Korean | English

pISSN : 2092-769X / eISSN : 2733-6948

2019 KCI Impact Factor : 0.45
Aims & Scope
Dong-A University's Graduate School of Law set its specialization goal to "cultivate legal practitioners specializing in international commerce law" and established the'International Transaction Law Research Center' as a specialized research center under the Law Research Institute in preparation for the opening in March 2009. The necessity of establishing the International Transaction Law Research Center is as follows. First, Busan is playing a pivotal role in maritime transportation as a center of logistics in Northeast Asia due to its regional characteristics. Second, even in recent changes, such as the expansion of the function of Gamcheon Port as an international fisheries logistics and trade base and the designation and operation of Busan Port as a free trade zone, Busan's status as a maritime logistics center has been reaffirmed. Third, Korea's only maritime court was established in the Busan District Court, and the opening of the Busan New Port in 2004 and the relocation of public institutions such as Korea Ocean Research Institute, Korea Maritime Research Institute, and National Oceanographic Research Institute to Busan are scheduled.   "International Business Transactions Law" is an academic journal published by the International Trade Law Research Center and is closely related to the necessity of establishing the International Trade Law Center mentioned above. "The National Law and Law" is an academic journal for publishing research papers such as research results held at domestic and overseas academic seminars, and its first issue was published in September 2009, and as of March 1, 2020, the publication until No. 28 It is a situation. The publication of the specialized academic journal "International Business Transactions Law", in conjunction with the regional characteristics of Busan, aims to contribute to the region by publishing the research results of experts in the field of international commerce law in an academic journal and at the same time contributing to the specialized research of the law school. Are doing. To meet this purpose, Dong-A University Law Research Institute has been publishing four times a year over the past three years, 2018, 2019, and 2020. In addition, the Institute of Law is receiving more than 50 million won annually for the budget related to international transaction specialization.
Choi Sung-su

(Dong-A school of law)

Citation Index
  • KCI IF(2yr) : 0.45
  • KCI IF(5yr) : 0.0
  • Centrality Index(3yr) : 0.395
  • Immediacy Index : 0.1852

Current Issue : 2021, Vol., No.33

  • UNCITRAL Model Law on Recognition and Enforcement of Insolvency-Related Judgments of 2018

    Suk, Kwang Hyun | 2021, (33) | pp.1~52 | number of Cited : 0
    The “Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act” (“DRBA”) of Korea, which came into force on April 1, 2006, follows the modified universality principle by receiving the “Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency” (“MLCBI”) adopted in 1997 by UNCITRAL. However, as for the effect of recognition, the DRBA was greatly influenced by the so-called Recognition Assistance Act of Japan, which went into effect in April 2001. The MLCBI regulates the recognition of foreign insolvency proceedings, but not the recognition and enforcement of insolvency-related judgments (“IJ”) issued after the decision commencing the insolvency proceedings. As a result, legal uncertainty had arisen over the recognition and enforcement of IJs. Accordingly, UNCITRAL adopted the “Model Law on Recognition and Enforcement of Insolvency-Related Judgments” (“MLIJ”) in July 2018, which purports to facilitate international cooperation by providing a straight-forward and harmonized procedure for the recognition and enforcement of IJs. Therefore, Koreans now ought to consider whether and how to receive the MLIJ. In this article, the contents of the MLIJ are reviewed, and the concrete order of discussion is as follows: First, IJs which are the subject of recognition (Chapter II), second, requirements for recognition of IJs (Chapter III), third, procedures of recognition of IJs (Chapter IV), fourth, effect of recognition of IJs (Chapter Ⅴ), fifth, enforcement of IJs (Chapter VI) and sixth, meaning of Article X of the MLIJ (Chapter VII). According to the MLIJ, if certain requirements are met, the courts of the recognizing State must recognize and enforce IJs of foreign courts where there are no grounds for refusal. Procedurally, according to the MLIJ, a court of a recognizing State can make a decision on recognition after receiving an application for recognition of a foreign IJ (this decision is binding upon other courts of the receiving State), but if the issue of recognition of an IJ is raised as an incidental question, the court dealing with the principal question can recognize the IJ without a separate decision to recognize the IJ. As for the MLIJ, Korea has three options. The first option is to follow the logic of the Supreme Court of Korea of 2010 which held that the rehabilitation plan of a debtor confirmed by the Federal Bankruptcy Court of the United States can be recognized in Korea pursuant to Article 217 of the Civil Procedure Act, and the second option is to follow the recognition of insolvency proceedings under the MLCBI and the assistance based thereon (the practice of the federal bankruptcy courts of the US and the view the author supports). The third option is to receive the MLIJ. According to the first and second options, there is no need to receive the MLIJ. Under the third option, there are the following alternatives: first, a plan to allow the selective application of the second option (by introducing Article X), and second, a plan to exclude the second option and allowing only the third option (by excluding Article X). When Korea receives the MLIJ, it will be necessary to clarify the relationship between the MLIJ (excluding Article X) and Article X.
  • On the Statement of the Parties in Chinese Civil Litigation

    Bao,Bing-Feng | Mao, Jia-Jing | 2021, (33) | pp.53~76 | number of Cited : 0
    The litigants play two roles in civil litigation, that is, litigation subject and evidence method. Correspondingly, the party's statement can be divided into the litigant's statement of the subject of action and the party's statement of evidential significance. Because China has not distinguished the two kinds of Party statements for a long time, the evidential value of the parties' statements has not been fully developed. In China's civil litigation, as an independent form of evidence, the function of the statement of the parties is dormant due to the contradiction of the relevant provisions in the legislation. Therefore, it is necessary to modify and improve the relevant provisions from the legislation to form a complete set of party statement system to fully activate its evidence function, so as to change the current situation of the marginalization of the party's statement in the civil evidence system, and get the application of judicial practice on the track of justification under the guidance of norms.
  • Developments of Case Law in English Common Law Countries on International Construction Demand Guarantees - including Doctrine of Unconscionability -

    SOHN, KYUNG HAN | SungKyu Choi | 2021, (33) | pp.77~115 | number of Cited : 0
    Demand guarantee is widely used in international construction contracts and ship building contracts. However, if the claim guarantee is abused, it will hurt the debtor's liquidity and credit, while depriving the beneficiary of the demand guarantee's rights will also hurt the beneficiary's liquidity. There are many cases in which the law on compliance with construction contracts and demand guarantees is made into English law or the law of English law countries, so it is necessary to review the case and the development of legal principles. We examine the use cases of demand guarantees in international construction and review the development of British and British law-based countries, especially Singapore, on the requirements for demand guarantees, the independent abstractness of demand guarantees and their exceptions, the parties to the prohibition of payment to demand guarantees, and the requirements for the prohibition of payment to demand guarantees. It is necessary to fully understand and cope with the obligations of the right to comply with the law, mainly from the standpoint of a construction company or a shipbuilding company that is a client of a demand guarantee, and that the beneficiary or guarantee bank shall be subject to a payment ban or provisional disposition on the beneficiary or guarantee bank upon claim of the deposit. Unconscionable conduct is well recognized in Singaporean and Australian jurisdictions as a ground for restraining the beneficiary calling under an on-demand guarantee. An on-demand guarantee is provided by an issuer to guarantee that the applicant will meet obligations owed to the beneficiary. Since Singapore Court of Appeal tends to recognized the exclusion clauses of the doctrine of unconscionability from the restriction of the demand guarantee calling, the contractor should allow the doctrine of unconscionability as limited as possible for those who are the beneficiary of the demand guarantee.