• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제27권4호
• /
• pp.73-90
• /
• 2017

After the conclusion of the $18^{th}$ CPCNationalCongress, the Shanghai Free Trade Zone was established, and the One Belt One Road Initiative was brought up. These measures accelerate the development of international commercial activities as related disputes grow in variety and quantity. To better settle international commercial disputes and increase the influence of China in this area, this article reviews and analyzes the development of international commercial arbitration in China. In the conclusion part, it gives suggestions for international commercial arbitration in China in order to improve and accelerate the further development of international commercial arbitration in China.

• 한국보건행정학회:학술대회논문집
• /
• 한국보건행정학회 2004년도 전기학술대회
• /
• pp.89-104
• /
• 2004

최근 들어 국가질병관리체계 현대화가 세계 각국 정부의 중요한 과제가 되고 있다. 캐나다 연방정부는 감염병과 만성질환을 관리하고 생물테러 등 응급상황에 효과적으로 대처하기 위하여 새로운 질병관리조직인 Public Health Agency를 창설하기로 결정하였다. 연방정부는 앞으로 2년간 1,412억원을 투입하여 Agency를 설립하고 사업기반을 확충해 나갈 예정이다(Health Canada, 2004). 또 EU 집행위원회도 지난 3월 European Center for Disease Prevention and Control 설립계획을 최종 승인하고 ECDC가 발족하는 내년 한 해에만 71억원을 투입할 예정이다(Bosch, 2004). 이렇듯 새로운 질병관리조직들이 만들어지고 있는 직접적인 계기는, 중증급성호흡기증후군(이하 SARS) 사태로 대변되는 신종 및 재출현 전염병의 폭발적 발생(outbreak)이다. 전염병의 만연 사태가 일어나면서 각국 정부는 국민건강 보호의 중요성을 재확인하는 한편, 질병으로 인한 경제적 손실을 현실적 문제로 인식하게 되었다. 비전염성질환과 손상으로 인한 질병부담도 세계 각국의 골칫거리다. 서구 여러 나라에서는 비전염성질환과 손상의 질병부담이 이미 매우 큰 상태이며, 저개발 국가들은 전염병과 비전염성질환으로 인한 "이중의 질병부담(double burden of disease)"을 안고 있다고 한다. (중략)고 한다. (중략)

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제21권3호
• /
• pp.115-136
• /
• 2011

In the past, Chinese arbitral system and Chinese arbitral associations were avoided by international society due to the cases which Chinese court rejected the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards based on rural protection. Especially Chinese court adjudicated to reject the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards by interpreting public policy broadly. The abuse of public policy by court threats the existence of commercial arbitration system. Under this awareness, the author figured out Chinese court shows what kind of attitude about public policy of Chinese court in the present through analyzing the cases about rejection of enforcement in Chinese arbitral awards in order to analyze whether Chinese court still maintain the negative attitude like past or there exist changes with public policy which is one of the rejection reasons of recognition and enforcement in foreign arbitral awards as the central figure. Chinese court behaved in an uncooperative attitude about arbitral awards like that it reached a verdict to reject the enforcement of arbitral awards by reason of violation in public policy about several foreign arbitral awards at the beginning stage of establishing arbitration law. However, the situation of abuse in public policy was improved a lot by Chinese prime court which enforces pre-inspection system about judgment of rejection of enforcement in arbitral awards. So, there is no case about rejecting the approval and enforcement of arbitral awards by reason of violation in public policy by Chinese court except Yongning Co. case. Moreover, Chinese court got the trust and support from other countries through reinforcement of applied standard. However, Chinese court had been expressed concern from international society because they highly applied public policy and rejected to enforce arbitral awards in the recent case of Yongning Co.. Therefore, this study examined whether it is appropriate to apply public policy of Chinese court in the case of Yongning Co., and then I concluded that. Although Yongning Co. case is the first case which Chinese prime court agrees with public policy by reason of rejection of approval and enforcement in foreign arbitral awards, in my opinion, it doesn't mean that Chinese court has fundamental change in basic attitude and position about the approval and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards. Chinese court keeps the cautious uses of public policy in legal judgment of foreign arbitral awards and it looks like implementing the obligation in regulation of New York Convention sincerely.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제20권3호
• /
• pp.3-24
• /
• 2010

