITRAL)가 1985년 채택한 "국제 상사중재에 관한 모델법"(Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration) (이하"모델법"이라 한다)을 전면 수용한 것이다. 그 결과 우리나라도 국제적으로 검증된 보편성이 있는 중재법을 가지게 되었다. 그런데 주지하는 바와 같이 UN국제거래법 위원회는 2006년 모델법을 개정하였다. 개정 모델법의 중요한 두 가지 착안점은 첫째, 중재합의의 방식에 관한 것이고, 둘째, 중재판정부의 임시적 처분과 사전명령에 관한 것이다. 중재합의에 관한 모델법의 문언은 1958년 뉴욕협약 제2조 제2항을 기초로 한 것이다. 제7조의 개정은 국제거래에서 진화하는 실무와 기술적 발전을 반영하기 위한것이다. 임시적 처분에 관하여는 개정 모델법은 별도의 장(제IV장A)을 신설하였다. 임시적 처분에 관한 제17조의 개정은 임시적 처분이 국제상사중재의 실무에서 점차널리 이용되고 있다는 사실을 반영하기 필요한 것으로 간주되었다. 개정 모델법은 또한 임시적 처분의 집행 체제를 포함하고 있는데 이는 임시적 처분의 집행가능성이 자주 중재의 실효성에 의해 좌우됨을 고려한 것이다. 중재법 제35조 제2항에 규정된 중재판정의 승인 및 집행판결을 위하여 제출할 서류요건도 개정 모델법에 의하여 완화되었는데 이는 중재합의에 관한 제7조의 개정을 반영한 것이다. 이러한 배경하에서 저자는 한국의 입법자들이 장래 고려할 개정의 착안점으로 아래 사항들을 제시한다. ① 중재합의의 방식, ② 중재판정부의 임시적 처분과 사전명령, ③ 중재 판정의 승인 및 집행을 위한 서류요건, ④ 중재판정의 승인과 집행가능선언(또는 집행허가)요건의 완화, 즉 집행판결 제도의 완화, ⑤ 중재가능성, ⑥ 분쟁의 실체의 준거법, ⑦ 중재판정의 취소의 소와 배제합의, ⑧ 국제상사중재에서 소비자의 보호, ⑨ 대한상사중재원의 지위와 권한과 ⑩ 기타 논점들(법원의 전문성 보장과 관할, 중재대리, 중재의 비밀보장, 중재비용, 중재판정 원본의 보관, 이자 지급, 집행권원의 보충 등)이 그것이다. 마지막으로 필자는 한국 중재실무가들이 중재법학의 발전에도 좀더 적극적 역할을 해주기를 당부한다. The current Korean Arbitration Act ("KAA") has been modelled on the "Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration" ("Model Law") adopted by the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) in 1985. Therefore, one could say that Korea has succeeded in introducing well-organized arbitration law. As is widely known, the Model Law has been revised by the UNCITRAL in 2006. The principal contents of the revised Model Law ("Revised Model Law") adopted in 2006 relate to the form of the arbitration agreement and to interim measures. The text of the provision on the form of the arbitration agreement in Article 7 of the Model Law was modelled on Article II (2) of the New York Convention of 1958. The revision of Article 7 is intended to reflect the practice in international trade and technological developments. As to the interim measures, the Revised Model Law has introduced a new chapter on interim measures and preliminary orders (chapter IVA). The revision of Article 17 on interim measures was considered necessary in light of the fact that interim measures are increasingly relied upon in the practice of international commercial arbitration. The Revised Model Law also includes an enforcement regime for interim measures considering that the effectiveness of arbitration often depends on whether interim measures could actually been forced. The document requirements under Article 35(2) were also amended in 2006 to liberalize formal requirements and reflect the amendment made to Article 7 on the form of the arbitration agreement. Against the foregoing background, the author suggests that Korean legislators consider the following points for amendment in the future : ① form of arbitration agreement; ② interim measures and preliminary order; ③ documents necessary for recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral award; ④ requirements for the enforcement of arbitral award, especially the enforcement judgment (exequatur); ⑤ arbitrability; ⑥ law applicable to the substance of the dispute; ⑦ challenge of arbitral award and the validity of exclusion agreement under the Korean Arbitration Act; ⑧ consumer protection in international commercial arbitration; ⑨ status of the Korean Commercial Arbitration Board; and ⑩ other issues such as enhancement of expertise of Korean courts involved in arbitration and confidentiality and costs of arbitration. Finally, the author urges Korean lawyers who play important roles in international commercial arbitration to make greater contribution to the development of the doctrine of arbitration.

      맨 위로 스크롤 이동