• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제17권1호
• /
• pp.57-75
• /
• 2007

Ever since franchising emerged in the industry of distribution, it has been growing explosively in the U.S.A. and all other countries as well. It is a method of expanding a business by licensing independent businessman to sell the franchiser's products and/or services or to follow a format and trade style created by the franchiser using the franchiser's trade marks and trade names. Franchising is a form of business that touches upon many different areas of law including, but not limited to, general contract law, general principles of commercial law, law of intellectual property, competition law, fair trade practices law and other industry specific laws e.g., the Fair Practices in Franchising Act in Korea. Arbitration is a long established, legally recognized procedure for submitting disputes to an outside person(s), mutually selected by the parties, for a final and binding decision. Despite its merits as an alternative dispute resolution, it has been criticized, on the other hand, particularly by franchisees' attorneys on the ground that even though it is required to protect the franchisees against the enforcement of pre-dispute arbitration agreements because of the franchisees' paucity of bargaining power vis-a-vis the franchiser, arbitration cannot afford it. Until recently, however, little has been written about the legal issues pertaining to franchise agreement and arbitration clause contained therein in Korea. This treatise reviews the cases and arguments in relation to the subject especially of the U.S.A., which have been accumulated for decades. The issues addressed herein are the pre-emption by the FAA, the disputes to be arbitrated, the selection and qualification of arbitrators, the place of arbitration hearings and the evidentiary rules applicable, the expenses of arbitration, theory of fiduciary duty and the like, all of which are relevant to franchise agreement.

• 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
• /
• 제15권3호
• /
• pp.113-137
• /
• 2005

In the provisions of 'the Arbitration Law of China, there are special provisions for international arbitration. When a court refuses the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards or cancel the domestic awards relating to international arbitration, they have to adopt the provisions of 'Chinese Civil Procedure Law'. These provisions are the same as the provisions of Korean Civil Procedure Law concerning the reasons of renewal. In the Korean Arbitration Act, those provisions disappeared when it was revised on December 31, 1999. Among the characteristics of the Chinese arbitration system, a serious question is that it provides only institutional arbitration and there is no ad-hoc arbitration in the Chinese Arbitration Law. On the other hand, when the parties appoint three arbitrators according to their agreement, the parties appoint the third arbitrator by mutual agreement and when they fail to agree, the Arbitration Committee appoints the third arbitrator. In practice, as the parties hardly agree on the third arbitrator or sole arbitrator, the Committee usually appoints them. And appointing an arbitrator from out of their panel of arbitrators is permitted these days only under examination by the Arbitration Committee in accordance with the arbitration rules of the China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission, Other arbitration committees except the China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission are still prohibited from making appointments from out of their panel of arbitrators. Accordingly, arbitration in China cannot be predicted and poses a question about legal stability as party autonomy is restricted in the appointment of arbitrators and arbitral procedure. Such being the case it is strongly recommended to select Korea as the place of arbitration in transactions with China. However it is better to arbitrate than to file a law suit in China.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제16권2호
• /
• pp.51-88
• /
• 2006

The obligation on a national court to recognize and enforce arbitral awards as provided in Article III New York Convention, which both Korea and China have ratified, is subject to limited exceptions. Recognition and enforcement will be refused only if the party against whom enforcement is sought can show that one of the exclusive grounds for refusal enumerated in Article V(1) New York Convention has occurred. The court may also refuse enforcement ex officio if the award violates that state's public policy. This article explores the circumstances where arbitral awards may be refused enforcement under the Korean and Chinese arbitration laws. It first analyzes the relevant statutory provisions. In Korea and China, which have adopted the UNCITRAL Model law, the grounds of challenge are exhaustively defined within their respective arbitration laws. According to their arbitration laws, an arbitral award may be set aside if a party making the application proves that (i) a party to the arbitration agreement was under some incapacity or the agreement is not valid under the applicable law, (ii) the party making the application was not given proper notice of the appointment of an arbitrator or of the arbitral proceedings or was otherwise unable to present his case, (iii) the award deals with a dispute not contemplated by or not falling within the terms of the submission to arbitration or contains decisions on matters beyond the scope of the submission to arbitration, or (iv) the composition of the arbitral tribunal or the arbitral procedure was not in accordance with the agreement of the parties. An arbitral award may also be set aside ex officio by the court if the court finds that (i) the subject-matter of the dispute is not capable of settlement by arbitration under the applicable law or (ii) the award is in conflict with the public policy. This article then reviews relevant judicial decisions rendered in Korea and China to see how the courts in these countries have been interpreting the provisions specifying the grounds for challenging arbitral awards. It concludes that the courts in Korea and China rarely accept challenges to arbitral awards, thereby respecting the mandate of the New York Convention.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제18권2호
• /
• pp.33-54
• /
• 2008