In the approaching 21th century, the outstanding development in international trade and commerce has established arbitration as the preferred form of dispute resolution on international business transaction. Because the form of commercial dispute becomes more complicated and varied with the quantitative increase of them, the reasonable and rapid settlement of them must be the important problem simultaneously. In this article, the author discusses various issues on the recognition and enforcement of an foreign arbitral awards under Korean Arbitration Act, which is modeled after the Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration of the UNCITRAL of 1985. The Dec. 31, 1999 amendment to the Korean Arbitration Act admits the basis for enforcement of foreign arbitral awards rendered under United Nations Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards of 1958(commonly known as the New York Convention). Korea has acceded to the New York Convention since 1973. When acceding to the convention, Korea declared that it will apply the Convention to the recognition and enforcement of awards made only in the territory of anther Contracting State on the basis of reciprocity. Also, Korea declared that it will apply the Convention only to differences arising out of legal relationships, whether contractual or not, which are considered as commercial under the national law of Korea. The provision relating to the enforcement of arbitral awards falling under the New York Convention consists of Article III, IV, V. In particular, Article V of the New York Convention enumerates the grounds for refusal of recognition foreign arbitral awards. The grounds are separated into two categories : One that abides by procedures and the others are based on national legal sovereignty. In Korea, a holder of a foreign arbitral award is obliged to request from the court a judgment ordering enforcement of awards. Because Korea requires enforcement to be based on a judgement, the result is that arbitral of award holders are forced to institute domestic litigation.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제30권2호
• /
• pp.121-144
• /
• 2020

If the interim disposition of the Arbitration Tribunal is not immediately enforceable, it will only give pressure to the other party concerned and the arbitration could work against him if the other party fails to implement it. If enforcement is impossible, the disposition will have no practical effect or practical benefit. In addition, if a system is contrary to its unique characteristics or nature, it will not function as a system or it will become an unnecessary decoration. There is no room for argument that the above provisions are wrong or misinterpreted if the temporary disposition in arbitration cannot be characterized by its characteristics, such as its provisionality, urgency, incidentality, or invasibility. As attracting international arbitration cases can create enormous added value for the national economy, countries are scrambling to create a mediating-friendly legal environment in their countries, and Korea has been more active in arbitration than in the past. Despite various efforts, however, attracting international arbitration cases is still a long way off. Therefore, Korea should create a mediating-friendly, legal environment to attract arbitration cases. There are many reasons why arbitration is activated internationally, but the most important of them is that it is easier to approve and execute. The use of the approval and execution of heavy court is, in turn, the most important requirement of a mediating-friendly environment. It is natural that temporary dispositions made in arbitration should be as easy to approve and enforce as in the case of arbitration. In addition, it is natural for the parties to consider the use of approval and execution when deciding where to mediate or when applying for arbitration; thus, the degree of ease of execution, along with the procedural use of arbitration or provisional disposition, will be a measure of the likelihood of hosting international arbitration cases, as well as the activation of arbitration.

• 한국화재소방학회논문지
• /
• 제16권3호
• /
• pp.39-47
• /
• 2002

정부는 지난 4년간 14,186건의 규제 중 8.121건(57.2%)을 폐지하고 6,065건(42.8%)을 개선하는 등 행정규제를 폐지ㆍ개선하는데 중점을 두고 규제개혁을 추진해 왔다. 이러한 규제개혁의 성과에도 불구하고 관료들의 행태 변화가 뒷받침되지 못하거나, 이해관계 집단의 반발로 인하여 규제개혁 체감도는 이에 미치지 못한다는 비판이 있다. 이에 앞으로는 규제개혁을 지속적으로 추진함은 물론 일반국민ㆍ기업ㆍ집행공무원이 규제의 내용을 명확히 이해하고 준수할 수 있도록 다각적인 규제순응 관리대책을 마련한다는 필요성에 의해 본 연구가 진행되었다. 본 연구에서는 “건축허가 동의 및 사용승인 동의”등의 현황을 파악하고, 규제자집단, 피규제집단, 전문가집단을 대상으로 행정 규제를 제대로 인식하고 있는지, 또한 인정하고 준수하는지 등을 종합적ㆍ체계적으로 분석하여 소방규제의 제고방안을 제시하여 소방행정의 정책수립에 참고자료로 활용하고자 한다.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제30권1호
• /
• pp.3-37
• /
• 2020

