지원사업
학술연구/단체지원/교육 등 연구자 활동을 지속하도록 DBpia가 지원하고 있어요.
커뮤니티
연구자들이 자신의 연구와 전문성을 널리 알리고, 새로운 협력의 기회를 만들 수 있는 네트워킹 공간이에요.
초록· 키워드
오류제보하기
This article explores the comparisons of the important issues on application between Article 4A of the Uniform Commercial Code(Article 4A) and the Model Law on International Credit Transfers(Model Law)proposed by the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law. The results of comparisons in connection with obligations and responsibilities parties concerned between Article 4A and Model Law are as follows:
First, The Article 4A is enacted to apply both domestic and international fund transfers. On the other hand, the Model Law is intended to enacted by national legislatures exclusively for international fund transfers.
Secondly, Most rights and obligations created by Article 4A can be varied with the agreement of affected parties. there are the exceptions. The exceptions include the money-back guarantee and a beneficiary's obligation to pay a beneficiary of the amount of an accepted. However, all the rights and obligations created by the Model Law can be varied with the agreement of an affected parties.
Thirdly, The Article 4A Acknowledges the importance of special communications facilities by defining a fund-transfers system as a wire transfer network and by allowing funds-transfer system rules to vary most Article 4A rights and obligations. Model Law also contains reference to funds-transfer systems, but the term is undefined. Moreover, funds-transfer systems rules cannot deviate from the Model Law.
Fourthly, The Article 4A admits consequence damages under exceptional circumstance. But Model Law prohibits perfectly them.
Fifthly, The Article 4A imposes notice duty to originator with respect to an unaccepted order. However, the Model Law stipulates that receiving bank is obligated notice duty.
Finally, While The Article 4A imposes duty to detect errors to originator in relation to the establishment of commercially reasonable security procedure, the Model Law imposes the duty to detect errors to receiving bank.
First, The Article 4A is enacted to apply both domestic and international fund transfers. On the other hand, the Model Law is intended to enacted by national legislatures exclusively for international fund transfers.
Secondly, Most rights and obligations created by Article 4A can be varied with the agreement of affected parties. there are the exceptions. The exceptions include the money-back guarantee and a beneficiary's obligation to pay a beneficiary of the amount of an accepted. However, all the rights and obligations created by the Model Law can be varied with the agreement of an affected parties.
Thirdly, The Article 4A Acknowledges the importance of special communications facilities by defining a fund-transfers system as a wire transfer network and by allowing funds-transfer system rules to vary most Article 4A rights and obligations. Model Law also contains reference to funds-transfer systems, but the term is undefined. Moreover, funds-transfer systems rules cannot deviate from the Model Law.
Fourthly, The Article 4A admits consequence damages under exceptional circumstance. But Model Law prohibits perfectly them.
Fifthly, The Article 4A imposes notice duty to originator with respect to an unaccepted order. However, the Model Law stipulates that receiving bank is obligated notice duty.
Finally, While The Article 4A imposes duty to detect errors to originator in relation to the establishment of commercially reasonable security procedure, the Model Law imposes the duty to detect errors to receiving bank.
목차
Ⅰ. 서론
Ⅱ. 입법방향의 비교
Ⅲ. 지급지시의 전송에 따른 의무와 책임
Ⅳ. 지급지시의 이행에 따른 의무와 책임
Ⅴ. 결론
참고문헌
ABSTRACT
참고문헌 (0)
참고문헌 신청함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문
논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!
-
전자자금이체상의 당사자의 권리와 의무상에 관한 비교법적 고찰
전자무역연구
2005 .01
-
UCC 제4A편과 EFTA of 1978에 의거한 미국의 전자결제제도에 있어서 주요쟁점 비교연구
전자무역연구
2013 .01
-
새로운 유럽공동체법 (Rome Ⅱ Regulation)상 불법행위에 관한 준거법
재산법연구
2010 .01
-
전자지급거래에서의 당사자의 권리와 의무 및 효력의 비교 연구 : 유엔 국제무역업위원회 국제지급이체에 관한 표준법과 한국 전자금융거래법을 중심으로
인터넷전자상거래연구
2007 .03
-
미국의 전자자금이체시스템에 관한 고찰
무역상무연구
2001 .06
-
WHAT IS LAW
저스티스
1965 .04
-
한국과 미국의 전자결제제도 비교연구 : 고객보호관련 주요쟁점을 중심으로
통상정보연구
2009 .03
-
당사자자치의 원칙과 불통일법국법의 지정 -유럽국제사법상의 논의와 우리나라 국제사법에의 시사점-
국제사법연구
2019 .12
-
미국 상사법의 개별입법화 동향
기업법연구
2009 .12
-
범죄 억제를 위한 제3자에 관한 법률적 고찰 : 제3자의 권한과 의무, 대가와 처벌
범죄수사학연구
2017 .12
-
국제 전자결제시스템에서 금융기관의 책임 및 정책적 시사점 : 한국과 미국의 전자금융제도 비교
통상정보연구
2010 .03
-
채권양도의 공시제도에 대한 입법적 고찰
한양법학
2008 .06
-
법정채권 준거법 결정에서의 당사자 자치
경영법률
2018 .01
-
채권양도등기제도의 입법에 관한 연구
서강법학
2010 .06
-
민법 제1조와 不文民法의 法源性
동북아법연구
2012 .01
-
국제적 근로관계에 관한 준거법 결정에 대한 시론
노동법포럼
2017 .07
-
전자자금이체상의 당사자의 권리와 의무상의 문제점 및 시사점 : UCC와 UNCITRAL Model Law 중심으로
통상정보연구
2004 .08
-
한·중 환경기본법 비교 : 중국의 「환경보호법」을 중심으로
중앙법학
2009 .08
이 논문의 저자 정보
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0
UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2010-326-002901871