The KCAB enacted their new international arbitration rules(the KCAB rules) in 2007 wheres The CIETAC revised their arbitration rules(the CIETAC new rules) in 2005. This article investigates some practical problems on both rules respectively and helps trading companies to proceed arbitration by these rules. This study finds some problems as follows. There are the following problems in KCAB rules. First, application fee is too expensive fee. So KCAB should cut down their application fee. Second, if there is no agreement on number of arbitrators, the arbitration is processed by sole arbitrator. But it is very difficult for sole arbitrator to process international arbitration due to characteristics of international arbitration such as complexity of case and a large sum of claim. Third, a period of selection of arbitrator is long. In view of developing of communication means, this period is needed more short. In the meantimes, there are the following problems in CIETAC rules. First, though the CIETAC new rules enlarges the right of parties autonomy such as selection of arbitration rules or revise of it, China arbitration Act stipulates a institute arbitration which restrict partie's autonomy. Second, if there is no agreement on arbitrators, the CIETAC appoints chair of tribural in three arbitrators ion or sole arbitrators. is processed by sole arbitrator. Third, a draft of arbitral award is checked by the CIETAC in advance. Especially, the two latter problems is possible for foreigners to have doubts of fairness of CIETAC arbitration. Becuase the CIETAC is not a complete independent private institution. Consequently, I suggest that Korean trading companies should examine problems of these two arbitration rules carefully, and select a most appropriate rules for settlement of their disputes with Chines companies.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제14권2호
• /
• pp.199-241
• /
• 2004

This paper discusses to what extent the party autonomy can be allowed in intellectual property dispute resolution agreements in determination of governing law, international jurisdiction, and ADR agreement for arbitration, etc. in considering of the territoriality principle of IP. The party autonomy in choice of governing law and jurisdiction can be fully enjoyed in IP contract disputes. However, the freedom of choice is limited to the disputes regarding IF infringement disputes. The party autonomy is denied in the issues of determination of validity of patent or other IP rights. The author seeks the possibility to allow as much freedom in making choice of applicable law or jurisdiction, or entering into arbitration agreement.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제17권3호
• /
• pp.31-56
• /
• 2007

The purpose of this thesis lies on building the foundation for the further activation of trade among the Northeast Asian countries such as South Korea, Japan, China, Russia, and North Korea through an analytical comparison of their arbitration systems. Further activation of trade cannot be reached without previously building safety measures on the negotiation of exports, the control on defective imported merchandise, the returns on investments, and the stable management of businesses. Throughout this thesis an analytical comparison of these five countries' most important areas on arbitration will be carried out. These areas are the arbitration laws and organizations; the structures of the laws; scope of arbitration; form of arbitration agreement, appointment of arbitratiors, place of arbitration, hearing, court assistance in taking evidence, governing law, decision making by panel of arbitrators, form and contents of awards, effective of award, recourse against award, recognition and enforcement of awards. etc. It was found in each of the areas cases to be identical, similar or verydifferent; also, cases unable to arbitrate. This phenomenon was found to occur due to the differences in political and economic systems and perception of arbitration among these countries. Additionally, this thesis points out what should each country do for its integration. It is also suggested the organization of a common arbitration research body to continue the efforts for raising the awareness, building trust, and mutual recognition among the countries to ultimately create a common arbitration system. Lastly, it is a personal will that this thesis will serve as the starting point for in depth researches in each of the presented areas.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제29권2호
• /
• pp.107-132
• /
• 2019

