CISG 제79조상의 ‘장애’(impediment)의 법리
The Legal Principles of Impediment in CISG Article 79
0
조회
0
다운로드
1
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods(hereafter referred to as 'Agreement' or 'CISG') specifies that the immunity should be admitted within the range of CISG Article 79 and all sorts of reliefs in the Agreement in case the seller and the buyer breach the duty taken over following the contract in the relationship between the system of the Law of Benefit Obstacles and the Immunity Regulations. CISG Article 79 on immunity prescribes the requisite of immunity in Clause 1, the responsibility of independent third person in Clause 2, the duration of immunity in Clause 3, the notice duty of debtor in Clause 4 and the effect of immunity in Clause 5. According to CISG Article 79 Clause 1, it prescribes that the responsibility for non-fulfillment should not be born in case of proving that the non-fulfillment should be caused by the impediment out of control, the impediment should exist at the time of contracting, the impediment and evasion or overcoming of consequence should not be expected reasonably. The precedent has a dominant position on that the cancellation of contract on grounds of change of circumstances should not be admitted in the temporary contractual relationship like sales agreements, but not in the previous continual contractual relationship in Korea. In these circumstance, it is noteworthy that the judgement of the Supreme Court sentence No.2004DA31302 on 29th March 2007 specified for the first time that the cancellation of contract on grounds of change of circumstances can be admitted in the temporary contractual relationship like sales agreements. In addition, the debate on the legal principle of impediment, CISG Article 79 Clause 1, should be more necessary, especially it is required to concretize the principle in the relationship with the requisite of immunity considering that the introduction of rules of change of circumstances is in the process of debating in the Civil Law of Japan in recent years.
Abstract
United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods(hereafter referred to as 'Agreement' or 'CISG') specifies that the immunity should be admitted within the range of CISG Article 79 and all sorts of reliefs in the Agreement in case the seller and the buyer breach the duty taken over following the contract in the relationship between the system of the Law of Benefit Obstacles and the Immunity Regulations. CISG Article 79 on immunity prescribes the requisite of immunity in Clause 1, the responsibility of independent third person in Clause 2, the duration of immunity in Clause 3, the notice duty of debtor in Clause 4 and the effect of immunity in Clause 5. According to CISG Article 79 Clause 1, it prescribes that the responsibility for non-fulfillment should not be born in case of proving that the non-fulfillment should be caused by the impediment out of control, the impediment should exist at the time of contracting, the impediment and evasion or overcoming of consequence should not be expected reasonably. The precedent has a dominant position on that the cancellation of contract on grounds of change of circumstances should not be admitted in the temporary contractual relationship like sales agreements, but not in the previous continual contractual relationship in Korea. In these circumstance, it is noteworthy that the judgement of the Supreme Court sentence No.2004DA31302 on 29th March 2007 specified for the first time that the cancellation of contract on grounds of change of circumstances can be admitted in the temporary contractual relationship like sales agreements. In addition, the debate on the legal principle of impediment, CISG Article 79 Clause 1, should be more necessary, especially it is required to concretize the principle in the relationship with the requisite of immunity considering that the introduction of rules of change of circumstances is in the process of debating in the Civil Law of Japan in recent years.
참고문헌 (13)
- 김봉수, "유엔국제물품매매협약에서의 매도인의 추완권", 법학연구, 43(43), pp.75~98 (2011), 한국법학회
- 법무부, "민법(재산법) 개정 자료집", ~ (2004)
- 박정기, "사정변경의 원칙에 관한 비교법적 고찰", 법학논고, (37), pp.221~250 (2011), 법학연구원
- 석광현, "국제물품매매계약의 법리" (2010), 박영사
- 성승현, "契約解除制度의 發展과 CISG의 解除制度모델에 관한 小考 -有責事由要否에 대한 민법개정작업에의 示唆를 덧붙여-", 법학논총, 31(1), pp.201~248 (2011), 법학연구소
- 오원석, "면책법리에 관한 비교법적 연구-CISG를 중심으로-", 무역학회지, 26(3) (2001)
- 최현숙, "사정변경의 원칙과 CISG에서의 면책조항에 관한 비교연구", 사회과학연구, 23(2), pp.149~171 (2007), 사회과학연구소
- 民法(債權法)改正檢討委員會, "債權法改正の基本方針", 別冊NBL, (126) (2004)
- 曾野和明, "國際賣買法 現代法律學全集 60" (1993), 靑林書院
- Hans Stoll, "Kommentar zum Einheitlichen UN-Kaufrecht, 3. völlig neubearbeitete Auflage" (2000)
- Nicole N. Fischer, "Die Unmöglichkeit der Leistung im internationalen Kauf-und Vertragsrecht" (2001)
- Ulrich Magnus, "Staudingers Kommentar zum Bürlgerlichen Gesetz, 13. Bearb." (1994)
