본 연구는 ‘Incoterms 2020’ 및 CISG의 올바른 이해를 담보하여 국제상사계약에 임하고 있거나 임하려는 당사자로 하여금 계약의 원만한 이행을 견인할 수 있도록, 나아가 앞서 거론한 제반 장애 또는 문제를 미연에 극복하여 필요외적 비용과 시간절감을 통해 저마다의 적극적 이해와 손익보전을 위한 계기를 마련할 수 있음에 목적을 둔 논문이다. 그 결과를 요약하면 다음과 같다. 첫째, Incoterms 2020의 주요 내용은 DAT를 DPU로 변경하였다. CIF와 CIP 간의 부보수준을 차별화하였는데, 곧 CIP의 경우 최대 부보조건으로서 ICC(A) 또는 ICC(A/R)로 특정하였다. 개별조항의 내용에서 개별조항의 순서를 조정하고, 인도와 위험이전 등을 강조하였다. FCA에서 본선적재 표기가 있는 선적식 선화증권을 요구할 수 있도록 하고 이에 자가운송을 허용하였다. 개별조항의 내용에서 비용규정을 상호 대칭적으로 편제하여 개정하였다. 다섯째, FCAㆍDAPㆍDPUㆍDDP 등에서 매도인 또는 매수인의 자가운송을 허용하였다. 그 밖에 운송의무 및 비용조항에 보안관련 요건 삽입하였다. 둘째, Incoterms 2020의 특징은 Incoterms 2010에 비하여 국제물품매매계약에서 올바른 Incoterms 사용을 유도함과 동시에 소개문에서 또한 올바른 incoterms 선택을 강조하고 있다. 나아가 매매계약과 이에 부종하는 그 밖의 부수계약 간의 구분과 연결을 명확히 설명하고 있다. 셋째, Incoterms는 운송계약ㆍ보험계약ㆍ결제계약의 일부를 이루지 않음과 동시에 매도인과 매수인은 부수계약이 매매계약 및 Incoterms에 일치하도록 노력할 것을 강조하고, 나아가 개별조건에 있어 명칭을 ‘guidance note’에서 ‘explanatory note for users’로 이를 구체화하였다. 넷째, 국제물품매매계약에 있어 CISG와 Incoterms는 계약당사자 간의 권리와 의무를 다루고 있다는 점에서 공통적이지만, 계약의 성립, 품질ㆍ가격ㆍ선적ㆍ보험조건 등 당사자의 권리ㆍ의무의 내용, 상대방의 계약위반이 있는 경우 당사자의 구제수단 등은 양자를 모두 고려한 후에야 계약내용을 확정할 수 있는 상호 보완적인 관계에 있다. 다섯째, 계약내용을 확정함에 있어 Incoterms는 CISG에 우선한다. 곧 Incoterms는 법적 구속력을 보유한 법률은 아니지만 상관습이나 계약당사자간 Incoterms를 적용한다는 양당사자의 합의가 전제되어 이는 경우 이는 당해 계약내용에 편입되어 CISG보다도 우선 적용된다. 나아가 CISG은 계약내용을 확정함에 있어 거래 관습 및 관행의 효력을 인정하고 있기도 하다. 여섯째, 인도조건과 관련하여 Incoterms는 매도인과 매수인의 의무를 10개 항목으로 분류하고 있는데, 그 핵심은 물품의 인도를 기준으로 위험의 이전과 비용의 분담을 상세히 규정하고 있다는 것이다. 여기서 CISG 또한 물품의 인도방법으로서, 곧 물품인도장소’, 물품인도시기 및 위험의 이전에 관한 규정을 두고 있으나, 그 내용이 Incoterms보다 상세하지 못하다는 특징이 있다. 이는 전적으로 CISG가 Incoterms를 제9조에 따라 수용하고 있음을 함의한다. 일곱째, 가격조건과 관련하여 Incoterms상의 정형거래조건은 가격조건임과 동시에 인도조건으로서의 기능을 수행하고 있다. 곧 Incoterms는 가격조건으로서 매도인과 매수인이 각각 어떠한 비용을 분담해야 하는지를 규정하고 있는 까닭에, CISG에 비하여 매우 상세히 이를 규정하고 있다. 마지막으로 Incoterms에는 매도인이 계약에 일치한 물품을 인도해야할 의무와 매수인이 대금을 지급할 의무를 규정하고 있으나, 이는 일반적으로 규정하고 있을 뿐 어떠한 물품이 계약에 일치하는지, 즉 물품의 계약일치성을 판단하기 위한 기준을 마련하지 않고 있고, 또한 매수인은 언제 어디서 대금을 지급해야 하는지를 구체적으로 정하고 있지 않고 있다. 반면에 CISG에서는 물품의 계약적합성, 대금지급장소, 대금지급시기 등에서 이를 상세하게 규정하고 있다. 또한 Incoterms는 위험이전 시점을 물품인도와 연계하여 규정하고 있으나, 그 효과는 규정하지 않고 있다. 반면에 CISG는 그 효과를 규정하고 있다. 따라서 위험이전 시점과 효과는 양자를 병합 후 명확히 하여야 한다.
