Cross-Border Insolvency Law in Korea
0
조회
0
다운로드
0
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
Korea’s cross-border insolvency regime is founded on Chapter 5 of the DRBA, which adopted the UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency with few disparities. Chapter 5 shifted Korea’s cross-border regime from strict territorialism to moderate universalism by abolishing the territoriality rules under the former Bankruptcy Act and Corporate Reorganization Act and establishing new rules based on the principle of universality. Certain provisions of the Model Law have not been adopted for practical reasons unique in Korea. For instance, although not expressly adopted, Articles 3, 7, and 8 are generally by Korean court rulings, local statutes and public international law theories. Article 14 has not been implemented because there are some differences between the civil law system on which Korean law and the DRBA are grounded and the common law system regarding the service of documents. Article 23 of the Model Law has not been adopted because the law on transaction avoidance is complicated and remains unsettled in Korea.
Abstract
Korea’s cross-border insolvency regime is founded on Chapter 5 of the DRBA, which adopted the UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency with few disparities. Chapter 5 shifted Korea’s cross-border regime from strict territorialism to moderate universalism by abolishing the territoriality rules under the former Bankruptcy Act and Corporate Reorganization Act and establishing new rules based on the principle of universality. Certain provisions of the Model Law have not been adopted for practical reasons unique in Korea. For instance, although not expressly adopted, Articles 3, 7, and 8 are generally by Korean court rulings, local statutes and public international law theories. Article 14 has not been implemented because there are some differences between the civil law system on which Korean law and the DRBA are grounded and the common law system regarding the service of documents. Article 23 of the Model Law has not been adopted because the law on transaction avoidance is complicated and remains unsettled in Korea.
참고문헌 (13)
- Chiyong Rim, "Legal Issue in Hanjin Shipping’s Insolvency", Business Finance Law, 92 (2018)
- Chiyong Rim, "Globe Law and Business", pp.579~596 (2017)
- 이제정, "UNCITRAL 국제도산에 관한 모델법 상의 주된 이익의 중심(COMI) 개념", 법조, 63(2), pp.23~85 (2014), 법조협회[DOI]
- Kangho Je, "Problems Related with Insolvency of Foreign Corporation", Business Finance Law, 42 (2010)
- 석광현, "도산국제사법의 제 문제 : 우리 법의 해석론의 방향", 사법, 1(4), pp.109~165 (2008), 사법발전재단[DOI]
- Kwang Hyun Suk, "International Private Law and International Litigation Vol 4" (2007), Pakyoungsa
- Kwang Hyun Suk, "International Private Law and International Litigation Vol 5" (2012), Pakyoungsa
- 석광현, "영국법이 준거법인 채권 간의 소송상 상계에 관한국제사법의 제문제", 서울대학교 법학, 57(1), pp.201~248 (2016), 법학연구소
- Look Chan Ho, "Smoothing Cross-Border Insolvency by Synchronizing the UNCITRAL Model Law", Butterworths Journal of International Banking and Financial Law (2009)
- Matsusida Junnichi, "Outbound Effect of Local Insolvency Proceedings", Shinzaibanjitsutaikei, 3 (2002), Seilinshoyin
- Min Han, "Financial Transaction and Law" (2018), Pakyoungsa
- Min Han, "Recognition of Insolvency Effects of a Foreign Insolvency Proceeding: Focusing on the Effect of Discharge, Trade Development through Harmonization of Commercial Law", Comparative Law Journal of The Pacific, XIX (2015)
- Min Han, "The Hotchpot Rule in Korean Insolvency Proceedings’", Journal of Korean Law, 7 (2008), Seoul National University