• Korea Trade Review
• /
• v.48 no.3
• /
• pp.131-150
• /
• 2023

The purpose of this study was to find a countermeasure to the U.S. import refusals for the Korean healthcare and life sciences industry. To this end, an analysis of trends during the pandemic was conducted using the KITA Border Rejection Database, which includes information on items and types of import refusals. The reason for rejection was also analyzed according to the FDA violation codes. The degree of countermeasure for import refusals was identified by measuring the unit rejection rate (URR). The results of the analysis showed that the major U.S. import refusals for the Korean healthcare and life sciences industry had expanded from contact lenses to COVID-19 diagnostic kits and drugs after the pandemic broke out. The major reasons for import refusals were non-compliance with the Predicate Device and Drugs Act and non-approval by the FDA for products and facilities. On the other hand, the unit rejection rate (URR) of major items in the Korean healthcare and life sciences industry was measured higher than the industry average. The results therefore showed a low level of response to U.S. import refusals. The results of the analysis of reasons for import refusals by item according to FDA violation codes were as follows. First of all, the main violation for contact lenses and COVID-19 diagnostic kits corresponded to misbranding. This was often due to the fact that Korean companies did not provide the relevant notices and information required by the FDA. Many cases also failed to demonstrate a substantial equivalency compared to predicate devices already on the market. On the other hand, applications for new unapproved drugs were not accepted as they had yet to pass relevant regulations that would prove their safety and efficacy. In conclusion, import refusals for the Korean healthcare and life sciences industry were found to be closely related to technical barriers to trade (TBT).

• International Commerce and Information Review
• /
• v.8 no.1
• /
• pp.357-369
• /
• 2006

All over the country tries to clarify the content of 'Public Policy' in recognition and implementation of Foreign Arbitral Awards : it makes comments of the international consensus of Geneva Convention(1927), New York Convention(1958) and the UNCITRAL Model Law on Public Policy, and it takes a general view of domestic laws how they deal with Public policy and Foreign Arbitral Awards. Foreign Arbitral Awards should be appropriately respected and implementation by the courts of countries encourage parties in a legal procedure to refuse enforcement by invoking "Public Policy." In order to cope with such invocations, the purport of the above recommendation on Foreign Arbitral Awards should be internationally recognized and the exceptional circumstances should be restricted unless the International Court of Arbitral Awards is not established a Dr. Holtzmann/Schwebel brought forward. In this paper suggests the list of the exceptional circumstances. Korean Arbitration Law stipulates as the Civil proceeding Law did, "good morals and the social order of the Republic of Korea" as a ground for refusing enforcement of Arbitral Awards. Studies on counteraction against invocations of Public Policy to refuse enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards should be developed.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.25 no.2
• /
• pp.19-47
• /
• 2015

International arbitration is an increasingly popular means of alternative dispute resolution for cross-border commercial transactions. The primary advantage of international arbitration over court litigation is enforceability. An international arbitration award is enforceable in most countries in the world. Especially, statistics indicate of ASEAN such as Malaysia and Singapore that the vast majority of defeated companies comply with the terms of international arbitral awards against them or settle soon after the award is rendered. Unlike Malaysia and Singapore, in Indonesia, there are several grounds for refusal of enforcement of an award including where both the nature of the dispute and the agreement to arbitrate do not meet the requirements set out in the Arbitration Law. Because Indonesia does not acknowledge decisions of foreign courts, theoretically they could enforce an international arbitral award which was set aside by the court in the seat of arbitration. This paper introduces the legal system and cases of recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitration awards in ASEAN, especially Malaysia, Singapore, and Indonesia. Secondly, by comparing their law and cases, the paper emphasized the international suitability and global fitness in involved in recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitration awards.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.28 no.4
• /
• pp.131-152
• /
• 2018

On October 31, 2013, the Singapore Court of Appeals handed down a landmark decision in the case of PT First Media TBK v Astro Nusantara International and Others [2013] SGCA 57. The case arose out of an arbitration in Singapore involving the Malaysian conglomerate Astro and the Indonesian conglomerate Lippo, which culminated in a USD 250 million award in favor of Astro. The final award was given to three Astro subsidiaries who were not parties to the arbitration agreement, but who were joined in the arbitration pursuant to an application by Astro. Lippo then applied to the Singapore High Court to set aside the enforcement orders. The Court of Appeals, however, reversed the High Court's decision, and found that Astro was only entitled to enforce the awards. Also, the Court of Appeals undertook a detailed analysis of the use of active and passive remedies to defeat an arbitral award at the seat and the place of enforcement, respectively. It also touches on the innovation of forced joinders of third parties in arbitrations, which have garnered significant interest in the arbitration community. This decision is therefore expected to have a significant impact on the practice of international arbitration, including in relation to how awards can be enforced or defeated, as the case may be.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.15 no.2
• /
• pp.225-261
• /
• 2005