본 연구는 ‘Incoterms 2020’ 및 CISG의 올바른 이해를 담보하여 국제상사계약에 임하고 있거나 임하려는 당사자로 하여금 계약의 원만한 이행을 견인할 수 있도록, 나아가 앞서 거론한 제반 장애 또는 문제를 미연에 극복하여 필요외적 비용과 시간절감을 통해 저마다의 적극적 이해와 손익보전을 위한 계기를 마련할 수 있음에 목적을 둔 논문이다. 그 결과를 요약하면 다음과 같다. 첫째, Incoterms 2020의 주요 내용은 DAT를 DPU로 변경하였다. CIF와 CIP 간의 부보수준을 차별화하였는데, 곧 CIP의 경우 최대 부보조건으로서 ICC(A) 또는 ICC(A/R)로 특정하였다. 개별조항의 내용에서 개별조항의 순서를 조정하고, 인도와 위험이전 등을 강조하였다. FCA에서 본선적재 표기가 있는 선적식 선화증권을 요구할 수 있도록 하고 이에 자가운송을 허용하였다. 개별조항의 내용에서 비용규정을 상호 대칭적으로 편제하여 개정하였다. 다섯째, FCAㆍDAPㆍDPUㆍDDP 등에서 매도인 또는 매수인의 자가운송을 허용하였다. 그 밖에 운송의무 및 비용조항에 보안관련 요건 삽입하였다. 둘째, Incoterms 2020의 특징은 Incoterms 2010에 비하여 국제물품매매계약에서 올바른 Incoterms 사용을 유도함과 동시에 소개문에서 또한 올바른 incoterms 선택을 강조하고 있다. 나아가 매매계약과 이에 부종하는 그 밖의 부수계약 간의 구분과 연결을 명확히 설명하고 있다. 셋째, Incoterms는 운송계약ㆍ보험계약ㆍ결제계약의 일부를 이루지 않음과 동시에 매도인과 매수인은 부수계약이 매매계약 및 Incoterms에 일치하도록 노력할 것을 강조하고, 나아가 개별조건에 있어 명칭을 ‘guidance note’에서 ‘explanatory note for users’로 이를 구체화하였다. 넷째, 국제물품매매계약에 있어 CISG와 Incoterms는 계약당사자 간의 권리와 의무를 다루고 있다는 점에서 공통적이지만, 계약의 성립, 품질ㆍ가격ㆍ선적ㆍ보험조건 등 당사자의 권리ㆍ의무의 내용, 상대방의 계약위반이 있는 경우 당사자의 구제수단 등은 양자를 모두 고려한 후에야 계약내용을 확정할 수 있는 상호 보완적인 관계에 있다. 다섯째, 계약내용을 확정함에 있어 Incoterms는 CISG에 우선한다. 곧 Incoterms는 법적 구속력을 보유한 법률은 아니지만 상관습이나 계약당사자간 Incoterms를 적용한다는 양당사자의 합의가 전제되어 이는 경우 이는 당해 계약내용에 편입되어 CISG보다도 우선 적용된다. 나아가 CISG은 계약내용을 확정함에 있어 거래 관습 및 관행의 효력을 인정하고 있기도 하다. 여섯째, 인도조건과 관련하여 Incoterms는 매도인과 매수인의 의무를 10개 항목으로 분류하고 있는데, 그 핵심은 물품의 인도를 기준으로 위험의 이전과 비용의 분담을 상세히 규정하고 있다는 것이다. 여기서 CISG 또한 물품의 인도방법으로서, 곧 물품인도장소’, 물품인도시기 및 위험의 이전에 관한 규정을 두고 있으나, 그 내용이 Incoterms보다 상세하지 못하다는 특징이 있다. 이는 전적으로 CISG가 Incoterms를 제9조에 따라 수용하고 있음을 함의한다. 일곱째, 가격조건과 관련하여 Incoterms상의 정형거래조건은 가격조건임과 동시에 인도조건으로서의 기능을 수행하고 있다. 곧 Incoterms는 가격조건으로서 매도인과 매수인이 각각 어떠한 비용을 분담해야 하는지를 규정하고 있는 까닭에, CISG에 비하여 매우 상세히 이를 규정하고 있다. 마지막으로 Incoterms에는 매도인이 계약에 일치한 물품을 인도해야할 의무와 매수인이 대금을 지급할 의무를 규정하고 있으나, 이는 일반적으로 규정하고 있을 뿐 어떠한 물품이 계약에 일치하는지, 즉 물품의 계약일치성을 판단하기 위한 기준을 마련하지 않고 있고, 또한 매수인은 언제 어디서 대금을 지급해야 하는지를 구체적으로 정하고 있지 않고 있다. 반면에 CISG에서는 물품의 계약적합성, 대금지급장소, 대금지급시기 등에서 이를 상세하게 규정하고 있다. 또한 Incoterms는 위험이전 시점을 물품인도와 연계하여 규정하고 있으나, 그 효과는 규정하지 않고 있다. 반면에 CISG는 그 효과를 규정하고 있다. 따라서 위험이전 시점과 효과는 양자를 병합 후 명확히 하여야 한다.
International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) has released the new Incoterms 2020 rules that identify the responsibilities of buyers and sellers for the delivery of goods in international trade. The terms also identify when the risk for those goods transfer from the seller to the buyer. The last set of In...
International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) has released the new Incoterms 2020 rules that identify the responsibilities of buyers and sellers for the delivery of goods in international trade. The terms also identify when the risk for those goods transfer from the seller to the buyer. The last set of Incoterms went into effect in 2010. Although the ICC has released new Incoterms every 10 years for the last few set of trade terms, that is a relatively recent occurrence, and the ICC could choose to update the terms any time they think current international trade practices warrant it. It's important to