본문 바로가기
KERD
논문KCI 등재

CISG를 적용한 최근 미국 판례에 관한 연구

A Research on the Recent US Cases the CISG Governed

김용의
국제거래법학회 (Korea International Trade Law Association)|2011.07|국제거래법연구 (Korean Forum on International Trade and Business Law)|제20권 제1호|pp. 137-164

0

조회

0

다운로드

11

인용

0

참고문헌

키워드

준거법통일상법전국제물품매매계약에관한유엔협약UCCCISGJurisdictionINCOTERMS재판관할Governing Law인코텀즈통일매매법Self-Executing TreatyInterpretation of CISG매매협약의 해석매매협약의 적용물품거래매매법자동효력발생조약U.N. Convention on Contracts for International Sale of GoodsApplication of CISGSales Law
주제분류법학

초록

This article reviewed how the CISG was recognized and applied by the U.S. courts in the cases for the last twenty two years. It seems very meaningful to review and analyze the cases of the US courts which represent the common law jurisprudence since the CISG is a creation made through the co-work of the civil law jurisprudence and common law jurisprudence in pursuit of a global uniform sales law. By viewing the increasing trend in the number of the CISG cases in the US and the provisions of the CISG specifically applied in such cases using statistical method in time series, the writer tried to assess, though not sufficient,how the CISG was practically recognized by the US lawyers and what were the issues in the cases. The writer found that the CISG were hardly recognized for the first ten years since it became effective in the US and recently the number of CISG cases are increasing rapidly. It reflects that the CISG is settling down in the US as a governing law in the area of international sale of goods despite the lack of recognition in the early stage. Through the early cases, it is found that the US courts did lack full understanding about the CISG. However, as time passes, with the increase in the volume of cases and the improvement in the quality of analyses in the CISG cases in the US, recently there are a lot of holdings in the cases the Korean lawyers would refer to. This article discussed the US courts’interpretation of the CISG and the logic in the process of making decisions in the cases where the primary issue was whether the CISG can be the governing law. The writer added some key notes on the recent case where a Korean company was a party, and such provisions of the CISG as to the applicability, formation of a contract were interpreted and applied in order to give the Korean lawyers a real-life flavor of the CISG case in the US. The writer hopes that this article would be a specific and practical reference to the Korean lawyers in their recognition, understanding, and application of the CISG considering that the CISG is still new in Korea and has been rarely applied by them though it has become already 6 years since Korean Congress ratified it.

Abstract

This article reviewed how the CISG was recognized and applied by the U.S. courts in the cases for the last twenty two years. It seems very meaningful to review and analyze the cases of the US courts which represent the common law jurisprudence since the CISG is a creation made through the co-work of the civil law jurisprudence and common law jurisprudence in pursuit of a global uniform sales law. By viewing the increasing trend in the number of the CISG cases in the US and the provisions of the CISG specifically applied in such cases using statistical method in time series, the writer tried to assess, though not sufficient,how the CISG was practically recognized by the US lawyers and what were the issues in the cases. The writer found that the CISG were hardly recognized for the first ten years since it became effective in the US and recently the number of CISG cases are increasing rapidly. It reflects that the CISG is settling down in the US as a governing law in the area of international sale of goods despite the lack of recognition in the early stage. Through the early cases, it is found that the US courts did lack full understanding about the CISG. However, as time passes, with the increase in the volume of cases and the improvement in the quality of analyses in the CISG cases in the US, recently there are a lot of holdings in the cases the Korean lawyers would refer to. This article discussed the US courts’interpretation of the CISG and the logic in the process of making decisions in the cases where the primary issue was whether the CISG can be the governing law. The writer added some key notes on the recent case where a Korean company was a party, and such provisions of the CISG as to the applicability, formation of a contract were interpreted and applied in order to give the Korean lawyers a real-life flavor of the CISG case in the US. The writer hopes that this article would be a specific and practical reference to the Korean lawyers in their recognition, understanding, and application of the CISG considering that the CISG is still new in Korea and has been rarely applied by them though it has become already 6 years since Korean Congress ratified it.