Under Article IV of the United Nations Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (New York Convention), in order to obtain the recognition and enforcement of a foreign arbitral award, a party applying for recognition and enforcement of a foreign arbitral award shall supply (a) the duly authenticated original award or a duly certified copy thereof and (b) the original arbitration agreement or a duly certified copy thereof. In addition, if the arbitral award or arbitration agreement is not made in an official language of the country in which the award is relied upon, the party applying for recognition and enforcement of the award shall produce a translation of these documents into such language, and the translation shall be certified by an official or sworn translator or by a diplomatic or consular agent. In a case where a Vietnamese company which had obtained a favorable arbitral award in Vietnam applied for recognition and enforcement of a Vietnamese arbitral award before a Korean court, the recent Korean Supreme Court Judgment (Docket No. 2004 Da 20180. 'Judgment') rendered on December 12, 2004 has alleviated the document requirements as follows : The Judgment held that (i) the party applying for recognition andenforcement of a foreign arbitral award does not have to strictly comply with the document requirements when the other party does not dispute the existence and the content of the arbitral award and the arbitration agreement and that (ii) in case the translation submitted to the court does not satisfy the requirement of Article 4, the court does not have to dismiss the case on the ground that the party applying for recognition and enforcement of a foreign arbitral award has failed to comply with the translation requirement under Article 4, and instead may supplement the documents by obtaining an accurate Korean translation from an expert translator at the expense of the party applying for recognition and enforcement of the foreign arbitral award. In this regard, the author fully supports the view of the Judgment. Finally, the Judgment held that, even though the existence of a written arbitration agreement was not disputed at the arbitration, there was no written arbitration agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant and wenton to repeal the judgment of the second instance which admitted the existence of a written arbitration agreement between the parties. In this regard, the author does not share the view of the Judgment. The author believes that considering the trend of alleviating the formality requirement of arbitration agreements under Article 2 of the New York Convention, the Supreme Court could have concluded that there was a written arbitration agreement because the defendant participated in thearbitration proceedings in Vietnam without disputing the formality requirement of the arbitration agreement. Or the Supreme Court should have taken the view that the defendant was no longer permitted to dispute the formality requirement of the arbitration agreement because otherwise it would be clearly against the doctrine of estoppel.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.18 no.1
• /
• pp.185-207
• /
• 2008

한국 기업과 프랑스 기업 간에 한국기업이 프랑스기업으로부터 의약품의 임상자료 등에 관한 비밀정보 (Confidential information)를 받아서 한국식품의약품안전청에 의약품 제조허 가를 받기 위해 활용하는 과정에서 체결한 비밀유지 계약 (Secrecy Agreement)의 위반행위 여부의 분쟁이 발생하였다. 이 분쟁은 비밀유지계약 내의 중재조항에 의거하여 프랑스기업에 의해 프랑스 파리 소재 국제중재 판정부 (ICC Court Arbitral Tribunal) 에 회부되었고 한국기업이 응소하여 중재판정부에서 분쟁 사실들에 관한 양 당사자 회사들의 전문가들의 증언, 준비 서면들을 검토하여 비밀유지계약 각각의 조문의 해석을 통해 중재판정이 내려졌다. 이 중재판정은 ‘외국중재판정의 승인 및 집행에 관한 뉴욕협약’에 의거하여 중재판정 집행지국인 우리나라의 법원에서 집행판결을 거치게 되었다. 이때 한국법원에서는 뉴욕협약상의 집행거부 사유들에 관한 판단을 한 후 프랑스기업의 일부 승소의 집행판결을 내렸다. 본 사례연구의 시사점을 보면, 중재조항에 의거한 ICC 중재판정부의 심사절차는 각 나라 고유의 판례나 규정보다는, 중재인들의 건전한 상식에 근거하여 중재판정이 내려졌다는 것이다. 우리나라 법원 역시 중재인의 건전한 상식에 근거를 둔 중재판정의 세부적 내용에 대하여 중재권한, 국제적 공공질서 상의 심각한 문제점이 존재하지 않은 점을 고려하여 일부분을 제외하고는 외국중재판정을 그대로 집행함을 인용하는 판결을 내렸다는 점이다. 따라서, 한국기업들이 국제분쟁에 대비하기 위해서는 중재판정이 내려진 후 집행단계에서 중재판정 내용을 바꾸려는 노력을 하기보다는, 중재 절차 진행단계에서 한국 기업에게 객관적으로 입증할 수 있는 유리한 증거들을 중점적으로 적극 활용하여 중재인들의 건전한 상식에 바탕을 둔 중재판정을 유리한 방향으로 내리도록 유도하는 것이 더욱 바람직한 것이다.