remember that Incoterms are voluntary, and they don't replace a sales contract. Instead, international sales contracts often specifically reference a set of Incoterms as a shorthand for who is responsible for what in the delivery of the goods. If the buyer and seller choose to reference an earlier set of terms, like Incoterms 2000, or they choose to ignore Incoterms completely and spell out who is responsible for what directly in their sales contract, that is within their rights. After months of speculation about what would be included in the Incoterms 2020 rules that often included the possibility of completely eliminating certain terms and combining some others, the changes are actually pretty modest. At least they appear to be modest at first glance. The actual impact of the changes won't be known until they begin to be incorporated in actual import-export transactions. This article only discusses the changes found in Incoterms 2020 rules. I will be publishing a more complete description of each of the individual Incoterms at a later time. The most obvious change to the old Incoterms is renaming the term Delivered at Terminal(DAT) to Delivered at Place Unloaded (DPU). The ICC renamed this term because it became apparent that sometimes the buyer and/or seller want the delivery of goods to occur somewhere other than a terminal. This term is often used for consolidated containers with multiple consignees, and it is the only term that tasks the seller with unloading the goods. Perhaps the most significant change relates to the term Free Carrier (FCA). Under this term, the seller is responsible for either making the goods available at its own premises or at a named place. In either case, the seller is responsible for loading the goods on the buyer's transport. Problems occurred with this term when the seller was responsible for loading the goods on a truck or some other transport hired by the buyer and not directly on the international carrier. If the seller and buyer had agreed on using a letter of credit as the payment method for this transaction, banks often require the seller to present a bill of lading with an on-board notation before they can get paid. An international carrier won't typically provide a seller who did not present the goods directly to them with such a bill of lading. Under the new Incoterms 2020 rules, FCA allows the parties to agree in the sales contract that the buyer should instruct its carrier to issue a bill of lading with the on-board notation to the seller. Cost Insurance and Freight (CIF) and Carriage and Insurance Paid To (CIP) are the only two Incoterms that identify which party must purchase insurance for at least part of the export journey. In both cases that responsibility falls on the seller. Incoterms 2010 specified that under both these terms the seller was responsible for obtaining the minimum level of coverage identified by Clause C of the Institute Cargo Clauses. In Incoterms 2020 rules, the seller is now responsible for purchasing a higher level of insurance coverage under the