국제물품매매계약에 관한 UN협약(CISG)에서의 증명책임 - 독일과 미국의 증명책임론도 아울러 검토하면서 -
The burden of proof in the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (CISG) - Examining with the Theory of Burden of Proof in Germany and the United States -
0
조회
0
다운로드
3
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
본고는 국제물품매매계약에 관한 UN협약에서의 증명책임의 규율 문제에 대해 검토한 글이다. 먼저 제2장에서 독일 및 미국에서의 증명책임론을 살펴보았다. 협약이 증명책임을 규율대상으로 하지 않는 다면, 이는 경우에 따라서는 국제사법 준칙에 의거한 준거법 또는 법정지법이 적용될 수 있으므로, 비 교법적 시각하에서 대륙법계와 common law 법계에서의 증명책임 및 그 분배에 대해 살펴보는 것도 그 의의가 있을 것이다. 독일법계 국가를 중심으로 증명책임은 비엔나 매매협약의 규율대상이라는 이 해가 주류적인 견해이지만, 반면에 증명책임에 관한 준칙이 각 (소송 등의) 司法節次(litigation procedure)에 포함된 성격을 가지고 있음을 강조하면서 증명책임이라는 문제는 동 협약의 규율대상 외이며, 회원국의 국내법의 적용에 의해 해결되어야 할 것이라고 하는 주장도 보인다. 양 국가 모두 “각 당사자는 자신에게 유리한 법규의 요건사실을 주장⋅입증해야 한다. 독일법하에 서는 이것만을 엄격히 적용하는 것이 아니고, 예외적으로 소송추행상의 당사자의 공평(증거와의 거리), 분쟁의 신속한 해결, 정책 등의 실질적 근거를 고려해야 한다고 설명한다. 미국법하에서도 증명책임 의 분배는 형평성, 용이성, 그리고 일반원칙과 달리 취급하여야 할 특별한 정책을 고려하고 있다. 이어서 증명책임이 비엔나 매매협약의 규율의 대상인가라는 문제를 둘러싼 일반적인 논의 상황을 개관하였다. 먼저 증명책임도 실체법과 밀접한 관련 등으로 협약의 규율대상임을 논거를 바탕으로 정 리하였다. 그리고 협약 내에서의 증명책임의 분배 원칙을 원칙적 측면에서의 분배원칙과 그 예외적으 로 수정할 수 있는 경우를 증거법상의 고량사유(증거와의 거리 등)에 의거해 설명하였다. 본고 Ⅲ에서의 논의에 입각하여 Ⅳ.에서는 협약 제35조 물품의 계약 부적합성의 증명책임을 둘러 싼 논의 상황을 정리하였다. 위의 증명책임 분배의 기본원칙(원칙⋅예외 준칙)에 입각하되, 증거와의 거리 등의 고려하에 물품의 수령(acceptanc of the goods)을 중심으로 나누어 증명책임을 분배하여야 한다고 정리하였다.
Abstract
This article reviews the issue of the discipline of burden of proof in the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (CISG). First, in Chapter 2, the theory of the burden of proof in Germany and the United States was examined. If the Convention does not govern the burden of proof, the governing law or the law of the forum based on the rules of private international law may apply. Therefore, it will be meaningful to examine the burden of proof and its distribution in the civil and common law systems from a comparative perspective. The prevailing view is that the burden of proof is subject to the regulation of the Vienna Sales Convention, centering on the German legal system. On the other hand, while emphasizing that the rules on the burden of proof are included in each litigation procedure, the issue of the burden of proof is outside the scope of the Convention, and it should be resolved by the application of national laws of member countries. There is also the argument that it should be resolved by the application of the national law of the Member States. In both countries, each party must assert and prove the facts of the requirements of the law which works in its favor. It is explained that under German law, this is not strictly applied, but in exceptional cases, substantive grounds such as fairness (proof proximity), prompt resolution of disputes, and policies must be considered. Even under US law, the distribution of the burden of proof takes into account fairness, convenience, and special policies treated differently from general principles. Subsequently, in part Ⅲ of this paper the general discussion surrounding the issue of whether the burden of proof is subject to the rules of the Vienna Convention for Sale is explained. First, the burden of proof has been summarized on the basis of the argument that the burden of proof is closely related to the substantive law and is subject to the regulation of the Convention. In addition, the principle of distribution of burden of proof within the Convention is explained in terms of the principle of distribution and exceptional cases where it can be modified based on the reason for consideration (proof proximity, etc.) in the Evidence Act. Based on the discussion in the part Ⅲ of the paper, part Ⅳ summarizes the situation of discussion regarding the burden of proof of nonconformity of goods in Article 35 of the Convention. According to the above basic principles of the distribution of burden of proof (the rule and exception principle), it is arranged that the burden of proof should be distributed based on the acceptance of the goods, taking into account the distance from evidence (proof proximity) etc.
