• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제27권1호
• /
• pp.85-106
• /
• 2017

This article deals with the relationship between arbitration and state court in each procedural stage. As most legal systems over the world respect arbitration agreement, the relationship between arbitration and state courts puts emphasis on party autonomy and provides the independent power of arbitration agreement tribunal (Kompetenz-Kompetenz). Most institutional arbitration rules the arbitral tribunal to rule on its own jurisdiction. Modern national laws have similar provisions based on Art. 16 UNCITRAL Model Law. In this regards the author throws a question in Chapter II, whether the doctrine of Kompetenz-Kompetenz, namely the ability of the tribunal to decide upon its own jurisdiction is worth while persisting, and whether the Kompetenz-Kompetenz-agreement should be regarded as valid, with the conclusion, that this doctrine should concede to the power of state court and that Kompetenz-Kompetenz-Klausel is invalid. In Chapter III the author discusses the issue of whether the breach of an arbitration agreement could lead to the compensation of damage. Although the author stands for the procedural character of arbitration agreement, he offers a proposal that the breach of an arbitration agreement bring about the compensation of damage. The issue of anti-suit injunction is discussed also in this Chapter. He is against the approval of anti-suit injunction based on an arbitration agreement resisting the other party from pursuing a lawsuit in a foreign country.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제18권3호
• /
• pp.23-50
• /
• 2008

In a global economy where, private parties increasingly favour arbitration over litigation, many foreigners are unfortunately reluctant to arbitration with China's parties because the China national courts do not scrutinize the merits when deciding whether to recognize and enforce foreign awards. As a result, the finality of arbitral awards hangs in uncertainty. Overseas concern is that China's courts may abuse "Public Policy" grounds provided for in the New York Convention to set aside or refuse to enforce foreign awards. The purpose of this article is to examine the distrust to enforcement of arbitral awards whether that is just an assumption. In spite of the modernize and internationalize her international arbitration system and many reforms provided in the related law and rules, the most vexing leftover issues are caused of the lack of "rule of law" in China. This situation imply the risk of pervert 'Public Policy' as the ground for refusing enforcement of arbitral awards. Some cases reflect the fear. But it is unclear whether those cases caused from the lack of "rule of law" in China. Same uncertainty present between Hon Kong-China under th one country-two legal system after the return of Hong Kong to China on 1 July 1997. While China is striving to improve its enforcement mechanism in regard to the enforcement of arbitral awards, it can only be expect following the establishment of rule of law in the future.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제18권1호
• /
• pp.97-119
• /
• 2008

The reluctance of Latin American countries to practice international arbitration is not a new topic in international law. This reluctance historically based on Calvo Doctrine provoked not only the absence of Latin American countries from the major international commercial arbitration conventions, but obsolete national arbitration legislation. Recently, however, these countries have undertaken major steps showing that the region is no longer reluctant to practice international commercial arbitration. Most Latin American countries have ratified the 1958 Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards ("New York Convention"), the 1965 Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes ("Washington Convention") and the 1975 Inter-American Convention on International Commercial Arbitration ("Panama Convention"). The majority of Latin American countries have also modified and adapted their national legislation on arbitration to the UNCITRAL model law. Even judiciary has been following this pro-arbitration. This article will focus on some of these factors provoking the acceptance of international commercial arbitration in Latin America to trace the common trends and characteristics in an attempt to understand better how international arbitration set on its place firmly. For this purpose we selected five countries, Brazil, Argentina, Chile, Mexico and Venezuela, to analyse legislations and jurisprudence. Latin America is ready to challenge any obstacles to promote arbitration as alternative methods of judicial resolution. There is an ever-increasing number of international arbitration in Latin America. Both practitioners and judiciary have shown desires to promote the resolution of disputes by arbitration and used the legal instruments to ensure that process interpreting and applying legislations for pro-arbitration. Even there remains Calvo Doctrine's culture in Latin America still now, it should be certain this culture will disappear from the conduct of international arbitration.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제29권2호
• /
• pp.161-199
• /
• 2019

