3차시 제2장 국제매매협약 매도인의 의무

1
52
I. 일반 규정 (Articles 25–29)
II. 매도인의 의무 (Articles 30–52)
III. 매수인의 의무 (Articles 53–65)
IV. 위험 이전 (Articles 66–70)

2
52
관련 조항
25. Definition of "Fundamental Breach”****
26. Notice of Avoidance
27. Delay or Error in Communications
28. Requiring Performance and the Rules of the Forum
29. Modification of Contract; Requirement of a Writing

• 일반적 이행기준 부여
• CISG imposes general standards of performance on both the buyer and
seller.
• 이행이익 보호
• In general, both parties are entitled to get from their contract what they
expect.
• 계약불이행 하면 계약 위반
• A party that fails to perform accordingly is in breach of contract.
• 위반시 피해자는 구제(해제, 특정이행) 청구 가능
• When one party breaches, the other party may
• avoid the contract or
• make a demand for specific performance.
3
August’
s view
출처 : August외, International Business Law: Text, Cases, and Readings (6판)

1. CISG의 계약위반 구체 원칙
 일방이 계약 위반하면 상대방은
o 손해배상 요구 (금전배상 원칙)
o 계약해제
o 자기의 의무이행 (인도나 인수)을 거절
o 이미 인도받았다면 대체품 요구
 구제수단의 수준이 다름
o 손해배상이 아닌 극단적 구제수단인 계약해제, 이행 거절, 대체품
요구 등은 오직 상대방의 위반이 25조의 본질적
계약위반(Fundamental breach)에 이르는 경우에 한해 인정
4
52

Article 49 Buyer's Right to Avoid the Contract
(1) The buyer may declare the contract avoided: if the failure by the seller to
perform any of his obligations under the contract or this Convention amounts to a
fundamental breach of contract;
Article 46 Buyer's right to Compel Performance
(2) If the goods do not conform with the contract, the buyer may require delivery of
substitute goods only if the lack of conformity constitutes a fundamental breach
of contract..…
Article 72 Avoidance prior to the date for Performance
(1) If prior to the date for performance of the contract it is clear that one of the
parties will commit a fundamental breach of contract, the other party may declare
the contract avoided.
5
1. 손해배상 보다 극단적인 구제 - 본질적 계약위반
 일반상황 :
o 피해자는 매우 심한 위반인 본질적 위반이라 주장하고, 가해자는 경미한
위반이라고 주장하는 대치상황 발생
 본질적 계약위반에 해당하는 경우 아래 구제가 가능
o 일반적 손해배상에 추가하여 (in addition to)
 물품의 인도, 인수 거부**
 계약해제권 (49조, 64조)****
 대체품 요구권(46조)
53

6
1. 본질적 위반 (Fundamental breach) 구성요소
 기대이익 (expectation)의 침해
 본질적 박탈 (Substantial depravity)
 손해, 결과의 예측가능성 (foreseeability)
Q. 왜 계약위반을 오직 본질적 위반인 경우로만 제한하여 계약
해제권을 좁게 인정할까?
53
A breach of contract committed by one of the parties is fundamental
oifit results in such detriment to the other party
o as substantially to deprive him of what he is entitled to expect under the contract,
 적극적 요건
 기대이익의
 상당한 수준의 박탈초래
 피해 당사자 기준
ounlessthe party in breach did not foresee and a reasonable person of the same kind in the same circumstances would
not have foreseen such a result.
 위반자 기준
 위반의 결과를 예측할 수 없었던 경우

1. 어떤 것이 본질적인 위반인가는 구체적 상황에 따라 판단할 문제
2. 그러나 다음과 같이 설명이 일반적
 손해의 정도 문제가 아님
 계약에서 기대되었던 (entitled to expect under the contract)
o 구체적 (개별) 계약의 내용에 따라 기대되는 것이 달라질 수 있으므로
 실무팁. 계약서에 구체적이고 명시적인 기재를 할 수록 더 보호받을 수 있음
 예컨데, time of essence 조항
 피해 당사자에게 이익 침해 (to the other party)
o 손실의 중대성은 피해 당사자 기준으로 판단
3. 본질적 박탈인 경우
 물품 미인도 (non-delivery)
o 매도인의 물품 미인도나 이행 불능
 일정한 인도지연
o 계절성 상품의 인도 지연
 매수인의 대금지급 지체
 매수인의 물품수령 거절 혹은 불능
4. 본질적 박탈 아닌 경우
 경미한 계약 위반 (인도일자의 지연 등)
 물품의 하자가 있으나 통상목적엔 사용 가능
7
53

GERMANY: Bundesgerichtshof 3 April 1996 Case law on UNCITRAL texts (CLOUT) abstract no. 171
Facts:
• The Dutch plaintiff was the assignee of a Dutch company, which had sold four different quantities of
cobalt sulphate to the [buyer], a German company.
• It was agreed that the goods should be of British origin and that the plaintiff should supply
certificates of origin and of quality.
• After the receipt of the documents, the [buyer] declared the contracts to be avoided since the cobalt
sulphate was made in South Africa and the certificate of origin was wrong. The [buyer] also claimed
that the quality of the goods was inferior to what was agreed upon. The plaintiff demanded payment.
Analysis
• The German Supreme Court held that there were no grounds for avoidance of the contract and thus
found for the plaintiff.
• According to the Court, the declaration of avoidance could not be based on article 49(1)(b) CISG
since the plaintiff had effected delivery. The delivery of goods which do not conform with the
contract either because they are of lesser quality or of different origin does not constitute non-
delivery.
• 설사 계약과 다른 물품 인도했다면 미인도는 아니고 부적합 인도이며,
• 일응 계약해제보다는 하자 치유, 부가기간 지정 등 더 경미한 구제수단을 강구할 수 있음
• The Court also found that there was no fundamental breach of contract since the [buyer] failed to
show that the sale of the South African cobalt sulphate in Germany or abroad was not possible
(article 49(1)(a) CISG). Thus, the [buyer] failed to show that it was substantially deprived of what it
was entitled to expect under the contract (article 25 CISG).
• Lastly, the Court held that the delivery of wrong certificates of origin and of quality did not amount
to a fundamental breach of contract since the [buyer] could obtain correct documents from other
sources. Accordingly, the [buyer] could not refuse payment under article 58.
8
출처: http://www.cisg.law.pace.edu

