• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제21권2호
• /
• pp.3-25
• /
• 2011

국제상사중재를 다루는 중재판정부의 중재인은 당사자들 간의 유효한 합의를 통하여 구속력 있는 중재판정을 행사할 권한을 가진다. 중재계약에 다른 정함이 없는 한 중재인의 판정권에 대한 결정은 중재인 자신이 내린다. 중재인은 중재합의에 의하여 그 권한이 부여된 사건에 대해서만 권한을 갖게 되나, 명시적으로 그 권한에 따라야 하는 사건 외에 당해 사건을 해결하기 위하여 처리하지 않으면 안 될 모든 문제, 즉 당해 사건과 절단될 수 없는 형태로 연계되어 있는 문제 또는 그 부차적인 조건의 문제를 해결하여야 하는 책임을 지게 된다. 중재판정부는 그 자율적인 권한범위를 규율하는 권한을 가지며, 그 권한 속에는 중재합의의 존부 또는 효력에 관한 것도 포함된다. 중재인의 판정권에 이의가 있는 당사자는 법원에 중재계약의 부존재 무효 확인을 청구할 수 있고, 중재판정이 이미 내려진 경우에는 중재판정취소의 소를 제기하거나, 집행판결에서 이의를 제기할 수 있다. 우리 중재법의 입장에서 국제중재판정의 판정기준에 대해 는 중재판정부는 당사자들이 지정한 법에 따라 중재판정을 내려야 하며, 특정 국가의 법 또는 법체계가 지정된 경우에 달리 명시되지 아니하는 한 그 국가의 국제사법이 아닌 분쟁의 실체법을 지정한 것으로 보고 있다. 국제중재의 법적 안정성, 예측가능성의 관점에서 실정법을 그 판단의 규준으로 삼는다. 한국의 국제중재의 특성은 국제성 중립성, 보편성을 보장받는 점이다. 중재인 구성원은 세계 각국의 국적을 가진 전문 중재인들이 참가하고 있다. 중재절차에 있어서도 중재인은 실체법이나 절차법, 또는 법률의 상충에 관계없이 어느 특정법률을 적용하도록 강요받지 않고 각각의 경우에 가장 적합한 법률에 따르며 중재판정부의 진행절차는 국제중재규칙에 의해 규율된다.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제28권4호
• /
• 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.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제23권1호
• /
• pp.1-23
• /
• 2013

When a court recognizes an arbitral award, it acknowledges that the award is valid and binding, and thereby gives it a set of effects similar to those of a court's judgment, among which res judicata is the most important. The res judicata effect of an arbitral award generally forbids parties to an action from subsequently litigating claims that were raised in a prior arbitration. In common law countries, res judicata may also preclude re-adjudication of issues raised and decided in a prior arbitration. The Korean Arbitration Act acknowledges the rights of parties to an arbitral award to seek not only an enforcement judgment but also a recognition judgment on an arbitral award. Therefore, the question arises whether or not the winning party in an arbitration must acquire a recognition judgment on the arbitral award in order to enjoy the effects of a recognized award. However, according to the case law and generally accepted views, an arbitral award is automatically recognized without any additional procedure, as long as it satisfies the requirements for recognition. Therefore, in order to resolve this question, it is desirable to eliminate the statutory clause that stipulates the right to seek recognition judgment.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제27권4호
• /
• pp.3-33
• /
• 2017