참고문헌 (61)

  1. Amy A. Kirby, "Punitive Damages in Contract Actions: The Tension Between the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods and U.S. Law", J.L. & Com, 16, pp.215~224 (1997)
  2. Maureen T. Murphy, "United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods: Creating Uniformity in International Sales Law", Fordham Int’l L.J, 12, pp.727~ (1989)
  3. Kim, Yong-Eui, "The Current and Future Role of the CISG in Korea", 동아법학, (48), pp.742~743 (2010)
  4. Richard E. Speidel, "The Revision of UCC Article 2, Sales in Light of the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods", Nw. J. Int’l L. & Bus, 16, pp.165~166 (1995)
  5. Susanne Cook, "The U.N. Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods: A Mandate to Abandon Legal Ethnocentricity", J.L. & Com, 16, pp.257~261 (1997)
  6. Susanne Cook, "CISG: From the Perspective of the Practitioner", J.L. & Com, 17, pp.343~349 (1998)
  7. Volker Behr, "The Sales Convention in Europe: From Problems in Drafting to Problems in Practice", J.L. & Com, 17, pp.263~264 (1998)
  8. Ronald A. Brand, "Recent Development: CISG: Arbitration And Contract Formation in International Trade: First Interpretations of The U.N. Sales Convention", J.L. & Com, 12, pp.239~239 (1993)
  9. Franco Ferrari, "General Principles and International Uniform Commercial Law Conventions: A Study of the 1980 Vienna Sales Convention and the 1988 UNIDRIOT Conventions on International Factoring and Leasing", Pace Int’l L. Rev, 10, pp.157~157 (1998)
  10. Francis A. Gabor, "Emerging Unification of Conflict of Laws Rules Applicable to the International Sale of Goods: UNCITRAL and the New Hague Conference on Private International Law", J. Int’l L. Bus, 7, pp.696~725 (1986)
  11. Michael P. Van Alstine, "Consensus, Dissensus, and Contractual Obligation Through the Prism of Uniform International Sales Law", Va. J. Int’l L, 37, pp.1~6 (1996)
  12. Del Pilar Perales Viscasillas, "Recent Development Relating to CISG: Contract Conclusion Under CISG", J.L. & Com, 16, pp.315~315 (1997)
  13. Honorable Diane P. Wood, "Regulation in the Single Global Market: From Anarchy to World Federalism", Ohio N.U. L. Rev, 23, pp.297~302 (1996)
  14. "United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods", Apr. 11,1980, S. Treaty Doc. No. 98-9 (1983), 19 I.L.M. 668 (1980), reprinted at 15 U.S.C.app. (entered into force Jan. 1, 1988), ~ (1980)
  15. "28 U.S.C. § 1332", ~
  16. "FED.R.CIV.P. 56(c)", ~
  17. "28 U.S.C. § 1652", ~
  18. INTERNATIONAL CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, "INCOTERMS 1990", ~ (1990)
  19. "International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 US. 310 (1945)", ~ (1945)
  20. "World Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Wooden, 444 U.S. 286 (1980)", ~ (1980)
  21. "Attorneys Trust v. Videotape Computer Products, Inc. 94 F.3d 650 (9th Cir. 1996)", ~ (1996)
  22. "DeSantis v. Wackenhut Corp.. 793 S.W.2d 670, 678 (Tex.1990)", ~ (1990)
  23. "Resolution Trust Corp. v. Chapman, 29 F.3d 1120, 1124 (7th Cir.1994)", ~ (1994)
  24. "St. Paul Guardian Ins. Co. v. Neuromed Med.Sys. &Support, 00 Civ. 9344, 2002 WL 465312, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Mar.26, 2002)", ~ (2002)
  25. "Asante Techs., Inc. v. PMC-Sierra, Inc.. 164 F.Supp.2d 1142, (N.D.Cal.2001)", ~ (2001)
  26. "Delchi Carrier SpA v. Rotorex Corp., 71 F.3d 1024,(2d Cir.1995)", ~ (1995)
  27. "Filanto,S.p.A. v. Chilewich Intern. Corp., 789 F.Supp. 1229, 1237 (S.D.N.Y.1992)", ~ (1992)
  28. "Ajax Tool Works, Inc. v. Can-Eng Manu. Ltd.. 2003 WL 223187, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1306, at *8 (N.D.Ill. Jan. 30, 2003)", ~ (2003)
  29. "CSS Antenna, Inc. v. Amphenol-Tuchel Electronics, GmbH, 2011 WL 462747, D.Md., February 08, 2011", ~ (2011)
