• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.22 no.3
• /
• pp.93-118
• /
• 2012

본 연구는 지적재산분쟁의 중재에 대한 미국 케이스에 관한 연구입니다. 본 연구의 목적은 한국의 지적재산분쟁의 중재에 대한 추후 연구와 가까운 장래에 비교연구를 위해서 지적재산에 관련된 케이스들에 관하여 미국의 연구들을 논하는데 있습니다. 본 연구에서 지적재산 관련 사건들의 중재에 관한 미국케이스들을 채택하였습니다. 그리고 본 연구의 목적 달성과 효과적인 연구를 성취하기 위해 그 케이스들을 인용하였습니다. 그러므로, 본 연구의 구성은 특히, 라이센싱분쟁의 중재, 특허분쟁의 중재, 저작권분쟁의 중재를 위하여 지적재산분야와 중재 분야에 있는 케이스로 이루어져 있습니다. 중재조항은 분쟁에 관해 누가 결정할 것인가 그리고 분쟁이 중재 가능한가 아닌가에 관하여 법원에서 중재적격 문제들을 분석할때에 계약 원칙을 적용하게 됩니다. 일반적으로, 중재적격의 의문은 사법적 분야의 질문에 관한 것 입니다. 그러나, 중재조항이 분명하고, 명백하고, 오해없는 문구들인 곳에서 법원은 연방 중재법이 중재조항과 중재범위를 포함하고 있기 때문에 중재를 존중합니다. 그러므로, 저런 경우에 중재인은 중재적격을 판단 할 수 있습니다. 그러나, 미국에서 법원은 어떤 케이스들은 ICC 룰로 구속되어지고 그리고 다른 케이스들은 AAA 룰로 구속 되어지는 것을 발견했습니다. 어떤 룰이던지 간에 중재조항은 주의깊게 만들어야만 하고 그리고 분명하고 명백한 구문을 제공하여야만 한다는 것을 법원에 의해 요구되어지고 있습니다. 본 연구에서 발견한 점들은, 라이센싱분쟁의 중재에 있어서, 중재합의의 범위가 광범위 또는 제한적일지라도 양 당사자의 중재조항을 위해 계약에서 분명하고 명확한 문구를 만드는 것이 중요합니다. 이것은 우리에게 계약의 원칙이 분쟁에서 적용 되어지고 있다는 것을 보여 주고 있습니다. 그래서, 중재조항의 조문은 법원이나 중재인에게 논쟁 또는 오역이 없게 확실하고 분명하게 명시하여야 합니다. 특허분쟁의 중재에 있어서, 대부분 법원들은 케이스들을 분석할때에 광범위한 중재조항에 따라오고 있습니다. 중재적격 결정의 테스트로서 계약에서 "arising under" or "relating to" 구절은 ADR을 위해 그리고 분쟁의 예방을 위해 중재가 광범위한 문구를 포함하고 있는가 아닌가를 보는데 중요합니다. 더구나, 특허 또는 특허관련 권리들 하에서, 중재는 연방중재법에 의해 지배되기 때문에 계약은 특허 유효성 또는 침해 문제들이 중재를 통한 분쟁을 해결하도록 하나의 문구를 포함해도 됩니다. 그러므로, 이 분석은 미국의 케이스들을 비교한 결과로서, 한국중재법도 또한 모든 필요한 조문들이 그것들이 광범위하건 제한된 범위이건 간에 모호한 이슈들을 피하기 위해 분명하고 오해없는 문구들이여야 한다는 것을 제시합니다. 지적재산분쟁의 중재에 있어서, 케이스에 근거하여 발견한 점들은 저작권법을 포함한 광범위한 중재조항이 있는 경우 저작권의 유효성은 법원이 독점할 수 없다고 법원은 판단했습니다. 그리고 연방중재법은 법원이 청구취지가 중재가능한 클레임들에(arbitrable claims) 관하여 중재를 강요하도록 지원하고 있습니다. 이것은 저작권 케이스일지라도 계약에 있어서 중재조항이 법원이 중재를 강요하도록 중재가능한가 아닌가 결정하는데 분쟁에 있어 중요한 역학을 한다는 것을 제시합니다. 그러므로, 본 연구는 계약에서 광범위한 중재조항은 중재인이 지적재산 클레임에 대해 판정 또는 룰을 결정하게 허용한다는 것을 발견했습니다. 본 연구의 결과들은 계약에 있어 중재의 범위는 계약의 원칙을 적용한다는 것입니다. 그리고 중재조항에 있어서 침해와 유효성 문제들의 결정은 계약 해석에 관련되어 있다는 것을 제시합니다. 그러므로, 양 당사자가 분명하고 명확하게 달리 결정하지 않았다면, 양 당사자가 중재에 대해 동의했는가 아닌가의 의문점은 법원에 의해 결정되어지는 것입니다. 이것은 분명하고 명확한 문구가 중재조항에 존재하지 않는다면 중재인에 의해 결정되지 않는다는 것을 뜻합니다. 중재조항은 명백하게 중재인에게 결정의 권한을 주어야만 한다는 것입니다.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.19 no.1
• /
• 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.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.16 no.3
• /
• pp.3-22
• /
• 2006

