All
| TITLE | 【Syllabus of Latest Opinion】 Supreme Court Decision 2021Da242185 Decided March 27, 2025 【Payment of Contract Price】 [full Text] |
|---|---|
| Summary | |
| 【Main Issues and Holdings】 [1] Whether the contents of the governing foreign law of legal relations with foreign elements are subject to ex officio inquisition proceedings (affirmative) In cases involving foreign elements, whether the court has a duty to examine and investigate international agreements applicable to the relevant legal relations or a governing law in accordance with the Private International Law Act notwithstanding the nonexistence of an argument regarding the governing law (affirmative) [2] Whether an implied agreement can be admitted despite the absence of an explicit agreement on the governing law in accordance with Article 25(1) of the former Private International Law Act (affirmative) Whether an implied agreement on the applicable law can be admitted on the sole ground that the parties did not contest the applicable law (negative) [3] Regarding questions concerning matters governed by the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (Vienna, 1980) which are not expressly settled in contracts for sale, whether the application of the general principles on which the Convention is based must first be considered (affirmative), and the applicable law for the questions concerning matters that are either excluded from the application of the Convention or not governed by the Convention (held: the applicable law determined by the private international law of the lex fori) [4] In a case where: (a) Company A, an incorporated company of the Republic of Korea, concluded a contract for the supply of disposable razor production equipment with Company B, a Russia corporation, delivered the assembling equipment, and requested the payment of contract price; (b) Company B proposed to make an additional agreement on the time of payment of contract price, which was set on the date of pre-commissioning of the equipment; and (c) Company B did not issue a certificate on the pre-commissioning completion, a written confirmation that the preliminary test of the equipment has satisfactorily been completed, and argued that the time of payment of contract price has not arrived, the case holding that the terms of payment obligations for contract price, borne by Company B, the buyer, can sufficiently be determined by the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (Vienna, 1980) and the interpretation thereof | |