1. 기대이익을 실질적으로 박탈할 정도의 손실이
상대방에게 발생할 것에 대한 예측 가능성 존재
2. 예측가능성 판단 기준
 위반당사자를 기준으로 하는 주관적 기준 and
 위반당사자와 동일 부류의 합리적 사람을 기준으로 하는 객관적
기준에 부합해야
3. 예측가능성 증명 책임
 위반 당사자의 면책 근거이므로
 위반 당사자가 예측가능성 없었음을 증명해야 [이기수]
9
54

Article 26
“A declaration of avoidance of the contract is effective only if made by notice to
the other party.”
10
1. 상대방에게 통지되어야 함
 별도의 통지 없이 계약위반이 있는 경우 당연히 계약이 해제되도록 하는 것은
불확실성 증가시키므로
 통지하여야만 취소가능하도록 한 취지 :
o “Preserving the K” (all-time favorite!)
 CISG의 가장 기본적인 정신
 국제거래는 일단 성립시켜 이행이 개시되면 계약 해제시 손해의 정도가
국내거래에 비하여 큼
 “Please talk to each other when problem arises.”
2. 계약해제 통지는 발신주의
o 세부 규정 및 이유 다음 페이지 참조
54

Article 27 (Delay or Error in Communications)
“Unless otherwise expressly provided in this Part of the Convention, if any
notice, request or other communication is given or made by a party in
accordance with this Part and by means appropriate in the circumstances, a delay
or error in the transmission of the communication or its failure to arrive does not
deprive that party of the right to rely on the communication.
11
 해석이 어려워요.
o 통지에 의지할 권리가 있다 → 통지한 대로 효과 있음 의미
o So, 계약해제 통지하면 발신한 때 효력 발생 (27조)
 Cf. 계약 성립(formation of the K)에선 도달주의 원칙
 발신주의 이유
o 대부분 계약해제는 본질적 피해를 받은 피해 상대방(aggrieved party)이 하게 되므로
피해자를 보호하고자 하는 취지에서 발신한 것만으로도 효력 발생하도록 함
 이기수 55면
 발신주의의 유사한 경우
o 물품하자통지(39조) – 매수인이 통지하면 효력 발생
55

Article 27
“Unless otherwise expressly provided in this Part of the Convention, if any
notice, request or other communication is given or made by a party in accordance
with this Part and by means appropriate in the circumstances, a delay or error in
the transmission of the communication or its failure to arrive does not deprive that
party of the right to rely on the communication.
12
 발신주의가 아닌 도달주의로 하는 경우
o 발신주의는 피해 상대방을 위한 규정이므로, 계약을 위반한 당사자가 하는
통지는 굳이 발신주의 필요 없이 도달주의로 복귀함이 타당
o 피해 당사자 보호
o 각 규정에서 명시적으로 도달주의로 표시되어야 (expressly provided)
 도달주의 사례
o 계약 위반 매도인의 부가기간 내 불이행의 통지 (47조 제2항)
o 계약 위반 매도인의 하자치유의 통지 (48조 4항)
o 매도인의 사양지정 통지 (65조 2항)
o 불가항력 장애의 통지 (79조 4항)
56

1. 특정이행관련 협약의 기본원칙
 협약은 대륙법계 계약법에 유사하게 특정이행을 규정함
o 28조에 특정이행 허용 흔적 있고, 46, 62조에 각각 구체 규정
o 46조 :
 (1) The buyer may require performance by the seller of his obligations …..
 (2) If the goods do not conform with the contract, the buyer may require delivery
of substitute goods only if the lack of conformity constitutes a fundamental breach
of contract
o 62조
 The seller may require the buyer to pay the price, take delivery or perform his other
obligations….
 Cf. 영미법은 손해배상 원칙이므로 특정이행은 매우 제한적
2. 국내법에의 예양
 영미법계 등 일부 국가는 특정이행을 원칙 허용하지 않는
법제임을 감안하여 CISG에 가입하더라도 특정이행 판결 하지
않을 수 있는 재량권 부여 (28조) – 다음 면 참조.
13
57-58

Article 28 Requiring Performance and the Rules of the Forum
If, in accordance with the provisions of this Convention, one party is entitled to require
performance of any obligation by the other party,
• 특정 이행 허용
a court is not bound to enter a judgment for specific performance unless the court would do
so under its own law in respect of similar contracts of sale not governed by this Convention.
14
 특정이행 명령할 지 여부에 대한 법원의 재량 허용
• 국내법이 특정이행을 꼭 명하는 판결을 해야 하는 것이 아닌 한,
특정이행을 명할 필요 없음 규정
• So, 법원은 재량에 의해 특정이행을 명하거나, 혹은 기타 다른
구제수단으로 명할 수 있음
 28조는 강행규정이므로, 이와 다르게 규정 못함
58-59

Article 29 Modification of Contract; Writing Requirement
(1) A contract may be modified or terminated by the mere agreement of the parties.
(2) A contract in writing which contains a provision requiring any modification or
termination by agreement to be in writing may not be otherwise modified or terminated by
agreement. However, a party may be precluded by his conduct from asserting such a
provision to the extent that the other party has relied on that conduct.
15
1. 협약상 단순 합의에 의한 계약변경 또는 종료 [29조 1항]
 영미법인 약인 없는 한 변경 무효여서, 혼란이 예정됨
 따라서 협약은 약인 없이 합의만으로 계약 변경가능함을 선언
2. 변경에 관한 계약상의 제한 [29조 2항]
 서면에 의한 계약변경을 요구하는 계약조항하에서 서면 외
방식으로 계약을 변경한 경우 – 서면으로 변경해야 (2항 전문)
 그러나, 비록 서면 요건 충족 않는 변경이라도 상대방이 이에
의존하였다면 그 변경은 효력 있음 (2항 후문)
o 영미법상 금반언의 원칙(estoppel doctrine)
59-61