As international trades between Korea and China increase, the number of civil disputes also increases. The civil dispute settlement system and the court system in China are distinctive from those of Korea. China has its own court systems which are characterized by the Chinese Communist System. Due to the influence of the decentralized local autonomy tradition, the case laws of each Province in China are not unified throughout the China. This is partly because only two instances are provided in China, and the parties cannot appeal to the Supreme People's Court of China unless there is a special reason. In Korea, three instances are provided and parties can appeal to the Supreme Court if a party so chooses. In addition, there are many differences in the judicial environment of China compared to Korea. Therefore, if there is a dispute between a Korean party and a Chinese party, arbitration is recommended rather than court litigation. This article examines the points to be considered for interim measures in China during arbitration. Where the seat of arbitration is Korea, interim measures cannot be taken by the order of the Chinese court in the middle of or before arbitration procedures. On the other hand, it is possible to take interim measures through the Chinese court in the middle of or before the arbitration procedure in China or Hong Kong. It also reviews the points to be noted in case of the enforcement of arbitration awards in China where permission from the upper Court is required to revoke or to deny the recognition or enforcement of a foreign-related or foreign arbitration award.

• 법제연구
• /
• 제44호
• /
• pp.435-464
• /
• 2013

의료민사소송은 그동안 의료행위가 지니고 있는 전문성, 밀실성, 폐쇄성 등의 여러 가지의 특수성으로 인하여 소송이 장기화되고 경제적 비용이 상당하게 소모되었다. 또한 법원의 판결이 이루어지더라도 당사자들이 이를 신뢰하지 못하는 등의 이유로 신속성과 공정성에 문제점이 지적되었다. 이 때문에 소송 대체적 분쟁해결제도로서 의료사고 피해구제 및 의료분쟁 조정 등에 관한 법률상의 의료분쟁조정 및 중재 절차가 탄생하게 되었다. 그러나 의료분쟁조정법 제27조 제8항에서 피신청인이 14일 동안 의사를 표명하지 않는 경우 거부의사로 간주되고, 이 경우 한국의료분쟁조정중재원장이 각하결정을 하여야 한다고 규율함으로써, 조정의 개시 조차 순탄치 않은 것이 현실이다. 본고에서는 우리나라 의료분쟁의 최근 현황을 확인해 본 후, 의료분쟁조정법상 조정의 신청에 관한 조문인 제27조에 대한 입법안을 비교 점검한 후 다른 ADR 관련 법률이나 민사소송법상의 조문과 비교하여 불합리한 점이 있는지를 검토하고, 동조의 개선방안을 제시하고자 한다. 또한 2013. 4. 8.부터 시행이 되고 있는 불가항력적 산과 사고에 대한 무과실보상제도와 관련하여 동조가 미치는 영향 등에 대해서도 논의하고자 한다.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제30권2호
• /
• pp.69-90
• /
• 2020

The arbitration system has many advantages, including resilience, speed, ease of approval, and enforcement of foreign arbitration in international disputes, and it plays an important role in today's international business. As the world's economic activities increase, China's trade disputes are intensifying. In 2017, China emphasized the international cooperation and commercial expansion of foreign investment at "One Belt, One Road." Therefore, it is expected that international business will become more active, with the issue of how to recognize and enforce the foreign arbitration awards in China becoming highly important. In addition, South Korea and China maintained deep trade relations after establishing diplomatic relations in 1992 and concluding the Korea-China Free Trade Agreement, which will inevitably increase trade disputes. As far as South Korea is concerned, China is South Korea's largest trading partner, so it is important for South Korea to analyze how foreign arbitration awards are recognized and enforced in China. China's accession to the New York Convention in 1987 was the beginning of the enforcement of foreign arbitrators. However, since China has begun to recognize and enforce foreign arbitrators relatively late, there are many problems in terms of recognizing and enforcing foreign arbitral awards in China. This study introduces the concept and scope of foreign arbitral awards, as well as the legal basis and procedures for recognizing and enforcing foreign arbitral awards, and examines relevant cases and the denial of recognition and enforcement of a foreign arbitration award. In the end, some issues and remedies for the recognition and enforcement of the foreign arbitral awards system in China were concluded.