This paper examines some questions and issues of the effect of an arbitral award, and discusses about the restriction of the trial level in other separate actions permitted under the existence of grounds of setting aside arbitral award after the amendment of the Arbitration Act in 2016. Because there are no interests of litigation in the action for setting aside arbitral award due to the exclusion of res judicata by provisory clause of Article 35, filing an action for setting aside is not allowed even when the grounds of setting aside exist. If we examine the precedent on possibility of retrial for excluding the outward form of invalid judgement, we can find that the court did not approve the retrial. Therefore, the action for setting aside that which is for excluding the outward form of an arbitral award will not be allowed for filing. On the issue of whether an arbitral award having a ground for setting aside can be an object of the action for setting aside for excluding its outward form or not, the views of scholars are divided. In the case of an arbitral award that has grounds for setting aside, it could be interpreted that the arbitral award would not have a formale Rechtskraft or effect of sentence (bindende Kraft). Even if there is formale Rechtskraft or effect of sentence (bindende Kraft), the significance of existence of action for setting aside arbitral award under paragraph 1 of Article 36 is reduced because other actions separate from arbitration is permitted under the 2016 Act. The amendment of the Arbitration Act in 2016 provides an opportunity to review the position and the role of action for setting aside the arbitral award. It also requires further studies on efficiently treating other actions separate from arbitration. Because the restriction of the trial level of other separate actions can make arbitration active by making arbitration procedures become 3 trial levels from 4 trial levels, it needs to be solved with legislative action. Specifically, if the trial starts at the stage of trial on appeal, it can utilize the strength of both the arbitration and the litigation, playing a chief role in boosting arbitration by removing the problems of action for setting aside and enabling arbitration institutes and the person interested to promote the activation of arbitration.

• 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.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제32권1호
• /
• pp.43-69
• /
• 2022

In the case of the United States, which has the same provision as Article 10 of the Federal Arbitration Act, a contract may be exceptionally validated if the parties have clearly concluded the contract to expand the grounds for vacating awards in an arbitration agreement. It is possible that the parties create the grounds for vacating that is not stipulated in the statue by clear agreement. However, it remains the issues when this contract is valid. If we investigate the grounds for setting aside as discussed in this paper, in cases ① where an arbitrator failed to apply the substantive law expressly designated by the parties without a good reason; ② where there was a serious error in the application of the substantive law; ③ where an arbitrator decided under ex aequo et bono despite the parties explicitly designated the substantive law, the parties may bring an action for annulment of arbitral awards in court according to their agreement to expand the grounds for vacating the awards. It is important enough to change the rights and obligations of the parties for them whether or not the substantive law of the arbitration was applied. With Regard to the contract to expand the grounds for setting aside the awards in arbitration agreement, there are still issues how to handle the case where the parties have not designated the substantive law, and the validity of a contract to expand the grounds for vacating on reasons other than violation of law application, and relations with Article 5 of the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, where the misapplication of the law does not stipulated as the grounds for refusal to recognize and enforce the foreign arbitral award, and so on.

• 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
• /
• 제13권2호
• /
• pp.103-122
• /
• 2004

Recognition and enforcement of the arbitral award play an important role in the settlement of the international commercial disputes. The New York Convention makes it a duty for the courts of signatories to recognize and enforce the foreign arbitral awards not taking the nationality of the party concerned into consideration. Recognition and enforcement of the arbitral award may be refused if the award has not yet become binding on the parties, or has been set aside or suspended by a competent authority of the country in which, or under the law of which, that award was made. The arbitral award has the same force as an irrevocable judgement including effect of excluding further litigation, its execution and formation. But the effect of set aside arbitral award made abroad in arbitral place was denied by France court for the interest of his people. There is no arbitral act but arbitral procedure is regulated by New Code of Civil Procedure in case of France. An appeal against the decision which grants recognition or enforcement is open if the recognition or execution is contrary to international pubic policy in virtue of Art. 1502. Arbitrator may consider compulsory provisions in arbitral place to assure to recognition and enforcement of the arbitral award.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제28권4호
• /
• pp.3-42
• /
• 2018