revised term CIP. The insurance requirement hasn't changed for CIF. In previous versions of the Incoterms, the ICC assumed that sellers would be contracting with a third party for the delivery of the goods to the appropriate place, and the language used in Incoterms 2010 reflected that. Incoterms 2020 rules, on the other hand, recognize those do-it-yourself sellers who may use their own transport to deliver the goods. The terms now expressly state that sellers can make a contract for carriage or simply arrange for the necessary transportation. Import and export security requirements have increased significantly and become more formalized during the past decade, and Incoterms 2020 rules specifically call out those requirements in its discussion of buyer and seller responsibilities under each of the trade terms. Regarding to the passing of risk summary in the CISG as follows; The CISG Articles 66 to 70 are related. When the seller performs in accordance with the contract of sale, the risk passes. The discussion of Articles 66 to 70 of the Convention requires examination of several other articles of the CISG, because the notion of risk is central to the relationship between the two parties. As it were, we must look at the risk the seller runs when preparing to make a conforming delivery in particular, the mechanism whereby the risk may be rerouted back to the seller under Article 70 and then may pass again to the buyer thanks to a new delivery in which the non-conformity was remedied. A number of judicial decisions have indicated aspects of the loss or damage intended by Article 66 CISG as falling under the risk that passes. Courts have added elements that cannot be understood as harm to the goods, such as delay in delivery after the handing over to the carrier, which will briefly be The effect of the sales agreement on the property in the goods sold is not covered by the CISG Article 4. In case a national law would, in its sales law, make the link to the property title, this would be superseded by the CISG, where ownership is not the key to where the risk is allocated. The parties may deviate by agreement from the default risk allocation. An Incoterms may have been used or the applicable standard contract terms may bring about another partitioning. The parties' intention is to be sought; which leads us to issues of interpretation. Beyond that, party practices and sectorial trade usages intervene to determine whether risk has passed, or when this occurs. In this conference, the paper and the presentation of Jan Ramberg focused on those variations that come with the use of Incoterms. The burden of proof with regard to risk transfer is often connected to the problem of proving the performance of seller's obligation and the timing of this performance. But once the goods were delivered, it would be the buyer's task to prove that they were defective at that point in time. Risk may, in the eventuality of the termination of the purchase agreement in a stage after the first passing of risk, revert back from the buyer to the seller.
