Journal of Arbitration Studies (한국중재학회지:중재연구)

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

DOI QR Code

A Review of Arbitrator Disclosure Obligations in Korea through the Oilhub Case

  • Received : 2020.08.20
  • Accepted : 2020.08.31
  • Published : 2020.09.01
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

This article provides an overview of the state of affairs of arbitrator disclosure obligations in Korea. It shows how Korean courts will analyze arbitrator conflicts and obligations through an evaluation of Supreme Court judgments and a case-specific analysis of the recent Oilhub case and provides a comparative perspective through a review of recent Japanese case law. Although limited to domestic arbitrations, it assesses the various grounds that courts consider when determining impermissible arbitrator conflicts based on relations with parties and when an award might be set aside as a result. With the 2016 adoption of the KCAB Code of Ethics for Arbitrators and its rigorous standards, great clarity has been brought to the landscape. The Code of Ethics marks a significant milestone in enhancing the robustness of arbitrator disclosures and guaranteeing the fairness, integrity, and transparency of Korean arbitration practice and law.

Keywords

References

  1. Oilhub Korea Yeosu v Hyundai E&C and Byuksan Engineering, 2015 Na 25046, 2 September 2016 (Seoul High Court).
  2. Oilhub Korea Yeosu v Hyundai E&C and Byuksan Engineering, 2014 Gahap 20498, 19 August 2015 (Seoul District Court).
  3. Prem Warehouse LLC, et. al v Sanyo Electric Co., Ltd., et. al., Osaka High Court Decision, 11 March 2019, 2017 (Ra) No. 1552.
  4. Prem Warehouse LLC, et. al v Sanyo Electric Co., Ltd., et. al., Osaka District Court Decision, 17 March 2015, 2014 (arb) No. 3.
  5. Prem Warehouse LLC, et. al v Sanyo Electric Co., Ltd., et. al., Osaka High Court Decision, 28 June 2016, 2015 (arb) No. 547.
  6. Prem Warehouse LLC, et. al v Sanyo Electric Co., Ltd., et. al., Supreme Court Decision, third petty bench, 12 December 2017, 2016 (leave) No. 43; https://www.courts.go.jp/app/hanrei_en/detail.
  7. Prem Warehouse LLC, et. al v Sanyo Electric Co., Ltd., et. al., Osaka High Court, Decision, 11 March 2019, 2017 (Ra) No. 1552.
  8. Korean Commercial Arbitration Board, International Arbitration Rules (2016)
  9. Korean Commercial Arbitration Board, Domestic Arbitration Rules (2016)
  10. Korean Commercial Arbitration Board, Code of Ethics for Arbitrators (2016)
  11. Oilhub Korea Yeosu, 2016 Annual Report, p. 73, http://www.okyc.co.kr/bbs/board.php?bo_table=Disclosure&wr_id=39.
  12. Oilhub Korea Yeosu, 2017 Annual Report, p. 75, http://www.okyc.co.kr/bbs/board.php?bo_table=Disclosure&wr_id=43.
  13. Bae, Kim & Lee, Arbitration Law of Korea: Practice and Procedure, Juris, 2012.
  14. Born, Gary, International Commercial Arbitration, Kluwer, 2nd ed., 2014.
  15. Craig, W.L., Park, W.W. & Paulsson, J., International Chamber of Commerce Arbitration, Oxford University Press, 3rd ed., 2000.
  16. Daele, Karel, Challenge and Disqualification of Arbitrators in International Arbitration, Kluwer Law International, 2012.
  17. Jang, Bok Hee, "Constitution of the Arbitral Tribunal and Arbitrator", Vol. 297, 2000.
  18. Jeong, Sun-Ju, "Challenge of Arbitrators", Vol. 17 No. 1, Journal of Arbitration Studies, 2007.
  19. Jung, Kyung Seok, "Defects in the Arbitrator Selection Procedure as a Reason for the Annulment of Arbitral Award", Vol. 308 Human Rights and Justice, 2002.
  20. Kim, Joongi, International Arbitration in Korea, Oxford University Press, 2017.
  21. Kim, Kap-You (Kevin), Sue Hyun Lim, Hongjoong Kim, Junu Kim, Arbitration Law in Korea, Pakyoungsa, 2016.
  22. Kim, Kyung-Bae, "A Study on the Impartiality and Independence of Arbitrators", Vol. 18, No. 1, Journal of Arbitration Studies, 2008.
  23. Kim, Young-Joo, "An Arbitrator's Duty of Disclosure and Reasonable Investigation: A Case Comment on the Supreme Court of Japan's Decision on December 12, 2017, 2016 (Kyo) 43", Vol. 28. No. 2, Journal of Arbitration Studies, 2018.
  24. Lee, Myung-Woo, "A Study on the Challenge of an Arbitrator", Vol. 13. No. 2, Journal of Arbitration Studies, 2004.
  25. Lim, Sungwoo (Sean), International Arbitration, Pakyoungsa, 2016.
  26. Maeda, Yoko and Jeremy Bloomenthal, "Japanese Supreme Court's First Decision On Arbitrator's Non-disclosure", Kluwer Arbitration Blog, 5 February 2018.
  27. Mok, Young-Joon, "Authority, Responsibility and Exemption of an Arbitrator", Vol. 294, Arbitration, 1999.
  28. Oh, Chang Seog, "Challenge of Arbitrator and the Duty of Arbitrator's Disclosure", Vol. 19, No. 1, Commercial Cases Review, 2006.
  29. Ohara, Yoshimi, "Japan", Asia-Pacific Arbitration Review, 2021.
  30. Ree, Dong Shin, "Arbitrator's Disclosure Obligation to the Parties under Article 13(1) of the Arbitration Act and the Relation Between Request for Disqualification Under Article 14 and the Set Aside of Arbitral Awards", Vol. 55, Commentaries on Supreme Court Decisions, 2005.
  31. Shin, Gun-Jae, "A Comparative Study on the Selection and Discharge of Arbitrator(s) among Korea, China and America", Vol. 21, No. 1, Journal of Arbitration Studies, 2011.
  32. Shin, Han-Dong, "A Study on the Appointment and Challenge of Arbitrator - Laying Stress on the Precedent of Korean Supreme Court", Vol. 21, No. 3, Journal of International Trade and Commerce, 2011.
  33. Shin, Seung-Nam, "Arbitrator's Duty to Disclose in the Context of U.S. Law: Focusing on Case Law's Evident Partiality", Vol. 26. No. 2, Journal of Arbitration Studies, 2016.