I. 소유권 이전
II. 물품 인도
III. 물품인도에 수반하는 의무
IV. 서류교부
V. 물품의 계약적합 의무
VI. 권리의 계약적합 의무
16

17
1. OBLIGATIONS OF THE SELLER
Section I. Delivery of the goods and handing
over of documents
Section II. Conformity of the goods and third
party claims
Section III. Remedies for breach of contract by
the seller
2. OBLIGATIONS OF THE BUYER
Section I. Payment of the price
Section II. Taking delivery
Section III. Remedies for breach of contract by
the buyer

18
1. The seller must
① deliver the goods,
② hand over any documents
relating to them and
③ transfer the property in
the goods,
2. as required
 by the contract and
 this Convention.
o 설사 계약에서 명시적으로
요구하지 않았더라도,
협약상 요구되는 인도를
해야 함 주의!
61

1. 소유권 이전의무
2. 인도의무
 기본적인 의무
 그러나, 계약적합의무와는 구별됨
o 계약 부적합 물품 인도한 때에도 일응 인도의무는 다한 것
3. 인도의무의 내용 및 인도장소 (31조)
 대부분 인도장소는 계약상 정해지므로
 인도장소를 정하지 않는 경우를 상정한 31조의 실익은 적음
4. 인도에 수반하는 의무 (32조)
 운송, 보험계약 등에 필요하게 되는 정보의 제공
5. 인도시기(33조)
6. 서류교부의무 (34조)
7.물품의 계약적합의무 (35조, 41조)****
 문제 발생 가능성 가장 많은 부분
19
61-69

20
1. Article 31 [Place of delivery]
2. Article 32 [Shipping arrangements]
3. Article 33 [Time for delivery]
4. Article 34 [Documents relating to the goods]

If the seller is not bound to deliver the goods at any other particular place,
his obligation to deliver consists:
(a) if the contract of sale involves carriage of the goods - in handing the goods
over to the first carrier for transmission to the buyer;
(b) if, in cases not within the preceding subparagraph, the contract relates to
specific goods, or unidentified goods to be drawn from a specific stock or to be
manufactured or produced, and at the time of the conclusion of the contract the
parties knew that the goods were at, or were to be manufactured or produced at,
a particular place - in placing the goods at the buyer's disposal at that place;
(c) in other cases - in placing the goods at the buyer's disposal at the place where
the seller had his place of business at the time of the conclusion of the contract.
21
1. 특정 이행장소 지정 없는 경우 31조 적용
 대부분 배달장소 지정하므로 본 조 적용은 희박
2. 본조가 시사하는 몇 가지
 운송되는 경우 - 최초의 운송인(first carrier)
 운송되지 않는 경우 - 매수인 처분하에 두는 방식

Article 32 (Shipping Arrangement)
(1) If the seller, in accordance with the contract or this Convention, hands the
goods over to a carrier and if the goods are not clearly identified to the contract
by markings on the goods, by shipping documents or otherwise, the seller must
give the buyer notice of the consignment specifying the goods.
(2) If the seller is bound to arrange for carriage of the goods, he must make such
contracts as are necessary for carriage to the place fixed by means of
transportation appropriate in the circumstances and according to the usual terms
for such transportation.
(3) If the seller is not bound to effect insurance in respect of the carriage of the
goods, he must, at the buyer's request, provide him with all available information
necessary to enable him to effect such insurance.
22
1. 운송에 필요한 정보 제공해야
 국제무역거래의 특수성 반영
 국내거래와 달리 장기간 국제운송에 필요한 각종 정보
등 사전 제공이 필수
o 선적항, 선적일, 물품 특정, 해상보험에 필요

Article 33 (Time for Delivery)
The seller must deliver the goods:
(a) if a date is fixed by or determinable from the contract, on that date;
(b) if a period of time is fixed by or determinable from the contract, at any time within
that period unless circumstances indicate that the buyer is to choose a date; or
(c) in any other case, within a reasonable time after the conclusion of the contract.
23
1. 인도기일에 인도 원칙
2. 위반의 효과
 인도기일 이전에 인도하면
o 매수인은 인수거절 가능
 인도기일 이후에 인도하면,
o 계약위반이 됨

24
Article 34 (Documents relating to the Goods)
If the seller is bound to hand over documents relating to the
goods, he must hand them over at the time and place and in the
form required by the contract.
• 서류인도의무도 수행해야
If the seller has handed over documents before that time, he may,
up to that time, cure any lack of conformity in the documents, if
the exercise of this right does not cause the buyer unreasonable
inconvenience or unreasonable expense.
However, the buyer retains any right to claim damages as
provided for in this Convention.
• 서류 불일치 등 미비사항 보완 가능
• (향후 기술하는 신용장 거래에서 중요 이슈)
68

25
1. 서류거래 계약
2. B/L 발행
4. 추심 의뢰
(화환어음: B/L 첨부)
3. B/L 추심 의뢰 or
서류 매입 (discounting)
5. 환어음 지급(or 인수);
B/L 인도 (서류 거래
발생)
6. B/L 운송인앞 제시;
(현물 인도)
추심 절차
(은행 활용)
Carrier
Seller Buyer
Seller’s
Bank
Buyer’s
Bank

1. 매도인이 제공하는 물품은
 계약에 적합한 물품(conform with the K)이어야 하고,
 그 물품에 대한 권리의 행사에 장애 없는 물품이어야 한다
2. 계약적합의무의 중요성
 대부분의 분쟁이 물품의 계약적합성과 관련됨
 물품의 상태에 관한 사실의 문제라서 분쟁도 많고 해결도 곤란
 특히 장시간의 긴 운송이 국제간 이루어지는 국제무역에선 더욱
중요
3. 협약의 접근
 매도인의 계약적합 의무에 대해 비교적 상세히 규정
 미국 통일상법전 (U.S. Uniform Commercial Code)상 물품매매에서
매도인의 담보의무(Warranty)규정을 모범으로 규정
26
69

