2018, Vol., No.22

Journal of International Business Transactions Law 2023 KCI Impact Factor : 0.31

pISSN : 2982-5903 / eISSN : 2982-5946
https://journal.kci.go.kr/IBT

The seller's right to cure is not familiar in our contract law that follows German and French law systems. CISG adopted it by influence of UCC and this right is based on the policy preference for maintaining the contractual relationship. As a result, to understand the seller's right to cure rightly, the research on the right in UCC is necessary. UCC §2-508 (1) provides the seller's right to cure which a seller performs it within the contract time. This right is recognised as a relatively unlimited right. UCC §2-508 (2) provides the seller's right to cure which a seller performs it after the contract time. To perform this right, a seller has to meet three cumulative requirements. UCC official commentary offers some direction to help to judge whether a seller met those conditions. The seller who wants to perform the right, had reasonable grounds to believe his non-conforming tender would be acceptable. Concerning to decide whether that condition is met, in prior course of dealing, course of performance, usage of trade and the particular circumstances surrounding the making of the contract could be the factors to be considered. UCC §2-508 doesn't stipulate the effect by the seriousness of a defect to the right. As a result, the courts have different views regarding that, but these different decisions maybe be derived from the goal to pursue the fairness between both parties. CISG provides the better remedy for non-conforming or detective goods, because every seller not only the seller who had reasonable grounds may perform this right. In addition, except the time delay, a seller has this right although serious defects. This development of the CISG maybe is from that the lawmakers thought the principle which this right is based on is more developed and they thought this is right direction. Although our contract law follows the German and French law system, but we could consider accepting this right and this principle.

With the development of economy, the development of the company is very fast. The rapid development of the company has led to the development of economy, but in the process of production and management, the natural ecological environment and social environment of our country have been destroyed, and the environmental crime has been violated. This crime has seriously affected people's health, affected the social financial order, and brought negative effects to the long-term stability and harmony of the society. Now, how to prevent corporate environmental crime , has an extremely important social value. Starting with the concept and characteristics of corporate environmental crime, this paper introduces the causes of corporate environmental crime in our country; The current situation of corporate crime prevention; Secondly, it puts forward the corporate environmental crime in our country in legislation, judicature, law enforcement, etc. Finally, in view of the problems existing in prevention, the countermeasures to solve the problems are put forward. Keywords:

According to the KCAB statistics, the number of arbitration cases in Korea has been increasing continuously from 175 cases in 2000 to 500 in 2016. Among the cases, about 25% are international cases. With the recent amendment of Arbitration Law in 2016 (“Law”), one of the hot subjects in the arbitration field in Korea is the expansion of arbitrability under the new Law. Generally the arbitrability is the concept which can separate the disputes to be resolved by arbitration from other disputes belonging to the exclusive jurisdiction of courts. Generally it is well recognized in Korea that the disputes regarding the constitutional law, criminal law, administrative law, family law (not related to the property) cannot be resolved by arbitration. When the dispute is found to be out of the arbitrability, the arbitral award, regardless how or where it was made, may not be enforced in Korea because such dispute may not be resolved by arbitration under the Law. The Law may revoke such award or reject the recognition and enforcement thereof. This provision is corresponding to the article 5 (2) a. of New York Convention. Law does not provide expressly for the arbitrability. However, it is said that the legislators reflected the international trend as appears in Model Law in expanding the scope of arbitration to the areas of intellectual property, bankruptcy, corporate matters, and competition (“New Arbitrable Areas”) which traditionally did not belong to the scope of arbitration. However, there are still some arguments that such disputes may be arbitrable only if the disputes are not purely the issues of the New Arbitrable Areas. In line with the trends in other countries, Korea should develop and refine the legal theory based upon the accumulative decisions in the cases with diverse issues related to the New Arbitrable Area. Of course lots of academic researches on and good reference to foreign legislation and practice in the same area should be added to Korean jurisprudence of arbitration in order to cope with globalization of commerce and complexity of the disputes on commercial transactions now and in the future.