이 논문은 지난 10월 26일 및 27일 양일간에 걸쳐 서울의 Grand Intercontinental Hotel에서 개최된 국제중재학술대회 ICC/KCAB/KOCIA Conference에서 발표된 것으로 외국 변호사들의 이해를 돕기 위해 우리나라 중재법의 주요 내용을 설명하되, 특히 뉴욕협약과 국제상사중재에 관한 유엔모범법과 차이가 있는 부분을 주로 설명하였다. 이 논문은 우리나라 중재법이 규율하는 분야 중에서 그 적용범위, 중재적격, 통지의 서면성, 중재합의의 형식, 중간구제조치의 집행, 중재의 준거법 및 중재인의 선정 등에 관하여 설명하였다. 또한 이 논문은 우리나라가 일본, 중국 및 우리나라를 포함하는 동북아무역과 관련한 분쟁에서 중재의 중심지가 되어야 할 것을 역설하고, 이를 위해서 우리나라 유일의 중재기관인 대한상사중재원이 중재인 및 사무국 분야에서 개선이 필요함을 주장하였다.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.21 no.1
• /
• pp.3-31
• /
• 2011

In response to complexity and diversity of a social phenomenon, the dispute also is various, therefore can not be settled efficiently by means of court adjudication to which applies a law strictly. To overcome such problems we are going to seek to make use of arbitration. According to Korean Arbitration Act Art. 3 (1), any dispute in private laws would be the object of arbitral proceedings. It could be the object of arbitral proceedings that disputes which are capable of a settlement by arbitration. It is a matter for debate that disputes containing punitive damages may be resolved by arbitration. This problem is concerning the arbitrability of the subject-matter of a dispute. To offer some solution to these issues, it is necessary to inquire into the nature of punitive damages. the policy and function of alimony, the fair apportionment of a loss. Moreover, international relations formed with international transactions should be considered. Punitive damages would be the object of arbitral proceedings as the dipute in private laws. When punitive damages pursue only punishment in the domestic arbitration that there is not foreign factors, arbitral tribunal could not make arbitral award containing punitive damages. However, if punitive damages are admitted under the rules applicable to substance of dispute, and there is the arbitration agreement in which is implied that the parties agree to submit to an arbitral award, arbitral tribunal could make arbitral award containing punitive damages in international arbitration. When it is questionable whether it is offend against our public policy or not, that we accept the effect of arbitral award containing punitive damages, and we admit the enforcement of it, we have to take the nature of punitive damages, the policy and function of alimony, the fair apportionment of a loss and the stability of international transactions into consideration.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.20 no.1
• /
• pp.41-65
• /
• 2010

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. In response to complexity and diversity of a social phenomenon, the dispute also is various, therefore can not be settled efficiently by means of court adjudication to which applies a law strictly. To overcome such problems we are going to seek to make use of arbitration. According to Korean Arbitration Act Art. 3 (1), any dispute in private laws would be the object of arbitral proceedings. For the promotion of fair and free competition, it is increasingly wide-ranging antitrust legislation across the world. It is matter for debate what can an arbitral tribunal do when confronted with an allegation that the contract under which the arbitration is brought is itself an illegal restraint of trade or in some other way a breach of antitrust law. The underlying question is how to accommodate the conflicting congressional policies favoring resolution of private controversies by arbitration and encouraging private suits to protect the public interests served by the antitrust laws. It is necessary to inquire into the arbitrability of antitrust issues on case-by-case basis, because the types of them are quite diverse. If antitrust issues are the dispute in private laws and the contracting parties agreed to submit to arbitration disputes which have arisen or which may arise between them in the antitrust issues, the antitrust disputes are arbitrable. Not only international antitrust disputes but also domestic antitrust disputes are capable of being resolved by arbitration. When the public interests in the enforcement of antitrust legislation are asserted, it is possible to justify the annulment or the refusal of the recognition or the enforcement of an arbitral award that ignores public policy as a matter of it.