27
1. 35 [Conformity of the goods]
2. 36 [Damage to goods: effect on conformity]
3. 37 [Right to cure up to date for delivery]
4. 38 [Time for examining the goods]
5. 39 [Notice for lack of conformity]
6. 40 [Seller's knowledge of non-conformity]
7. 41 [Third-party claims to goods]
8. 42 [Third-party claims based on a patent or other
intellectual property]
9. 43 [Notice of third-party claim]
10.44 [Excuse for failure to notify]
물품의 계약적합
물품검사 기간
부적합 통지
69

28
(1) The seller must deliver goods
• which are of the quantity, quality and description
required by the contract and
• which are contained or packaged in the manner
required by the contract.
(2) Except where the parties have agreed otherwise, the
goods do not conform with the contract unless they:
(a) are fit for the purposes for which goods of the same
description would ordinarily be used;
(b) are fit for any particular purpose expressly or impliedly made
known to the seller at the time of the conclusion of the contract,
…
(c) possess the qualities of goods which the seller has held out to
the buyer as a sample or model;
(d) are contained or packaged in the manner usual for such goods
or, where there is no such manner, in a manner adequate to
preserve and protect the goods.
(3) The seller is not liable under subparagraphs (a) to (d) of
the preceding paragraph for any lack of conformity of the
goods if at the time of the conclusion of the contract the
buyer knew or could not have been unaware of such lack
of conformity.
69

UCC § 2-313. Express Warranties by Affirmation, Promise, Description,
Sample.
(1) Express warranties by the seller are created as follows:
(a) Any affirmation of fact or promise made by the seller to the buyer which
relates to the goods and becomes part of the basis of the bargain creates an
express warranty that the goods shall conform to the affirmation or promise.
(b) Any description of the goods which is made part of the basis of the bargain
creates an express warranty that the goods shall conform to the description.
(c) Any sample or model which is made part of the basis of the bargain creates
an express warranty that the whole of the goods shall conform to the sample or
model.
(2) It is not necessary to the creation of an express warranty that the seller
use formal words such as "warrant" or "guarantee" or that he have a specific
intention to make a warranty, but an affirmation merely of the value of the
goods or a statement purporting to be merely the seller's opinion or
commendation of the goods does not create a warranty.
29
1. 협약 35조 1항 (계약에서 요구한 조건)
 (1) The seller must deliver goods which are of the quantity, quality and
description required by the contract and which are contained or
packaged in the manner required by the contract.
69

30
협약 35조 2항
(2) Except where the parties have agreed
otherwise, the goods do not conform with the
contract unless they:
(a) are fit for the purposes for which goods of the same
description would ordinarily be used;
(b) are fit for any particular purpose expressly or
impliedly made known to the seller at the time of the
conclusion of the contract, …
(c) possess the qualities of goods which the seller has
held out to the buyer as a sample or model;
(d) are contained or packaged in the manner usual for
such goods or, where there is no such manner, in a
manner adequate to preserve and protect the goods.
69

UCC § 2-314. Implied Warranty: Merchantability; Usage of Trade.
(1) Unless excluded or modified (Section 2-316), a warranty that the goods shall
be merchantable is implied in a contract for their sale if the seller is a merchant
with respect to goods of that kind. …
(2) Goods to be merchantable must be at least such as
(a) pass without objection in the trade under the contract description; and
(b) in the case of fungible goods, are of fair average quality within the description;
and
(c) are fit for the ordinary purposes for which such goods are used; and
(d) run, within the variations permitted by the agreement, of even kind, quality and
quantity within each unit and among all units involved; and
(e) are adequately contained, packaged, and labeled as the agreement may require;
and
(f) conform to the promise or affirmations of fact made on the container or label if any.
(3) Unless excluded or modified (Section 2-316) other implied warranties may
arise from course of dealing or usage of trade.
UCC § 2-315. Implied Warranty: Fitness for Particular Purpose.
Where the seller at the time of contracting has reason to know any particular
purpose for which the goods are required and that the buyer is relying on the
seller's skill or judgment to select or furnish suitable goods, there is unless
excluded or modified under the next section an implied warranty that the goods
shall be fit for such purpose.
31
69

1. 계약에서 정한 수량, 품질, 종류의 물품 인도할 의무
 협약 35조 1항
o 계약에서 정한 조건 (명시적 조건)에 일치하는 물품 제공
 협약 35조 2항
 수량의 경우
o But, 수량의 특례 : 상관례상 허용되는 과부족 (곡물 등 거래)은 계약
적합의무 위반 아님
 품질의 경우
o 품질의 차이가 있으면 계약 위반
 그 품질 차이가 용도나 가격에 영향을 미칠 정도에 이를 것이 요구되지는 않음
32
69

1. 품질에 대한 명시적 합의가 계약상 없는 경우
 35조 2항의 보조적 판단기준이 적용
1. 통상사용 목적에 적합한 물품 (a호)
o 상거래에서 팔릴 수 있어야 할 정도의 수준
o 실무상 매도인 국가 기준인지 혹은 매수인 국가 기준인지 여부에 대하여 분쟁 가능
2. 특별사용 목적에 적합한 물품 (b호)
o 매수인이 사용할 목적을 표시함으로써 혹은 그런 목적을 합리적인 매도인이 당연히
예측할 수 있는 경우, 매도인은 그에 적합한 물품을 제공할 의무를 부담
 매수인은 매도인 대비 물품에 대한 지식이 부족한 경우 많음을 고려하여 비록 명확한
명세를 계약에 포함시키지 않더라도 원하는 물품을 인도받을 수 있도록 한 배려
o 특별한 용도 등 표시나 인지는 계약체결 시 기준. 사후 통지는 불인정 (이기수)
3. 견본 및 모형에 적합한 물품 (c호)
o Sample은 당해 매매 목적물인 물품에서 추출한 것, Model은 검사를 위해 제시한 목적물
아닌 물품
4. 포장 (d호)
o 포장도 계약에 적합하여야 하므로, 매도인은 포장의무도 있음
33
71-74

