• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제7권1호
• /
• pp.117-154
• /
• 1997

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제31권4호
• /
• pp.119-136
• /
• 2021

Due to the restriction of movement caused by the Corona epidemic and the expansion of the "big face" through human distance, the "unmanned system" based on artificial intelligence and the Internet of Things has been widely used in modern life. "Self-driving," one of the transportation systems based on artificial technology, has taken the initiative in the transportation system as the spread of Corona has begun. Self-driving technology eliminates unnecessary contact and saves time and manpower, which can significantly impact current and future transportation. Accidents may occur, however, due to the performance of self-driving technology during transportation albeit the U.S. allows ordinary people to drive automatically through experimental operations, and the product liability law will resolve the dispute. Self-driving has become popular in the U.S. after the experimental stage, and in the event of a self-driving accident, product liability should be applied to protect drivers from complicated self-driving disputes. The purpose of this paper is to investigate whether disputes caused by defects in ordinary cars can be resolved through arbitration through U.S. precedents and to investigate whether disputes caused by defects in autonomous cars can be arbitrated.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제28권4호
• /
• pp.111-129
• /
• 2018

The foundation of arbitration is the arbitration agreement between parties. If no agreement to arbitrate exists, the parties should not send to arbitrate their disputes. In the United States, there are no provisions as to arbitrability under the Federal Arbitration Act. Before a court can enforce arbitration, it must first determine arbitrability. The general presumption is that the issue of arbitrability should be resolved by the courts. The question of whether parties have submitted a particular dispute to arbitration raises a question of arbitrability which is an issue for judicial determination unless the parties clearly and unmistakably have provided otherwise. Determining if the parties agreed to arbitrate a dispute involves inquiries into whether there is a valid agreement to arbitrate the claims, and the dispute falls within the scope of the arbitration agreement. Therefore, the purpose of this article is to review how to settle the issue of arbitrability in the U.S. federal courts.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제17권1호
• /
• pp.77-95
• /
• 2007

This article focuses on the history and evolution of the US court's attitude towards unilateral arbitration and dispute resolution clauses, but also considers the practical approach of national courts to theses clauses. It goes on to consider some potential pitfalls in the operation of unilateral clauses, which should be borne in mind when developing a strategy for bringing or defending a claim which falls within the scope of a unilateral clause. There can be few objections to the general validity of unilateral arbitration clauses. The principle of party autonomy is the driving force behind international arbitration and, provided it is tolerably clear that the parties intended the arbitration clause to operate unilaterally, courts should be reluctant to interfere with the parties' agreement. There are also no persuasive public policy reasons why such clauses should not be upheld in commercial agreements. In addition to the issue of whether such unilateral clauses are permissible under certain law, it is important to be aware of how they should properly operate in practice, that is, useful guidance on the subject of the proper operation and effect of such clauses where they are intended to be used to enable a party to decide whether, and in what circumstances, a claim should be referred to court or to arbitration.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제19권1호
• /
• pp.3-24
• /
• 2009

Arbitration is the system of resolving disputes not by the adjudication of a national court but by the award of an arbitrator or arbitrators. To settle disputes by arbitration, it should be concluded that the arbitration agreement which is implied that the parties agree to submit to the arbitral award about all or certain disputes which have arisen or which may arise between them in respect of defined legal relationships. It is a matter for debate that which types of dispute may be resolved by arbitration. This problem is concerning the arbitrability of the subject-matter of a dispute. National laws establish the domain of arbitration. Each state decides which matters may or may not be resolved by arbitration in accordance with its own political, social and economic policy. According to Korean Arbitration Act Art. 3 (1), any dispute in private laws would be the object of arbitral proceedings. Therefore, the parties may agree to arbitrate disputes relating to the rights that they freely dispose of. Besides, they may have the freedom to choose arbitration as the form of a dispute resolution. Because arbitration is a private proceeding with public consequences that some types of dispute are reserved for national courts, whose proceedings are generally in the public domain. It is this sense that they may not be the object of arbitration. After all, it could be the object of arbitral proceedings that disputes which are capable of a settlement by arbitration.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제18권2호
• /
• pp.129-148
• /
• 2008