International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) has released the new Incoterms 2020 rules that identify the responsibilities of buyers and sellers for the delivery of goods in international trade. The terms also identify when the risk for those goods transfer from the seller to the buyer. The last set of Incoterms went into effect in 2010. Although the ICC has released new Incoterms every 10 years for the last few set of trade terms, that is a relatively recent occurrence, and the ICC could choose to update the terms any time they think current international trade practices warrant it. It's important to remember that Incoterms are voluntary, and they don't replace a sales contract. Instead, international sales contracts often specifically reference a set of Incoterms as a shorthand for who is responsible for what in the delivery of the goods. If the buyer and seller choose to reference an earlier set of terms, like Incoterms 2000, or they choose to ignore Incoterms completely and spell out who is responsible for what directly in their sales contract, that is within their rights. After months of speculation about what would be included in the Incoterms 2020 rules that often included the possibility of completely eliminating certain terms and combining some others, the changes are actually pretty modest. At least they appear to be modest at first glance. The actual impact of the changes won't be known until they begin to be incorporated in actual import-export transactions. This article only discusses the changes found in Incoterms 2020 rules. I will be publishing a more complete description of each of the individual Incoterms at a later time. The most obvious change to the old Incoterms is renaming the term Delivered at Terminal(DAT) to Delivered at Place Unloaded (DPU). The ICC renamed this term because it became apparent that sometimes the buyer and/or seller want the delivery of goods to occur somewhere other than a terminal. This term is often used for consolidated containers with multiple consignees, and it is the only term that tasks the seller with unloading the goods. Perhaps the most significant change relates to the term Free Carrier (FCA). Under this term, the seller is responsible for either making the goods available at its own premises or at a named place. In either case, the seller is responsible for loading the goods on the buyer's transport. Problems occurred with this term when the seller was responsible for loading the goods on a truck or some other transport hired by the buyer and not directly on the international carrier. If the seller and buyer had agreed on using a letter of credit as the payment method for this transaction, banks often require the seller to present a bill of lading with an on-board notation before they can get paid. An international carrier won't typically provide a seller who did not present the goods directly to them with such a bill of lading. Under the new Incoterms 2020 rules, FCA allows the parties to agree in the sales contract that the buyer should instruct its carrier to issue a bill of lading with the on-board notation to the seller. Cost Insurance and Freight (CIF) and Carriage and Insurance Paid To (CIP) are the only two Incoterms that identify which party must purchase insurance for at least part of the export journey. In both cases that responsibility falls on the seller. Incoterms 2010 specified that under both these terms the seller was responsible for obtaining the minimum level of coverage identified by Clause C of the Institute Cargo Clauses. In Incoterms 2020 rules, the seller is now responsible for purchasing a higher level of insurance coverage under the revised term CIP. The insurance requirement hasn't changed for CIF. In previous versions of the Incoterms, the ICC assumed that sellers would be contracting with a third party for the delivery of the goods to the appropriate place, and the language used in Incoterms 2010 reflected that. Incoterms 2020 rules, on the other hand, recognize those do-it-yourself sellers who may use their own transport to deliver the goods. The terms now expressly state that sellers can make a contract for carriage or simply arrange for the necessary transportation. Import and export security requirements have increased significantly and become more formalized during the past decade, and Incoterms 2020 rules specifically call out those requirements in its discussion of buyer and seller responsibilities under each of the trade terms. Regarding to the passing of risk summary in the CISG as follows; The CISG Articles 66 to 70 are related. When the seller performs in accordance with the contract of sale, the risk passes. The discussion of Articles 66 to 70 of the Convention requires examination of several other articles of the CISG, because the notion of risk is central to the relationship between the two parties. As it were, we must look at the risk the seller runs when preparing to make a conforming delivery in particular, the mechanism whereby the risk may be rerouted back to the seller under Article 70 and then may pass again to the buyer thanks to a new delivery in which the non-conformity was remedied. A number of judicial decisions have indicated aspects of the loss or damage intended by Article 66 CISG as falling under the risk that passes. Courts have added elements that cannot be understood as harm to the goods, such as delay in delivery after the handing over to the carrier, which will briefly be The effect of the sales agreement on the property in the goods sold is not covered by the CISG Article 4. In case a national law would, in its sales law, make the link to the property title, this would be superseded by the CISG, where ownership is not the key to where the risk is allocated. The parties may deviate by agreement from the default risk allocation. An Incoterms may have been used or the applicable standard contract terms may bring about another partitioning. The parties' intention is to be sought; which leads us to issues of interpretation. Beyond that, party practices and sectorial trade usages intervene to determine whether risk has passed, or when this occurs. In this conference, the paper and the presentation of Jan Ramberg focused on those variations that come with the use of Incoterms. The burden of proof with regard to risk transfer is often connected to the problem of proving the performance of seller's obligation and the timing of this performance. But once the goods were delivered, it would be the buyer's task to prove that they were defective at that point in time. Risk may, in the eventuality of the termination of the purchase agreement in a stage after the first passing of risk, revert back from the buyer to the seller.
AI-Helper
※ AI-Helper는 부적절한 답변을 할 수 있습니다.