Article 36 (Damage to Goods: Effect on Conformity)
(1)The seller is liable …. for any lack of conformity which exists at the time
when the risk passes to the buyer,
•계약적합 여부 판단시기는 위험이전 시기
(2) The seller is also liable for any lack of conformity which occurs after the
time indicated in the preceding paragraph and which is due to a breach of any of
his obligations, including a breach of any guarantee that for a period of time the
goods will remain fit for their ordinary purpose or for some particular purpose or
will retain specified qualities or characteristics.
•위험이전 이후에 발생한 부적합 이라도, 통상사용목적 및 특별사용목적에
맞을 것이라는 보증을 한 경우엔 그 보증기간까지는 계약 적합 해야.
34
1. Conformity of Goods는
 위험이전시기에 적합 해야
2. 보증시 예외
 보증기간 내에는 계약 적합해야
73

35
Article 37 (Right to Cure up to the date for
delivery)
If the seller has delivered goods before the date
for delivery, he may, up to that date,
 deliver any missing part or make up any deficiency
in the quantity of the goods delivered, or
 deliver goods in replacement of any non-
conforming goods delivered or
 remedy any lack of conformity in the goods
delivered,
provided that the exercise of this right does not
cause the buyer unreasonable inconvenience or
unreasonable expense.
• 매수인에게 불합리한 손해 없도록
However, the buyer retains any right to claim
damages as provided for in this Convention.
 손해배상은 별도로 청구 가능!
74

1. 실무상 다양한 용어
 하자 치유권
 추완권
 품질보장 (Quality Guarantee)
2. 취지ㅣ
 Preserving the K, Saving the K 정신
3. 내용
 매도인은 부적합 치유할 권리(right) 보유하므로, 그 범위 내에서 매수인은 45조
이하의 구제권 (계약해제, 대금감액 등) 행사 불가
o 인도기일 이전이면, 본질적 위반에 이르는 정도의 부적합의 경우에도 치유권 인정
 손해배상은 별도로 가능
4. 하자보완권의 한계
 매수인에게 부당한 불편 혹은 비용 야기하지 말아야
o 예. 매수인이 인도된 기계를 이미 생산라인에 설치하였는데, 장기간 수리를 통해
생산을 지연시키는 것은 부당
o 매수인은 치유를 거절할 수도 있음
 계약적합의무 면책
o 부적합 사실이 명백한 경우
36
74

Article 38 (Time for examining Goods)
(1) The buyer must examine the goods, or cause them to be examined,
within as short a period as is practicable in the circumstances.
(2) If the contract involves carriage of the goods, examination may be
deferred until after the goods have arrived at their destination.
37
1. 개설
 39조의 부적합통지의무를 위한 기초
o 취지 : 물품검사 및 부적합 통지를 통해 매도인에게 부적합 치유할 기회를 제공하기
위한 것
2. 물품의 검사의무
 38조 1항에 규정
o 협약은 검사의 시기와 장소만 정하며 검사의 종류, 방법에 대해서는 언급 없음
o Cf. 또한 이 검사의무는 제58조 제3항에 정한 매수인의 검사할 권리와는 구별해야.
76

[CISG Advisory Council Opinion No. 2] On Article 38
1. Although a buyer must examine the goods, or cause them to be examined, within as short
a period as is practicable in the circumstances, there is no independent sanction for failure to
do so. However, if the buyer fails to do so and there is a lack of conformity of the goods that
an examination would have revealed, the notice period in article 39 commences from the
time the buyer "ought to have discovered it".
• 검사의무 불이행에 대한 별도의 제재 없음
• 검사할 수 있었던 시기로 부적합 통지기간의 기산이 소급되는 간접적 효과
2. Whether and when it is practicable, and not just possible, to examine the goods depends
on all the circumstances of the case. It is often commercially practicable to examine the
goods immediately upon receipt. This would normally be the case with perishables. In other
cases, such as complicated machinery, it may not be commercially practicable to examine
the goods except for externally visible damage or other non-conformity until, for example,
they can be used in the way intended. If the goods are to be re-sold, the examination will
often be conducted by the sub-purchaser. Another example is dealt with in article 38(3).
• 검사기간은 구체적 상황에 따라 다름
3. The period for examining for latent defects commences when signs of the lack of
conformity become evident.
• 잠재하자에 대한 검사의무는 그 부적합의 표시가 명백해지는 때부터 시작됨
38

1. 실행가능한 단기간 내 (a period as is practicable in the
circumstances)의 의미
 독일 법원. Clout n. 285, n. 230. n. 284. (주64)
 “매수인은 물품이 인도된 후 1주일 이내에 물품검사를 해야 함”
2. 운송되는 경우 검사기간의 연장
 핀란드 법원, 29. Jan 1998
o 계약상 비록 인도조건이 “FOB 탈린” 이지만
o 매수인은 물품이 아부다비에 도착한 후까지 검사를 연기할 수 있다.
(주65)
39
77

40
신용장 통일규칙(UCP600)상 서류심사
• 신용장거래는 신용장조건에 일치하는 서류 제시하는 경우 대금을
지급하는 결제수단
• 따라서 은행은 마치 서류를 검사대상으로 하여 검사후 일치하면
지급하게 됨
• 서류 불일치시 지급 거절
• 거절통지의 근거가 된 개별불일치 사항 통지하여야
Article 14 Standard for Examination of Documents
a. A nominated bank acting on its nomination, a confirming bank, if any, and the issuing bank must
examine a presentation to determine, on the basis of the documents alone, whether or not the documents
appear on their face to constitute a complying presentation.
b. A nominated bank acting on its nomination, a confirming bank, if any, and the issuing bank shall each
have a maximum of five banking days following the day of presentation to determine if a presentation is
complying. This period is not curtailed or otherwise affected by the occurrence on or after the date of
presentation of any expiry date or last day for presentation.
Article 16 Discrepant Documents, Waiver and Notice
c. When a nominated bank acting on its nomination, a confirming bank, if any, or the issuing bank decides
to refuse to honour or negotiate, it must give a single notice to that effect to the presenter.
The notice must state:
o i. that the bank is refusing to honour or negotiate; and
o ii. each discrepancy in respect of which the bank refuses to honour or negotiate; and…..
참
고