The Korean Arbitration Act (KAA) enacted in 1966 was entirely revised in 1999, adopting the 1985 UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration. Korea is trying to be an international arbitration hub in the region, taking advantage of its geographical location in Asia and its highly open economy. KAA was revised in 2016 again in order to reflect the criticisms against the previous KAA, changes in the arbitration environment, and the 2006 amendment to the UNCITRAL Model Law. The basic direction of the revision was to maintain the UNCITRAL Model Law system and to deal with the national arbitration and international arbitration in the same framework. The scope of revision covers all fields of arbitration, including arbitration agreements, arbitrators, arbitral proceedings, interim measures of the arbitral tribunals, recognition/enforcement of arbitral awards, and their annulment. This paper aims to introduce the important issues of the 2016 revision of KAA, to offer important information discussed in the process of revision, and thus to help those concerned in the interpretation and implementation of KAA. The 2016 revision of KAA is expected to help greatly in promoting not only the national arbitration, but also the international arbitration in Korea.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제23권2호
• /
• pp.141-164
• /
• 2013

The current Korean Arbitration Act (KAA) ${\S}37(2)$ requires that a formal copy of an arbitral award or a duly certified copy thereof and the original arbitration agreement or a duly certified copy thereof be produced for the recognition and enforcement of a arbitral award. But as the KAA provides that the recognition and enforcement of a foreign arbitral award to which the New York Convention applies shall be granted in accordance with the Convention, the duly authenticated original award should be produced instead of a formal copy in that case. The provision on the documents to produce for the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award is set to establish a reasonable and transparent standard and to facilitate the recognition and enforcement of awards by prohibiting parochial refusal of the recognition and enforcement on the grounds of formalities. Therefore it is necessary to simplify those documents according to the internationally acknowledged standard. It would be desirable to amend KAA ${\S}37(2)$ to require only "the original arbitral award or a copy thereof" without authentication or certification and a translation into Korean without any condition, adopting the 2006 amendment to the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제27권1호
• /
• pp.59-84
• /
• 2017

The effects of an arbitration agreement depend on the legislative policy of the nation where arbitral awards are made and where awards are worked out in the private procedures. According to the main body of Article 35 of the Korean Arbitration Act, arbitral awards have the same effects on the parties as the final and conclusive judgment of the court. This is only possible if the awards are formed by satisfying all the legal requirements, have gone into effect, and have become final and conclusive. It is for the legal stability and the effectiveness of the settlement of disputes that the Act grants arbitral awards. While investigating the effects of an arbitral award, the character of the arbitration in which the party's autonomy applies should be considered, along with the substance of the disputes which parties intend to resolve by an arbitration agreement. The proviso of Article 35, which was added in the 2016 Act, says that the main body of the Article shall not apply if recognition or enforcement of arbitral awards is refused under Article 38. Two stances have been proposed in interpreting the proviso. One of them is that there are grounds for refusing the recognition and enforcement of the awards. The other one is that the ruling of the dismissal of a request for enforcement has been final and conclusive. According to the former, it is really unexplained as to its relations with the action for setting aside arbitral awards to court and the distinction between nullity and revocation, and so on. Therefore, its meaning must be comprehended on the basis of the latter so that the current Act system with revocation litigation could be kept. The procedures of setting aside, recognizing, and enforcing arbitral awards are independent of one another under the Act. It is apprehended that the duplicate regulations may lead to the concurrence or contradiction of a court's judgment and ruling. Thus, we need to take proper measures against the negative sides by interfacing and conciliating these proceedings.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제15권2호
• /
• 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.