국제거래에서 분쟁이 소송으로 발전될 경우 당해 사안에 적용될 준거법의 결정문제와 어느 나라의 법원에서 재판을 받을 것인가에 대한 국제재판관할권의 문제가 빈번히 대두되고 있다. 소송을 제기하는 당사자들로서는 자신에게 유리한 재판결과를 얻을 수 있는 법이 준거법으로 선택될 가능성이 있는 국가의 법원에 소송을 제기하는 소위 '포럼 쇼핑 (forum shopping)' 전략을 세우기도 한다. 이러한 포럼 쇼핑에 대응하기 위해 영미 판례법인 common law에서는 오래 전부터 forum non conveniens를 확립하였다. 본 논문에서는 forum non conveniens를 심리한 미국 대법원의 판단기준을 살펴보면 먼저, 적절한 대체관할지의 존재여부이며, 둘째 사적이익 부분에서 자국민이 현저하기 불리한 위치에 처하는지를 확인하고, 셋째 공적이익 부분에서 미국의 이익이 심각하게 침해되지는 않는지를 검토하여 판단하게 된다. 이러한 법리적 판단근거를 제시하고 이에 대한 적용사례를 분석하여 향후 무역거래를 포함한 일련의 국제계약에 있어 분쟁시 국내기업들이 미국법정에 재판받지 않고 국내법원으로 재판관할지를 선택할 수 있는 전략을 제시함으로써 패소가능성 등의 계약위험을 줄일 수 있을 것으로 판단된다.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제21권1호
• /
• pp.57-72
• /
• 2011

According to Japanese Patent Act, the Japanese Patent Office, administrative organization, was authorized to decide validation of patent. However, Supreme Court of Japan held that a court is able to decide the invalidation of patent in 11th April, 2000, which caused the reform of Japanese Patent Act in June 2004. Reformed Patent Act established the article 104-3 and makes it for a court to decide the patentability where there are grounds for a patent invalidation. Through this amendment to the Patent Act, the legislative system to decide the patent validation has been reorganized and furthermore alleged infringer is allowed to argue against the patent validation by making use of infringement litigation procedure through defenses against patent invalidation as well as invalidation trial procedure for to file a request for a trial for patent invalidation to the Japanese Patent Office. That is to say, the article 104-3 was established in the Japanese Patent Act in the wake of Kilby, and thus a court, which is judicial authority, not administrative disposition agency is also able to decide the patent validation. Thus this article discuss how a court, the authority of which only patent infringement cases fell under, has been authorized to arbitrate cases about the patent validation and the decision of the patent validation in a court.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제19권3호
• /
• pp.161-178
• /
• 2009

This article focuses on the enforceability of arbitration agreements m the dispute of standby letter of credit, especially with the case analysis of the leading case from the U.S. Bankruptcy Court. In Nova Hut a.s. v. Kaiser Group International Inc. case, while the underlying contract contained an arbitration clause, a guarantee to assure contractor's performance did not contain an arbitration clause. Nova Hut drew on the standby for the Contractor's failure to deliver contractual obligations. Against the Kaiser's action under US Bankruptcy law, Nova Hut moved to stay the proceedings pending arbitration, to compel arbitration, and to dismiss the complaint. The US Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware denied Nova Hut's motions. On appeal, Kaiser argued that it was not subject to arbitration since it was not a party to the contract. It also argued that Nova Hut had waived its right to arbitration by filing a proof of claim in the bankruptcy proceeding and commencing legal actions in other countries. The appeals court noted that in order to avoid arbitration on those grounds prejudice must be shown. It indicated that because there was no long delay in requesting arbitration and no discovery conducted m the course of litigation, the Kaiser could not demonstrate actual prejudice on the part of Owner. In light of public policy favoring arbitration, the nature of the claims in the parties' agreements, Kaiser's conduct in embracing the agreements, and their expectation of benefit, the appeals court ruled that the doctrine of equitable estoppel applied in requiring the Parent to arbitrate.

• 벤처다이제스트
• /
• 통권92호
• /
• pp.62-63
• /
• 2006

벤처기업들의 활동영역의 국내외로 급격히 확대되면서, 각종 계약상 분쟁에 휘말릴 가능성이 높아지고 있고, 이로 인해 적극적인 기업활동에 제약을 받는 등 그 폐해가 커지고 있다. 이러한 분쟁이 발생한 경우, 일반적으로는 법원에 소송을 제기하여 해결하게 되는데 이 경우 장기간 시일과 비용이 소요되어 여러 어려운 문제들이 많이 발생한다. 이럴 경우 소송 대신 중재제도를 활용하면 쉽고 편리하게 분쟁을 해결할 수 있다.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제19권1호
• /
• pp.67-98
• /
• 2009

Recently there are many cases on the intellectual property dispute. Among them some cases are solved through mediation and arbitration. Mediation and arbitration hold some advantage over court proceeding for intellectual property dispute. However the traditional litigation system has material limitation to settle down international intellectual property dispute. Without arbitration, litigation in court would be the only choice in case of no consensual settlement between the disputing parties. However, once being aware of the usefulness of the arbitration, people in international business widely realize that arbitration is generally preferred to litigation. Mediation is a method of settling dispute outside of court setting and many mediation committee are established since 1986 in Korea. Arbitrability has been a crucial issue in the intellectual property dispute. In most developed countries including the U.S.A. and Switzerland, arbitrability in the intellectual property dispute has been changed in recent years by law. Now in resolving the dispute with international intellectual property is needed for legal research, experience, working practices and knowledge of the intellectual property industry and so on.