This paper aims to explore ways to develop the arbitration industry in Korea. The prospects for the promotion of the arbitration industry in Korea are never dim. International arbitration competitiveness is somewhat lower than its competitors at present, but the international economic base to support it is solid, and the domestic arbitration environment seems to be sufficient to support the development possibility of arbitration. Since geographical and economic factors have already been defined, Korea must at least improve the arbitration act with passion and vision for the best one. The arbitration act that is the most accessible to arbitration consumers is the best arbitration act. The important thing is to have an arbitration act that makes people want to use more than litigation or other dispute resolution procedures. There is no hope of remaining as a "second mover" in the field of arbitration law. One should have a will and ambition to become a "first mover" even if it is risky. Considering the situation of the current arbitration law, it is necessary to start an arbitration appeal system in order to become a consumer-friendly arbitration law, and it is necessary to examine ways of integrating the grant of execution clause and enforcement application procedures. The abolition of the condition of Article 35 of the Arbitration Act, which rules the validity of the arbitration award, will help promote international arbitration. Exclusion agreements of setting aside against arbitration awards must also be fully recognized. It is also important to publish a widely cited international arbitration journal. In order to respond to the fourth industrial revolution era, it is necessary to support the establishment of a dispute resolution system that utilizes IT technology. In order to actively engage the arbitrators in the market, it is necessary to abolish the regulations that exist in the Attorneys-at-Law Act. There is also a need to allocate more budget to educate arbitration consumers and to establish arbitration training centers to strengthen domestic arbitration education. It is also necessary to evaluate and verify the Arbitration Promotion Act so that it can achieve results. In the international arbitration market, competition is fierce and competitors are already taking the initiative, so in order not to miss the timing, Korea needs to activate international arbitration first. In order to activate international arbitration, the arbitration body needs to be managed with the same mobility and strategy as the agency in the marketplace. In Korea, unlike in Singapore and Hong Kong, it is necessary to recognize that the size of the domestic arbitration market is very likely to increase sharply due to the economic size of the country and the large market potential it can bring from litigation. In order to promote the arbitration industry, what is most important is to make arbitration activities in accordance with the principles of the market and to establish an institutional basis to enable competition. It is urgently required to change the perception of the relevant government departments and arbitration officials.

