메뉴 건너뛰기
.. 내서재 .. 알림
소속 기관/학교 인증
인증하면 논문, 학술자료 등을  무료로 열람할 수 있어요.
한국대학교, 누리자동차, 시립도서관 등 나의 기관을 확인해보세요
(국내 대학 90% 이상 구독 중)
로그인 회원가입 고객센터 ENG
주제분류

추천
검색
질문

논문 기본 정보

자료유형
학술저널
저자정보
저널정보
한국무역학회 무역학회지 貿易學會誌 第29卷 第5號
발행연도
2004.10
수록면
127 - 151 (25page)

이용수

표지
📌
연구주제
📖
연구배경
🔬
연구방법
🏆
연구결과
AI에게 요청하기
추천
검색
질문

초록· 키워드

오류제보하기
This study has examined one of the reasons why trade communities are not willing to convert from traditional trade to utilization of e-trade ever though th latter has more advantage than the former in order to vitalize the electronic trade settlement method. In particular, it has compared incidental expense between off-line and on-line for the trade settlement.
For the effective analysis, the incidental expenses have been classified into three sectors such as fixed expense, variable expense, additional expense. Also this paper analyzed a difference of the incidental expense by purchase amount like US$10,000, US$20,000, US$30,000. Meanwhile, it has tried to find the cross point of incidental expense between the traditional and electronic trade settlement with additional expense and without additional expense respectively.
In the case of trade settlement without additional expense, the cross point is less than US$15,000. This implied that the use of L/C method be more attractive than one of Trade Card system when the purchase amount will be above US$15,000. However, in case of trade settlement with additional expense, the cross point is more than US$30,000 at sight payment and US$27,500 at usance payment respectively.
In conclusion, this paper shows a reasonable level of purchase amount using the electronic settlement. Also the level of the cross point depends on whether a transaction contains additional expense or not. IT means that the seller are going to use the traditional settlement if there is no possibility of payment risks. Otherwise, the seller wants to use the electronic settlement method.

목차

Ⅰ. 서론
Ⅱ. 무역대금 결제방식의 유형과 선행연구 검토
Ⅲ. 연구의 범위와 실태조사 결과
Ⅳ. 무역대금 결제방식별 부대비용 비교분석
Ⅴ. 결론
참고문헌
ABSTRACT

참고문헌 (10)

참고문헌 신청

함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문

논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!

이 논문의 저자 정보

이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문

최근 본 자료

전체보기

댓글(0)

0

UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2010-326-002884155