  30. "Hanwha Corp. v. Cedar Petrochemicals, Inc., 2011 WL 165404, S.D.N.Y., January 18, 2011", ~ (2011)
  31. "Semi-Materials Co., Ltd. v. MEMC Electronic Materials, Inc., Slip Copy, 2011 WL 65919, E.D.Mo., January 10, 2011", ~ (2011)
  32. "Semi-Materials Co., Ltd. v. MEMC Electronic Materials, Inc., Slip Copy, 2011 WL 134062, E.D.Mo., January 10, 2011", ~ (2011)
  33. "Semi-Materials Co., Ltd. v. MEMC Electronic Materials, Inc., Slip Copy, 2011 WL 134078, E.D.Mo., January 10, 2011", ~ (2011)
  34. "Ho Myung Moolsan, Co. Ltd. v. Manitou Mineral Water, Inc., Slip Copy, 2010 WL 4892646, 73 UCC Rep.Serv.2d 313, S.D.N.Y., December 02, 2010", ~ (2010)
  35. "Granjas Aquanova S.A. de C.V. v. House Mfg. Co. Inc., Slip Copy, 2010 WL 4809342, E.D.Ark., November 19, 2010", ~ (2010)
  36. "America’s Collectibles Network, Inc. v. Timlly (HK), 2010 WL 4222918, E.D.Tenn., October 20, 2010", ~ (2010)
  37. "Remy, Inc. v. Tecnomatic, S.p.A., Slip Copy, 2010 WL 4174594, S.D.Ind., October 18, 2010", ~ (2010)
  38. "ECEM European Chemical Marketing B.V. v. The Purolite Co., Slip Copy, 2010 WL 4069188, E.D.Pa., October 15, 2010", ~ (2010)
  39. "Construcciones E Instalaciones Electromecanicas S.A. v. Hi-Vac Corp., Slip Copy, 2010 WL 3667018, S.D.Ohio, September 14, 2010", ~ (2010)
  40. "Riccitelli v. Elemar New England Marble and Granite, LLC, Slip Copy, 2010 WL 3767111, D.Conn., September 14, 2010", ~ (2010)
  41. "Bodum USA, Inc. v. La Cafetiere, Inc., 621 F.3d 624, 2010 WL 3432220, 96 U.S.P.Q.2d 1689, C.A.7, September 02, 2010", ~ (2010)
  42. "Electrocraft Arkansas, Inc. v. Super Elec. Motors, Ltd, Slip Copy, 2010 WL 3307461, 3 A.L.R. Int’l 897, E.D.Ark., August 19, 2010", ~ (2010)
  43. "Semi-Materials Co., Ltd. v. MEMC Electronic Materials, Inc., Slip Copy, 2010 WL 3038086, E.D.Mo., August 03, 2010", ~ (2010)
  44. "Forestal Guarani S.A. v. Daros Intern., Inc., 613 F.3d 395, 2010 WL 2836985, C.A.3 (N.J.), July 21, 2010", ~ (2010)
  45. "Alpha Prime Development Corp. v. Holland Loader Co., LLC, Slip Copy, 2010 WL 2691774, D.Colo., July 06, 2010", ~ (2010)
  46. "Dingxi Longhai Dairy, Ltd. v. Becwood Technology Group, L.L.C., 718 F.Supp.2d 1019, 2010 WL 2505573, D.Minn., June 17, 2010", ~ (2010)
  47. "Granjas Aquanova S.A. de C.V. v. House Mfg. Co., Inc., 2010 WL 2243673, E.D.Ark., June 04, 2010", ~ (2010)
  48. "Granjas Aquanova S.A. de C.V. v. House Mfg. Co., Inc., Slip Copy, 2010 WL 2243697, E.D.Ark., June 04, 2010", ~ (2010)
  49. "Pasta Zara SpA v. U.S., 703 F.Supp.2d 1317, 2010 WL 1347215, 32 ITRD 1335, CIT, April 07, 2010", ~ (2010)
  50. "Electrocraft Arkansas, Inc. v. Super Elec. Motors, Ltd., Slip Copy, 2010 WL 1381950, E.D.Ark., April 02, 2010", ~ (2010)
  51. "Belcher-Robinson, L.L.C. v. Linamar Corp., 699 F.Supp.2d 1329, 2010 WL 1226850, 4 A.L.R. Int’l 811, M.D.Ala., March 31, 2010", ~ (2010)
  52. "ECEM European Chemical Marketing B.V. v. Purolite Co., 2010 WL 419444, E.D.Pa., January 29, 2010", ~ (2010)
  53. "Golden Valley Grape Juice and Wine, LLC v. Centrisys Corp., 2010 WL 347897, E.D.Cal., January 22, 2010", ~ (2010)
  54. "Yel FlgElectrocraft Arkansas, Inc. v. Super Electric Motors, Ltd., Slip Copy, 2009 WL 5181854, 70 UCC Rep.Serv.2d 716, E.D.Ark., December 23, 2009", ~ (2009)
  55. "Yel FlgInnotex Precision Ltd. v. Horei Image Products, Inc., 679 F.Supp.2d 1356, 2009 WL 5174736, N.D.Ga., December 17, 2009", ~ (2009)
  56. "Taub v. Marchesi Di Barolo S.p.A., 2009 WL 4910590, E.D.N.Y., December 10, 2009", ~ (2009)
  57. "Banks Hardwoods Florida, LLC v. Maderas Iglesias, S.A., Slip Copy, 2009 WL 3618011, S.D.Fla., October 29, 2009", ~ (2009)
  58. "Banks Hardwoods Florida, LLC v. Maderas Iglesias, S.A, Slip Copy, 2009 WL 3618119, S.D.Fla., October 29, 2009", ~ (2009)

