한국중재학회지:중재연구 (Journal of Arbitration Studies)

한국중재학회 (The Korean Association of Arbitration Studies)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Korean case analysis of compelling arbitration in the United States

  • 투고 : 2018.02.11
  • 심사 : 2018.02.27
  • 발행 : 2018.03.02
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

Korean businesses engaging in transactions with U.S. entities are increasingly favoring arbitration clauses to address unexpected disputes. How best ought the parties' arbitration contractual terms be drafted to avoid lengthy, protracted and expensive legal disputes? Authors examine the public policy favoring arbitration through the U.S. Federal Arbitration Act. Korean litigants seeking a "Motion to Compel Arbitration" rely on arbitration clauses designed to address four factors U.S. courts use to evaluate the enforceability of arbitration contract clauses. What role does U.S. state court jurisdiction hinder or help Korean businesses contracting with U.S. business entities located within certain boundaries? What is the effect of an arbitration clause that designates the Korean Commercial Arbitration Board in Seoul to arbitrate? All cases analyzed entail Korean business entities. Eleven cases demonstrate the results of seeking motions to compel arbitration in U.S. courts. Three cases illustrate motions to compel arbitration drafted to use the Korean Commercial Arbitration Board in Seoul. The results provide Korean businesses and legal practitioners insight into addressing the specific goals of including contractual arbitration clauses to enhance their international commercial interests in the United States.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. 9 U.S.C. $\S\S$ 1-16, §§$\S\S$ 201-208 (1990).
  2. GA Code $\S$ 9-9-6 (2016).
  3. Agnes Xiaohong Xie v. JPMorgan Chase Short-Term Disability Plan, 2017 WL 2462675 (S.D.N.Y. June 7, 2017).
  4. Andrew Kim v. Jeong Ji-Hoon, 2013 WL 12131262 (C.D. Cal. 2013).
  5. Buckeye Check Cashing, Inc. v. Cardegna, 546 U.S. 440, 126 S.Ct. 1204, 163 L.Ed.2d 1038 (2006).
  6. Byung Youn Chang, Research cases of the United States concerning arbitration of intellectual property disputes, Journal of Arbitration Studies, Vol. 22, No. 3 (Dec. 2012).
  7. Byung Youn Chang, David L. Welch, Yong Kil Kim, Analysis, Recognition and Enforcement Procedures of Foreign Arbitral Awards in the United States, Journal of Arbitration Studies, Vol. 27, No. 3 (Sep. 2017).
  8. CompuCredit Corp. v. Greenwood, 565 U.S. 95, 132 S.Ct. 665, 181 L.Ed.2d 586, 80 USLW 4034 (2012).
  9. Dillon v. BMO Harris Bank, N.A., 856 F.3d 330 (4th Cir. 2017).
  10. DirecTV, Inc. v. Imburgia, 136 S.Ct. 463, 193 L.Ed.2d 365 (2015).
  11. First Options of Chicago, Inc. v. Kaplan, 112 S.Ct. 1920 (May 22, 1995).
  12. HDI Global SE v. Lexington Insurance Co., - F.Supp.3d -, 2017 WL 699818 (S.D.N.Y. 2017).
  13. Kindred Nursing Centers Ltd. Partnership v. Clark, - S.Ct. -, 2017 WL 2039160 (May 15, 2017).
  14. La Frontera Center Inc v. United Behavioral Health, Inc., - F.Supp.3d -, 2017 WL 2297036 (D.N.M. March 20, 2017).
  15. Lapina v. Men Women N.Y. Model Mgmt., 86 F.Supp.3d 277 (S.D.N.Y. 2015).
  16. Mediterranean Enterprises, Inc. v. Ssangyong Corporation, 708 F.2d 1458 (9th Cir. 1983).
  17. Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital v. Mercury Constr. Corp., 460 U.S. 1, 103 S.Ct. 927, 74 L.Ed.2d 765 (1983).
  18. Nadeau v. Equity Residential Properties Management Corp., - F.Supp.3d -, 2017 WL 1842686 (S.D.N.Y. May 5, 2017).
  19. National Labor Relations Board v. Alternative Entertainment, Inc., - F.3d -, 2017 WL 2297620 (6th Cir. May 26, 2017).
  20. Rent-A-Center, West, Inc. v. Jackson, 561 U.S. 63, 130 S.Ct. 2772, 177 L.Ed.2d 403 (2010).
  21. Scherk v. Alberto-Culver Co., 417 U.S. 506, 94 S.Ct. 2449, 41 L.Ed.2d 270 (1974).
  22. Sunkyong Engineering & Construction Co., Ltd., v. Born, Inc., 149 F.3d 1174, 1998 WL 413537 (5th Cir. June 16, 1998).
  23. The Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, United Nations (New York, 10 June 1958).
  24. The Federal Arbitration Act (9 U.S.C. §§ 1-16, §§ 201-208, §§ 301-307) (U.S.A., 1990).
  25. The Inter-American Convention on international commercial arbitration, concluded at Panama City on 30 January 1975 (United Nations - Treaty Series, Vol. 1438,1-24384, 1986).
  26. UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules (with new article 1, paragraph 4, as adopted in 2013), United Nations (New York, 2014).
  27. Volt Information Sciences, Inc. v. Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior Univ., 489 U.S. 468, 109 S.Ct. 1248, 103 L.Ed.2d 488, 57 USLW 4295, 51 Ed. Law Rep. 725 (1989).
  28. VRG Linhas Aereass S.A. v. Matlinpatterson Global Opportunities Partners II L.P., 717 F.3d 322 (2d Cir. June 3, 2013).
  29. Wilson v. 5 Choices, LLC, 2017 WL 1833106 (E.D. Mich. May 8, 2017).
  30. Yong Kil Kim, A study of resolution of the intellectual property dispute through mediation and arbitration, Journal of Arbitration Studies, Vol. 19, No. 1 (2009).
  31. Yong Kil Kim, A study of the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards in Korea, Journal of Arbitration Studies, Vol. 20, No. 3 (2010).
  32. Yong Kil Kim, A study on the scope of effect in arbitration agreements, Journal of Arbitration Studies, Vol. 23, No. 2 (2013).