• 항공우주정책ㆍ법학회지
• /
• 제19권2호
• /
• pp.9-53
• /
• 2004

한국(韓國)과 일본(日本)의 항공법(航空法)은 주로 공법적(公法的)및 행정규제적(行政規制的)인 규정(規定)들로 조성(構成)되어 있음으로 항공기사고가 발생하였을 때에 항공안전인(航空運送人)의 손해배상책임(損害暗慣責任)의 한계(限界), 배상가액(暗慣價額) 책임소멸시기(責任消滅時期), 재판관할지(裁判管轄地 )등을 규정하는 사법적(私法的)인 규정은 한 조문도 들어가 있지 않음으로 손해배상청구사건(損害暗慣請求事件)을 처리히는데 있어 재판의 기준이 없어 항공소송사건(航空訴認事件)의 해결은 지연되고 있어 당사자(當事者)간(원(原) 피고(被告)간)의 분쟁은 더욱 심화되고 있는 것이 오늘날의실정이다. 국제항공안전(國際航空運送)의 사법적(私法的)인 법률관계는 바르샤바조약(條約) 헤이그의정서(議定書), 과다하라조약(條約), 1966년(年)의 몬트리올 항공사(航空社)간의 협정(協定), 몬트리올3개 추가의정석(追加議定書)와 몬트리올 제(第)4의정석(議定書), 몬트리올조약(條約)및 개정(改正)로마조약(條約) 등에 의하여 어느 정도 해결될 수 있지만 국내항공안전(國內航空運送)의 사법적(私法的)인 법률관계에 대하여서는 한국(韓國)과 일본(日本)은 법률에 아무런 규정이 없음으로 항공운송약관(航空運送約款)또는 민상법(民商法)등에 의하여 처리되고 있다. 그러나 항공운송약관(航空運送約款)의 일부조항이 무효결정(無效決定)또는 무효판정(無效判決)이 선고되어 문제가 제기된바 있다. 이와 같은 문제점을 해결하기 위하여서는 항공기사건(航空機事故)에 의한 분쟁당사자 간의 책임한계(責任限界)를 정하여 재판(裁判)의 기준을 정하기 위한 법을 만들어 재판(裁判)의 공정성, 신속성, 간편성을 도모할 수 있는 항공운송인(航空運送人)의 책임에 관한 국내입법으로 "항공운송법(航空運送法)"의 제정(制定)이 무엇보다도 필요하다고 본다. 이와 같은 문제의 해결과 가해자(加害者)와 피해자(被害者)간의 책임한계(責任限界)를 명확하게 정하기 위하여 현행(現行) 상법(商法)또는 항공법(船空法)을 개정하여 항공운송인(航空運送人)의 민사책임에 관한 규정을 삽입하는 것이 오랜 시일이 소요되어 가능하지 않을 때에는 신속한 해결을 위하여 항공가사건(航空機事件)의 분쟁당사자간의 책임한계(責任限界)및 법률관계(法律關係)를 규정한 새로운 "항공운송법(航空運送法)"을 특별법의 형태로 입법하는 것이 바람직하다고 본다. 이와 같은 점을 고려하여 이 논문(論文)에서는 우리나라 항공운송(航空運送)의 현황과 항공운송인(航空運送人)의 민사책임(民事責任)에 관한 세계각국(世界各國)의 입법예(立法例) ((1)영국(英國), (2)미국(美國), (3)캐나다, (4)유럽연합(聯合)(EU), (5)독일(獨逸), (6)프랑스, (7)이탈리아, (8)스페인, (9)스위스, (10)오스트레일리아, (11)일본(日本), (12)중국(中國), (13)대만(臺灣), 북한(北韓))에 관한 내용(內容)을 분석(分析) 소개(紹介)한 후 우리나라 항공운송인(航空運送人)의 책임(責任)에 관한 운송약관(運送約款)의 문제점, 그 동안의 항공안전법계약법할안(航空運送法契約法試案)의 퇴진경위(推進經緯)와 항공운송인(航空運送人)에 대한 운송계약책임(運送契約責任)과 불법행위책임(不法行爲責任)등 둘 다 포함시킨 새로운 "항공운송법(航空運送法)"의 입법(立法)의 필요성(必要性)과 이유(理由)등 입법론(立法論)을 제시하였다. 앞으로 이 입법론(立法論)에 따라 항공안전법계약법시안(航空運送法契約法試案)을 작성할 때에 규정할 주(主)된 내용(內容)은, (1)이 법(法)의 입법목적(立法目的), (2)적용범위(適用範圍), (3)"항공수화물(航空手倚物)", "항공화물(船空貨物)", "항공운송(航空運送)", "항공운송인(航空運送人)", "항공사고(航空事故)", "계산단위(計算單位)(SDR)" 등의 개념정립, (4)여객항공권(旅客械空卷), 수화물표(手倚物票)또는 항공운송상(航空運送狀)의 기재사항, (5)항공운송인(航空運送人)의 책임원칙(責任原則)및 책임원칙(責任原則) (6)피의자(被害者)의 기여과실(寄與過失)에 기인되는 항공운송인(航空運送人)의 책임감면, (7)면책특약(免責特約)의 금지, (8)항공운송인(航空運送人)의 책임한도(責任限度)의 적용배제(wilful misconduct), (9)소(訴)의 명의(名義), (10)순차운송)(順次運送)의 법률관계, (11)운송인(運送人)의 사용인(이행보조자)에 대한 책임, (12)수화물(手倚物)및 화물(貨物)의 멸실 등의 통지의무, (13)항공운송인(航空運送人)에 대한 소(訴)를 제기(提起)하는 기한(期限), (14)계약운송인이외(契約運送人以外)의 실제운송인(實際運送人)에 의하여 행하여진 항공운송(航空運送)의 법률관계(實際運送人의 책임(責任)등), (15)항공기(航空機)의 추락 또는 파편의 낙하에 의한 지상(地上)제(第)3자(者)에게 입힌 인적(人的)또는 물적손해(物的揚害)에 대한 배상책임 불범행위책임(不法行寫責任)등), 항공운송상(航空運送狀)또는 화물손해(貨物損害)에 관한 추정적효력(prima facie evidence)의 인정, 항공화물(航空貨物)의 처분청구권의 인정, 제(第)3자(者)에 대한 청구권(구상권(求償權)), 전도금(前渡金)의 지급, 부합운송(複合運送), 중재제도(仲裁制度)의 도입, 항공보험(航空保險), 재판관할지(裁判管轄地), 항공운송인(航空運送人)에 대한 제소(提訴)의 소멸시기(消滅時期)(제척(除斥)) 등이 있다.