제69조 (매수인의 목적물의 검사와 하자통지의무)
 ①상인간의 매매에 있어서 매수인이 목적물을 수령한 때에는 지체
없이 이를 검사하여야 하며 하자 또는 수량의 부족을 발견한
경우에는 즉시 매도인에게 그 통지를 발송하지 아니하면 이로 인한
계약해제, 대금감액 또는 손해배상을 청구하지 못한다. 매매의
목적물에 즉시 발견할 수 없는 하자가 있는 경우에 매수인이
6월내에 이를 발견한 때에도 같다.
 ②전항의 규정은 매도인이 악의인 경우에는 적용하지 아니한다.
41
참
고

42
1. 개설
 협약상 가장 중요한 규정 중 하나
 매수인은 38조에 따라 물품 검사 후 부적합 발견하면 이를 매도인에게 조속히
통지하도록 의무 부여
 합리적 기간 내에 미통지시 부적합을 주장할 권리를 상실하도록 함
2. 통지의 내용
3. 통지의 시기
4. 통지의무 불이행의 효과
78
Article 39 Notice for Lack of Conformity
(1) The buyer loses the right to rely on a lack of conformity of the
goods if he does not give notice to the seller specifying the nature of
the lack of conformity within a reasonable time after he has discovered it
or ought to have discovered it.

43
Article 39 Notice for Lack of Conformity
(1) The buyer loses the right to rely on a lack of conformity of
the goods if he does not give notice to the seller specifying the
nature of the lack of conformity within a reasonable time
after he has discovered it or ought to have discovered it.
o 하자내용을 세부적으로 적시해야
o 발견 후 합리적 기간 내에 통지해야
o 통지하지 않으면 부적합 주장 못함
(2) In any event, the buyer loses the right to rely on a lack of
conformity of the goods if he does not give the seller notice
thereof at the latest within a period of two years from the date
on which the goods were actually handed over to the buyer,
unless this time-limit is inconsistent with a contractual period
of guarantee.
o 인도일 이후 2년 이내에 제기해야
o 계약상 보증기간이 있고 2년 이상인 경우라면 그 기간으로 함

 판례법
Contents of notice; specificity required (1)
• notice should indicate both the nature and the extent of the lack of conformity, and should convey the
results of the buyer’s examination of the goods;[53]
• notice should be specific enough to allow the seller to comprehend the buyer’s claim and to take
appropriate steps in response, i.e., to examine the goods and arrange for a substitute delivery or
otherwise remedy the lack of conformity;[54]
• the purpose of the specificity requirement is to enable the seller to understand the kind of breach
claimed by the buyer and to take the steps necessary to cure it, such as initiating a substitute or
additional delivery;[55]
• each claimed non-conformity must be specifically described, and the fact that notice may be
sufficiently specific as to one defect does not mean that the notice requirement for other claimed
defects is satisfied.[60] (See the case)
• In the case of machinery and technical equipment, it has been found that the specificity requirement is
satisfied by a description of the symptoms of a lack of conformity, and that an explanation of the
underlying causes is not required.[64]
o see also [CISG Advisory Council Opinion No. 2] On Article 39]
44
 물품과 서류 모두 포함하여 관련된 부적합 통지해야 (이기수)
 부적합의 특정 정도
o 부적합의 성질과 정도를 구체적으로 알려줘야 [Specific]
79

Article 39
(1) if he does not give notice to the seller specifying the nature of the lack of
conformity within a reasonable time after he has discovered it or ought to have discovered
it.
(2) In any event, the buyer loses the right to rely on a lack of conformity of the
goods if he does not give the seller notice thereof at the latest within a period of
two years from the date on which the goods were actually handed over to the buyer,
unless this time-limit is inconsistent with a contractual period of guarantee.
45
 거절통지시 합리적인 기간의 기산점
o 발견할 수 있었던 때부터 起算 (ought to have discovered)
o 합리적인지 여부는 구체적인 계약의 내용과 상황 감안
 제척기간 (39조2항)
o 어떤 경우라도 물품 인도일부터 2년 초과 못함
o 다만, 장기간 보증(warranty) 설정시는 초과 가능(39조2항 단서)
o 선적시기부터가 아닌 인도일을 기준으로 한 이유
 장기간 운송이나 창고 적치시 동 기간 산입을 막기 위함 (이기수)
80

• 통지의 적시성은 구체적 상황요소에 영향 받음
• 판례법상 몇 가지 고려 요소들 제시됨
Timely notice
 the reasonable time for notice will vary with the
circumstances of the particular case.[116]
Factors influencing reasonable time for notice
 A patent, easily noticeable defect tends to
shorten the period for notice.[117]
o 외관상 명시적 하자는 빨리 통보해야
o Cf. latent defect
 The nature of the goods is another frequently-
cited factor:[118]
o goods that are perishable [119] or seasonal [120] require earlier
notice of defects;
o notice with respect to durable or non-seasonal goods, in
contrast, is subject to a longer notice period.[121]
46
80출처: http://www.cisg.law.pace.edu

판례법
Form of notice
 A buyer claiming to have given notice by telephone must prove
o when the call took place,
o to whom the buyer spoke, and
o what was said during the conversation;
 the buyer’s failure to prove these elements prevented it from establishing that the
article 39 notice requirement was satisfied.[22]
To whom must notice be given?
 Notice given to an employee of the seller who was not authorized to receive such
communications but who promised to transmit the information to the seller was found
to be insufficient when the employee in fact did not inform the seller; the court noted
that, when notice is not given to the seller personally, the buyer must ensure that the
seller actually receives the notice.[29]
Burden of Proof
 the buyer bears the burden of proving that it gave the required article 39 notice of
non-conformity. This position has been adopted both expressly [13] and by
implication.[14]
47
81출처: http://www.cisg.law.pace.edu