• Korean journal of communication and information
• /
• v.34
• /
• pp.161-195
• /
• 2006

Standing to sue has become one of the most important and controversial issues in suits between the press and the victims injured by the press reports. Even thought Korean law was patterned after the European legal system, there is no denying that the Korean Constitution was influenced by that of the United States. The judicial system was also influenced by its counterpart in the United States. The doctrine of standing to sue has plagued the U.S. Supreme Court for several decades. The traditional test of standing in the federal courts was, at the beginning of the century, whether the interest asserted by the plaintiff amounted to a 'legal right', entitled to the protection of the common law. In recent years, the Supreme Court seems to have settled on a two-tiered method for determining whether a plaintiff has standing to sue in federal court. The first level of inquiry is the constitutional core, and the second is the judicially imposed prudential limitations. The purpose of this study is to find out the doctrine of standing in the legal proceedings caused by the press reports. The press needs to internally transform as well to prevent legal dispute, enforcing confirmation when collecting news materials and building up the device for pre-examining the news. The press is also requested to help sincerely the victim recover, realizing that they waste their reputation and credit not to mention a lot of time and monet during the legal dispute.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.21 no.2
• /
• pp.27-46
• /
• 2011

In the intellectual based society of the 21th century, intellectual property of nation and enterprise management has been the key element of nation's competitiveness and development. Therefore in countries like Korea, China, and many other countries, intellectual property of advancement strategy are being constructed and intellectual properties are protected at national level. Top priority task of protecting the intellectual property is to efficiently resolute intellectual property right disputes. Considering the nature of intellectual property right and arbitrage system, arbitration to solve intellectual property disputes is realistically the best method. However, not all cases of them are qualified. In order to relieve the intellectual property disputes through arbitration, qualification must be obtained. During the process, generally and globally, intellectual property right dispute is evaluated by three parts, intellectual property right contract dispute, intellectual property right violation dispute, and intellectual property right validity dispute. Based on UN's "Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards Agreement" in 1958, June 10th, in New York, both arbitrage organization and judgment can be approved in both Korea and China countries. However, as of today, there is a big gap of arbitration qualification between two countries, which can be troublesome if intellectual property right disputes arise. For instance, in Korea, intellectual property right contract disputes and intellectual property right violation disputes are both generally accepted as arbitration qualification. However for intellectual property right validity dispute, arbitration qualification is only accepted for non-registered intellectual property as in copyright entity. It does not apply to other registered intellectual property right as in patents. In China, arbitration qualification is accepted for intellectual property right contract dispute, and also accepted for intellectual property right violation dispute to copyrights but restricted to others. As for intellectual property right validity dispute, arbitration qualification is completely denied. Therefore, when there is an intellectual property right dispute between Korea and China, the biggest problem is whether China will accept arbitrage judgments made in Korea. Theoretically, arbitrage judgement made in Korea should be also accepted in China's court. However, considering the criticism of China's passive nature of arbitration qualification for its own local intellectual property right disputes, it's very unlikely they'll actively accept arbitrary judgment made in foreign countries. Korea and China must have a more open minded approach for intellectual property disputes and arbitration qualification. Base on WTO's Intellectual Property Right Agreement, it's being defined as private right. Therefore, sovereign principle should be the basic principle of solving intellectual property right disputes. Currently, arbitration qualification is expanding internationally. So both Korea and China must also follow the trend expand the arbitration qualification with a more open minded and forward looking approach, for the good of intellectual property disputes.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.23 no.1
• /
• pp.55-84
• /
• 2013