The arbitration procedure, which is a private trial, does not have a separate enforcement agency. Therefore, unless a party consents to the arbitration award and voluntarily fulfills the award, its execution is accomplished through the implementation of the national court. In particular, the decision in the foreign arbitration procedure will be refused or rejected for the arbitration award in case the proceedings of the law and procedure on which the judgment is based are caused by inconsistency with the domestic law or procedural defect. However, all foreign arbitration awards generally do not have to go through the approval process, and it will come into force with the arbitration award. In the case of Germany in the revision of the German Civil Procedure Act of 1996, the main provisions of the New York Convention concerning the ratification and enforcement of arbitration proceedings are reflected. Germany provides for the arbitration procedures in the arbitration proceedings of Book 10 of the Civil Procedure Act. Particularly, with Article 1061 in Book 10 Section 8 below, the approval and enforcement of foreign arbitrators shall be governed. Article 1061 has been referred to as "The New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Jurisdictions," Article 5 (1). The main reasons for approval and enforcement rejection are: (1) Reason for the acceptance or refusal of enforcement by request of the parties: Reason for failure of subjective arbitration ability, invalidation of arbitration agreement, collapse of attack or defense method, dispute not included in arbitration agreement, (2) Reasons for the approval and enforcement of arbitration considered by the competent authority of the arbitrator: violation of objective arbitration ability, violation of public order, but not based on the default of German statute.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제33권1호
• /
• pp.3-22
• /
• 2023

The purpose of this study is to present implications by analyzing the Swiss Federal Court's annulment of the arbitration Awards in Court of Arbitration for Sport(CAS). As international interest in the sports sector increases, related disputes are also increasing. Therefore, the role of CAS specializing in sports disputes is becoming very important. In particular, the Swiss federal court's annulment of the arbitral awards made by the CAS could contribute significantly to the development of sports arbitration in the future. Looking at the case analyzed in this study, first of all, it is about the partiality of the arbitrator. The court judged that the arbitrator posted and shared racist articles on SNS, which could be sufficiently biased. Next, it is about the uncertainty of the arbitration clause. The arbitral award was finally canceled due to the issue of whether the CAS could make an arbitral award with jurisdiction over a clause that includes both dispute resolution through a sports organization and dispute handling in a national court. As a result of the analysis of this study, in the case of unclear arbitration provisions, it will be necessary to prepare an arbitration agreement. In addition, in the case of unclear arbitration provisions, it will be necessary to prepare a post-arbitration agreement. Finally, in order to revitalize sports arbitration, it will be necessary to train professional arbitrators in Korea, support them to work internationally, and establish specialized arbitration institutions.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제15권2호
• /
• pp.61-91
• /
• 2005

It is well recognized that the availability of prompt, effective and economical means of dispute resolution is an important element in the orderly growth and encouragement of international trade and investment. Increasingly, ADR(Alternative Dispute Resolution) including arbitration and mediation, instead of litigation in national courts, has become the preferred means of resolving private international commercial disputes. Under the situation, efforts for settlement of trade and investment disputes by ADR have been made between Korea and China through trade and investment agreements and arbitration agreement. Judging from the importance of economic exchange between Korea and Qingdao including Shandong Province, The Korean Commercial Arbitration Board(KCAB) and The Qingdao Arbitration Commission(QAC) should strengthen mutual cooperation to develop efficient methods of resolving commercial disputes arising between the two countries and to assist parties in solving those disputes through conclusion of arbitral agreement. Recently, efforts for conclusion of a Korea-China-Japan Free Trade Agreement(FTA) received strong support at Korea-Japan and Korea-China Summit Meeting held on June and July, 2003 respectively. If the conclusion of FTA among the three countries would be realized, it would promote regional trade and investment, contributing to economic growth in the Northeast Asian region. Under the circumstances, the key arbitral institutions including KCAB and QAC should consider to take the initiative in setting up tentatively called ${\ulcorner}$Joint Arbitration Center for Northeast Asia${\lrcorner}$ for which the CAMCA of NAFTA will be the good example.