Case law on UNCITRAL texts (CLOUT) no. 253
Facts:
• An Italian buyer, plaintiff, bought from a Swiss seller, defendant, 300 tons of [cocoa] beans
which were shipped from Ghana.
• The beans were to contain fat of at least 45 per cent and acidity of no more than 7 per cent.
• As provided in the contract of sale, payment was made against documents, which included a
certificate of conformity.
• Tests of the beans after delivery in Italy, however, revealed that their values were not as had
been certified.
• In litigation commenced by the buyer in Switzerland for recovery of the purchase price, it
was not possible to determine whether the goods were already defective when handed over
to the carrier.
Analysis
• On the issue of which of the parties had to bear the burden of proof, the court stated that, as
a matter of principle, attribution of the burden of proof is to be determined by the law
applicable on the merits, which, in this case, was the CISG.
• The court noted that the CISG does not contain any particular rule on the burden of proof as
to the conformity of goods.
• Furthermore, it noted that views on this matter as expressed by scholars are divided:
according to some, the CISG implies that the buyer should bear the burden, whereas others
would attribute the burden in accordance with domestic law.
• The court was able to leave the issue open because, under the law of the forum as well as
under the CISG, the buyer had to bear the burden of proof. 48

 Article 39 다시 회상
The buyer loses the right to rely on a lack of conformity of the goods if he
does not give notice to the seller…
49
 매수인은 불이행 관련 권리 상실
o the right to require the seller to repair the goods,[7]
o the right to claim damages,[8]
o the right to reduce the price,[9] and
o the right to avoid the contract.[10]
81

Article 40 Seller's Knowledge of Non-conformity
The seller is not entitled to rely on the provisions of articles 38 and 39 if the lack
of conformity relates to facts of which he knew or could not have been unaware
and which he did not disclose to the buyer.
50
 매도인이 부적합 사실을 이미 안 경우 (악의)
o 매도인은 매수인의 부적합 통지의무 위반을 주장 못함
o 즉, 40조에 의해 악의의 매도인을 보호하지 않으므로
o 결과적으로 매수인은 권리 상실하지 않음.
 이유 : 악의적인 매도인이 하자를 숨겨 매수인이 그 하자를 발견 못해 하자
통지 못하였다면 매수인을 보호할 필요가 발생
o 예.
 매도인이 기망행위를 한 경우 (주 74)
 물품의 수량의 부족한 경우 등 하자가 명백한 경우 (주 74)
82

Article 41 (Third Party Claims to Goods)
The seller must deliver goods which are free from any right or claim of a third
party, unless the buyer agreed to take the goods subject to that right or claim.
However, if such right or claim is based on industrial property or other intellectual
property, the seller's obligation is governed by article 42.
51
1. 배경
 취지 :
o 매수인이 매수물품에 대한 소유권 등 분쟁에 휘말리지 않도록 보호할 필요
 제3자의 권리(확정된) 및 권리주장(claim, 아직 비확정된 것
의미)으로부터 보호될 필요
2. 관련조항
 41조 (Third Party Claims to Goods)
 42조 (Third-Party Claims Based on a Patent or Other Intellectual Property)
 43조 (Notice of Third Party Claims)
83

Article 42 (Third-Party Claims Based on a Patent or Other Intellectual Property)
(1) The seller must deliver goods which are free from any right or claim of a third
party based on industrial property or other intellectual property, of which at the
time of the conclusion of the contract the seller knew or could not have been
unaware, provided that the right or claim is based on industrial property or other
intellectual property:
o (a) under the law of the State where the goods will be resold or otherwise used, if it
was contemplated by the parties at the time of the conclusion of the contract that the
goods would be resold or otherwise used in that State; or
o (b) in any other case, under the law of the State where the buyer has his place of
business.
52
1. 규정 취지
 지적재산권은 영토적 제한 있는 권리이므로, 전매되거나 사용될 국가의
지적재산권만이 문제가 됨. 따라서 다른 권리 제한과 구별하여 별도로
규정
 지적재산은 물품이 재판매되거나 기타 방식으로 사용될 국가의
지적재산권법에 근거한 권리주장으로부터 제한받지 않을 것 요구
84

Article 43 Notice of Third Party Claims
(1) The buyer loses the right to rely onthe provisions of article 41 or article 42 if he does not
give notice to the seller specifying the nature of the right or claim of the third party within a
reasonable time after he has become aware or ought to have become aware of the right or
claim.
(2)The seller is not entitled to rely on the provisions of the preceding paragraph if he knew
of the right or claim of the third party and the nature of it.
53
1. 합리적 기간내 통지
 39조와 유사
2. 제척기간 미존재
 물품 부적합의 경우엔 장시간 경과시 입증 등의 곤란 문제가 있어
제척기간을 두고 있으나
 권리 제한에 따른 부적합 통지의 경우엔 시간 경과가 큰 장애가
안되기 때문임 (이기수)
85

Article 44 Excuse for Failure to Notify
• Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (1) of article 39 and paragraph (1) of
article 43,
• the buyer may reduce the price in accordance with article 50 or claim damages,
except for loss of profit,
• if he has a reasonable excuse for his failure to give the required notice.
54
1. 매수인 미통지에 합리적 이유 있는 경우 구제
 39조 및 43조의 통지의무 불이행하였어도 보호
2. 구제의 한계
 구제수단중 대금감액과 손해배상 청구만 가능
o 손해배상시 이익의 상실(loss of profit)은 불포함
o 특정이행 청구나 계약해제는 불가
o 제척기간은 그대로 지속
 제척기간이 바로 이 의미