There should be an arbitration agreement between concerned parties in order to resolve a dispute through arbitration. The arbitration procedures, including the selection of the arbitrator and the adjudicative rights of the arbitrator, are based on the arbitration agreement. In other words, the arbitration procedure and adjudication can be carried out within the boundaries of the arbitration agreement. Traditionally, the Doctrine of Separability of the arbitration agreement has been acknowledged in order to emphasize its importance and to clearly separate it from the contract. Today, when the Doctrine of Separability of the arbitration agreement is well established, overemphasizing this separability could hamper its effectiveness and the autonomy of the parties. Moreover, arbitration agreements in the past were required to be written, clarifying the existence of the agreement and determining the scope of its validity. Further, an arbitration agreement was considered as narrowly as possible. However, since arbitration has become a generalized resolution for disputes, the formal or content requirements should be reconsidered. In terms of validity, the subjective and objective scope should necessarily be extended as a means to resolve disputes related to an arbitration agreement and reduce the resolution cost and duration. Under this perspective, the arbitration theory should now focus on arbitration agreements rather than the place of arbitration. We should break from the nationalistic view, which understands that the arbitration system is a part of the national legal system and that arbitration is allowed solely by permission of the nation. Instead, we should extensively reinterpret the subject of arbitration agreement and its range of effects so that disputes can be resolved between the concerned parties under a single procedure and norm, a necessary step forward. Moreover, in spite of the positive contribution and role of the New York Convention toward the establishment and development of the international arbitration system, there should be an effort to overcome its deterioration. As mentioned in the recommendations regarding the interpretation of the arbitration agreement in the New York Convention in 2006, we should begin by striving to match the Convention as a means of interpretation with the changes of the twenty-first century. Ultimately, we should meet the demands of the new era through amendments to the Convention.

• International Commerce and Information Review
• /
• v.15 no.4
• /
• pp.287-311
• /
• 2013

The arbitration parties may disagree with the arbitrator's award about whether they are eligible for the dispute case. While lots of disputes cases relating to subrogation are arising, it is not easy to find subrogation arbitration system to handle them clearly. The main issue is an availability of subrogation arbitration in case of the dispute which the insurer requests the arbitration against the carrier according to the arbitration clause of Bill of Lading. The direct parties of arbitration clause of the B/L are the carrier and the holder of the B/L. Could the insurer get the position of the arbitration party in stead of the holder of the B/L after compensation if there was an accident of insurance on the way of carriage? Even though there are a few arbitral awards of subrogation, the reason of the eligibility of subrogation arbitration is not enough. This paper scrutinized precedent research papers, arbitration awards, judicial precedents, and the Automobile Subrogation Arbitration System. Vague dispute resolution system which burden corporations with so many costs must be not good for business. In the view of economic efficiency, blank of contract, reciprocality, and Coase Theorem, it is recommended that subrogation arbitration system for the international trade would be better focus on the hypothesis of "Firm Offer Character of Arbitration Clause."

• 월간 기계설비
• /
• no.10 s.183
• /
• pp.40-47
• /
• 2005

지난 1998년 우원 콘서시엄(우원, 성아건업, 삼우공조)에게는 잊을 수 없는 행운의 해였다. IMF 이후 침체 일로를 걷고 있던 설비건설업계에 260억원이라는 사상 유례없는 최대금액으로 독립발주된 새국립박물관 기계설비공상 입찰에 국내의 기계설비 제작∙시공업체 21개 콘서시엄이 참여하여 경쟁하였기 때문에 누가 이 공사를 맡게 될 것인가가 초미의 관심사였다. 그런데 우원 컨소시엄이 적격심사 대상으로 선정되었다는소식을 듣게 되었다. 최초인 만큼 주변에서는‘과연 설비 전문건설업체가 무사히 공사를 마칠 수 있겠는가?’하는 우려의 눈초리도 있었다. 따라서 (주)우원을 비롯한 시공업체들은 이러한 우려를 없애기 위해 더욱 열심히 계획하고 실행하고 검토하고자 노력하였다. 공사 초기에는 각각 독립발주된 건축, 전기, 정보통신 분야의 시공자간 대화가 단절되어 어려움도 많았으나 발주처 담당자와 책임감리자들의 중재 노력에 힘입어 시간이 지나면서 공동목표를 인식하고 서로를 이해하면서 성공적으로 공사를 마칠 수 있었다.