참고문헌 (40)
- 김지수, "국제물품매매법에 관한 연구 – UNCITRAL의 통일 입법을 중심으로", 상사중재 연구총서Ⅺ (1978)
- 권혁재, "미국 민사증거법상 증명책임과 증거제한에 관한 일고찰", 法學論攷, 19 (2003)
- 석광현, "매매협약(CISG)이 적용되는 국제물품매매계약상 손해배상의 몇 가지 논점: 통화와 증명도로 본 통일 실질법의 사정범위(射程範圍)와 흠결의 보충", 국제거래법연구, 27(1), pp.1~42 (2018), 국제거래법학회
- 석광현, "국제물품매매협약(CISG)을 적용한 우리 판결의 소개와 검토", 국제거래법연구, 20(1), pp.87~135 (2011), 국제거래법학회
- Rosenberg, "입증책임론" (1995)
- 최은희, "미국증거법상 증명책임과 추정", 인권과 정의, (409), pp.39~62 (2010), 대한변호사협회[DOI]
- Clemens Antweiler, "Beweislastverteilung im UN-Kaufrechtt" (1995)
- Gottfried Baumgärtel, "Handbuch der Beweislast: Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch Schuldrecht Besonderer Teil" (2009), Aufl
- Cesare Massimo Bianca, "Commentary on the International Sales Law" (1987), The 1980 Vienna Sales Convention
- Wolfgang Hau, "BeckOK BGB" (2021), Edition
- John J. Cound, "Civil Procedure: Cases and Materials" (1997)
- Franco Ferrari, "Burden of Proof under the CISG", Pace Review of the Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goodes (CISG)
- Franco Ferrari, "Internationales Vertragsrecht: RomI-VO⋅CISG⋅CMR⋅FactÜ" (2012), Aufl
- Harry M. Flechtner, "Moving Through Tradition Towards Universalism under the U.N. Sales Convention (CISG): Notice of Lack of Conformity (Article 39) and Burden of Proof in the Bundesgerichtshof Opinion of 30 June 2004", Universalism, Tradition and the Individual (2006)
- Flechtner, "Selected Issues Relating to the CISG’s Scope of Application", The Vindobona Journal of International Commercial Law and Arbitration, 13 (2009)
- Michael Henninger, "Die Frage der Beweislast im Rahmen des UN-Kaufrechts" (1995), zugleich eine erechtsvergleichende Grundlagenstudie zur Beweislast
- John O. Honnold, "Documentary history of the uniform law for international sales : the studies, deliberations, and decisions that led to the 1980 United Nations Convention with introductions and explanations", ~ (1989)
- John O. Honnold, "Documentary History of the Uniform Law for International Sales", ~ (1989)
- John O. Honnold, "Uniform law for International Sales under the 1980 UN Convention" (1999)
- John O. Honnold, "Uniform Law for International Sales under the 1980 United Nations Convention" (2009)
- Thomas Koller, "Das Beweismass im UN-Kaufrecht (CISG), in: Festschrift für Ingeborg Schwenzer zum 60" (2011), Geburtstag
- Stefan Kröll, "he Burden of Proof for the Non-Conformity of Goods under Art", Belgrade Law Review, 59(3) (2011)
- Stefan Kröll, "UN Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (CISG)" (2018), Aufl
- Thomas R. Lee, "Pleading and Proof: The Economics of Legal Burdens", BYU Law Review (1997)
- Ulrich Magnus, "Die allgemeinen Grundsätze im UN-Kaufrecht" (1995), RabelsZ 59
- Shinichiro Michida, "Cancellation of Contract" (1979), Am. J. Comp. L
- Dieter Leipold, "Beweislastregeln und gesetzliche Vermutungen insbesondere bei Verweisuntgen zwischen verschiedenen Rechtsgebieten" (1966), Berlin
- Hans-Joachim Musielak, "Die Grundlagen der Beweislast im Zivilprozeß" (1975), Berlin New York
- Hans-Joachim Musielak, "Grundfragen des Beweisrechts, Beweisaufnahme -Beweiswürdigung-Beweislast", München (1984)
- Jürgen Prölss, "Beweiserleichterungen im Schadensersatzprozeß" (1966)
- Gerhard Reinecke, "Die Beweislastverteilung im Bürgerlichen Recht und im Arbeitsrecht als rechtspolitische Regelungsaufgabe" (1976), Berlin
- Leo Rosenberg, "Die Beweislast auf der Grundlage des Bürgerlichen Gesetzbuchs und der Zivilprozessordnung" (1965), Auflage
- UNCITRAL, "UNCITRAL Digest of Case Law on the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods", ~ (2016)
- Peter Schlechtriem, "Kommentar zum Einheitlichen UN-Kaufrecht" (2013), Aufl
- Peter Schlechtriem, "Kommentar zum UN-Kaufrecht (CISG)" (2019), Aufl
- Peter Schlechtriem, "Schroeter, Internationales UN-Kaufrecht" (2016), Aufl
- Karsten Schmidt, "Münchener Kommentar zum Handelsgesetzbuch" (2013), Aufl
- J. von Staudingers, "Kommentar zum Bürgerlichen Gesetzbuch mit Einführungsgesetz und Nebengesetzen", Wiener UN-Kaufrecht (CISG) (2018)
- Harm Peter Westermann(Hrsg.), "Münchener Kommentar zum Bürgerlichen Gesetzbuch: Band4: Schuldrecht Allgemeiner Besonderer Teil I" (2019), Aufl
- John William Strong, "McCormick on Evidence" (2006)