이하의 판례법은 향후 참조용으로 포함시킨 것이므로
본 과정을 다 마친 후 읽어보시거나
실무에 활용시 검토해 보시기 바랍니다.
55

판례상 44조의 적용은 제한적
• 많은 경우 판례법상
• 부적합 사실의 통지지연을 정당화할 합리적 사유가 없다는 경우가 대부분
• “Article 44 has been invoked in a number of decisions, but seldom successfully: in a
substantial majority of decisions, the deciding tribunal found that the "reasonable excuse"
requirement was not satisfied.[21]”
• 즉, 동 통지 지연한 경우 매수인은 부적합을 이유로 계약해제 등 권리행사를
할 수 없게 됨
• 합리적 사유가 없다고 본 사례
• a buyer argued that
• it had a reasonable excuse for failing to give timely notice of a non-conformity because the
goods had been held up in customs when they arrived in the buyer's country, and
• the installation of processing machinery needed for a trial run of the goods had been
delayed.
• The court, however, ruled that
• the buyer had failed to show that it could not have gotten access to the goods in order to
examine them when they first arrived in the port of destination;
• furthermore, the buyer had failed to show that the delay in the installation of the processing
machinery was not due to its own neglect.[22]
56
참
고

• 합리적 사유가 있다고 본 사례
• 주 76 사례 참조
1. 제3자가 검사했는데, 하자 발견하지 못한 경우
• Q. 만약 그 제3자가 매수인이 지정한 대리인이었다면
2. 도착항에서 물품검사가 곤란해 진 경우
• 사안
• a provision of the contract required claims of non-conformity to be brought forward within
50 days of the date stamped on a bill of lading issued when the goods were dispatched.
• Inspection of the goods at the port of shipment became unfeasible, and the buyer did not
examine the goods until they arrived at their destination.
• As a result, the buyer did not give notice of lack of conformity within the 50-day deadline,
• the court found that
• the buyer had a reasonable excuse for the delay and applied article 44 to permit the buyer
to reduce the price of the goods pursuant to article 50 of the Convention.
57
참
고

 부적합 통지 조항
 일반적으로 하자 혹은 부적합 통지관련 조항을
수출입자간 계약서에 포함하는 것이 일반적임
 하자통지 특약
 협약의 일반적인 내용과 다른 특약을 하는 것은
6조에 의해 가능하며, 39조의 부적합 통지의
방법도 특약에 의해 다르게 약정할 수 있음
 판례법
o Agreements relating to notice
 Article 39 is subject to the parties’ power (under article 6) to
derogate from or vary the effect of any provision of the
Convention.
 Agreements between parties have generally been enforced, and
buyers have several times lost the right to complain of a lack of
conformity because they failed to comply with the terms of such
an agreement.[31]
 실무적으로는 수출입자간 계약서상 특약 넣어 해결
o 참고 : 다음 면에서, ICC 표준계약서상 부적합 통지
관련 조항 설명함
58
참
고
출처: ICC, ICC Model International Sale Contract (manufactured goods intended for resale

Art. 11 Non-conformity of the goods
 11.1 The Buyer shall examine the goods as soon as possible after their
arrival at destination and shall notify the Seller in writing of any lack of
conformity of the goods within 15 days from the date when the Buyer
discovers or ought to have discovered the lack of conformity. In any case
the Buyer shall have no remedy for lack of conformity if he fails to notify
the Seller thereof within 12 months from the date of arrival of the goods
at the agreed destination.
o 하자통보방법 관련 특약 가능
 서면으로 할 것
 15일 이내에 통보
 최대 청구기간을 12개월로 낮춤
 11.2 Goods will be deemed to conform to the Contract despite minor
discrepancies which are usual in the particular trade or through course
of dealing between the parties but the Buyer will be entitled to any
abatement of the price usual in the trade or through course of dealing for
such discrepancies.
o 경미한 하자는 업계 관행, 당사자간 협의 비추어 허용됨
o 단 가격의 인하(abatement) 요청 가능
59
참
고

 11.3 Where goods are non-conforming (and provided the Buyer, having
given notice of the lack of conformity in compliance with article 11.1
does not elect in the notice to retain them), the Seller shall at his option:
o (a) replace the goods with conforming goods, without any additional expense
to the Buyer, or
o (b) repair the goods, without any additional expense to the Buyer, or
o (c ) reimburse to the Buyer the price paid for the non-conforming goods and
thereby terminate the Contract as regards those goods.
 매도인은 3 R 해야 함
o Replace 교환,
o Repair 수리,
o Reimburse(refund) 환급
60
참
고

 11.4 The buyer will be entitled to liquidated damages as quantified
under article 10.1 for each complete week of delay between the date of
notification of the non-conformity according to article 11.1 and the
supply of substitute goods under article 11.3(a) or repair under article
11.3(b) above. Such damages may be accumulated with damages (if any)
payable under article 10.1 but can in no case exceed in the aggregate 5%
of the price of those goods.
 11.5 Where the Contract is terminated under article 11.3(c) or article
11.4, then in addition to any amount paid or payable under article 11.3
as reimbursement of the price and damages for any delay, the Buyer is
entitled to damages for any additional loss not exceeding 10% of the
price of the non-conforming goods.
61
참
고

 11.6 Where the Buyer elects to retain non-conforming goods, he shall be
entitled to a sum equal to the difference between the value of the goods at
the agreed place of destination if they had conformed with the Contract and
their value at the same place as delivered, such sum not to exceed 15% of
the price of those goods.
 11.7 Unless otherwise agreed in writing, the remedies under this article 11
are exclusive of any other remedy for non-conformity.
 11.8 Unless otherwise agreed in writing, no action for lack of conformity
can be taken by the Buyer, whether before judicial or arbitral tribunals, after
2 years from the date of arrival of the goods. It is expressly agreed that after
the expiry of such term, the Buyer will not plead non-conformity of the
goods, or make a counter-claim thereon, in defense to any action taken by
the Seller against the Buyer for non-performance of this Contract.
62
참
고

3차시 제2장 국제매매협약 매도인의 의무

Recomendados

Recomendados

Mais conteúdo relacionado

Mais procurados

Mais procurados (17)

Semelhante a 3차시 제2장 국제매매협약 매도인의 의무

Semelhante a 3차시 제2장 국제매매협약 매도인의 의무 (20)

Último

Último (20)

3차시 제2장 국제매매협약 매도인의 의무