관련 논문AI추천

CISG에 관한 최근 미국 판례(2014-15년)의 동향-1김선국법학연구원 · 법학논총2015 · 제28권 제2호우리 법원의 CISG 쟁점 판결례에 대한 체계적 정리와 분석이필복국제거래법학회 · 국제거래법연구2021 · 제30권 제1호국제물품매매협약에 관한 미국판례의 동향김선국한국상사법학회 · 상사법연구2002 · 제21권 제2호국제물품매매협약(CISG)을 적용한 우리 판결의 소개와 검토석광현국제거래법학회 · 국제거래법연구2011 · 제20권 제1호주요국에서의 CISG의 적용과 우리의 과제 - 미국·중국·한국을 중심으로 -서헌제국제거래법학회 · 국제거래법연구2009 · 제18권 제1호CISG의 국제거래법적 함의김기영법학연구원 · 법학논총2016 · 제23권 제1호

이 간행물의 다른 논문 (7건)

CISG에서의 청약의 요건김진우pp. 1-27국제물품매매협약(CISG)상 매수인의 검사의무와 물품부적합 통지의무 -국내외 판례와 중재판정을 중심으로-정홍식pp. 29-60국제물품매매협약상 계약해제의 효과허해관pp. 61-85국제물품매매협약(CISG)을 적용한 우리 판결의 소개와 검토석광현pp. 87-135글로벌 금융위기와 금융규범의 대응방안에 관한 논고허범pp. 165-205
원문 보기