• 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
• /
• 제31권1호
• /
• pp.83-105
• /
• 2021

If aggrieving consumers or employees cannot prove both substantive and procedural unconscionability, many U.S. state courts will enforce arbitration agreements. Additionally, U.S. courts weigh a variety of factors to determine whether an arbitration agreement is substantively unconscionable. For example, U.S. courts have considered one or a combination of the following factors: (1) the fairness of contractual terms; (2) the severity of contractual terms' deviation from prevailing standards, customs, or practices within a particular industry; (3) the reasonableness of goods-and-services contract prices; (4) the commercial reasonableness of the contract terms; (5) the purpose and effect of the terms and (6) "the allocation of risks between the parties." Further, procedural unconscionability characterized by surprise or lack of knowledge focuses on terms that are deceptively hidden in a mass of contract language, the object of another concealment, or imposed in the circumstances involving haste or high-pressure tactics so that they are not likely to be read or understood. This unconscionability doctrine can be applied to a situation where an alcoholic dementia-afflicted older adult is admitted to a nursing home. At that time, because she had alcoholic dementia, which precluded her reading, comprehending, writing, negotiating, or signing of any legal document, her son, who did not understand the adhesion contract, signed the standardized residential contract and the arbitration agreement.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제30권1호
• /
• pp.39-66
• /
• 2020

Under the doctrine of separability, if the party did not specifically challenge the validity of the arbitration clause, then it is presumed valid, and arbitrators would still have authority to adjudicate disputes within the scope of the arbitration clause. Further, the Primerica and Spahr decisions address whether a court or an arbitrator should adjudicate a claim that a contract containing an arbitration clause is void ab initio due to mental incapacity. If the arbitration agreement is separable, as was found in Primerica, then the "making" of the agreement is not at issue when the challenge is directed at the entire contract and arbitrators may exercise authority. If an arbitration provision is not separable from the underlying contract, as in Spahr, a defense of mental incapacity necessarily goes against both the entire contract and the arbitration agreement, so the "making" of the agreement to arbitrate is at issue, and the claim is for courts to decide. Although no bright line rule can be established to deal with challenges of lack of mental capacity to an arbitration agreement, the rule in Prima Paint should not be extended to this defense. Extending the rule in Prima Paint would force an individual with a mental incapacity to elect between challenging the entire contract and challenging arbitration. Accordingly, there should be a special set of rules outside of the context of Prima Paint to address the situation of status-based defenses, specifically mental capacity defenses, to contracts containing arbitration provisions.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제15권3호
• /
• pp.55-84
• /
• 2005

The arbitral award is the decision of the arbitrators on the dispute that had been submitted to them by the parties, either under the arbitration clause providing for the determination of future disputes or under submission of an existing controversy. The arbitral award has the same effect between the parties as a final and binding court judgment. The arbitration award shall acquire, as soon as it is given and delivered to each parties, the authority of res judicata in respect of the dispute it settles. The validity of an award is a condition precent for its recognition or enforcement. The validity of an award depends on the provisions of the arbitration agreement including any arbitration rules incorporated in it, and the law which is applicable to the arbitration proceedings. Such provisions usually address both the form and the content of the award. As the 'form', requires article 32 of Arbitration Act of Korea that an arbitral award should, at least, (1) be made in writing and be signed by all arbitrators. (2) state the reasons upon which it is based unless the parties have agreed that it should not, (3) state its date and place of arbitration. There are some further requirement which may have to be observed before an award which has been made by a tribunal can be enforced. (4) The duly authenticated award signed by the arbitrators shall be delivered to each of the parties and the original award shall be sent to and deposited with the competent court, accompanied by a document verifying such delivery. This rule can be interpreted as if the deposit of an arbitral award with the competent court is always required as a condition for its validity or as a preliminary to its enforcement in Korea. However, we must regard this rule which requires the deposit of an arbitral award with court, as rule of order, but not as condition of its validity. Because that the date on which the award is delivered to each party is important as it will generally determine the commencement of time limits for the making of any appeal which may be available. Furthermore, the party applying for recognition or enforcement merely has to supply the appropriate court with the duly authenticated original award or a duly certified copy thereof, not any document which proves that an the arbitral award is sent to and deposited with the competent court. In order to avoid some confusion which can be caused by its interpretation and application, the Article 32 (4) of Arbitration Act of Korea needs to be abolished or at least modified.