• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제13권2호
• /
• pp.157-179
• /
• 2004

Currently major countries, including the USA, have developed and contrived to activate ADR(Alternative Dispute Resolution) in order to both choose effective means for dispute resolution and establish the reformation of the judicial system; thus meeting people's revamped expectations due to the rapid increase of, and diversification in, civil disputes. This is why there has been some haste in many countries to organize systems for this, so called, 'the Fundamental ADR Act' which regulates the essential structure to accelerate the use of ADR and strengthen the links with trial procedures. For example, in 1999 Germany revised it Civil Procedure Act, to allow for a pre-conciliation process in cases involving only small sums of money. Whilst, with regard to the Civil Procedure Act in France, new regulations have been introduced with regard to actions before either a suit or return to conciliation. In the United Kingdom, as far back as 1988, additions to the legal structure allowed for expansion of regulations applying to ADR. By 1999 the new ADR regulations were part of the legal structure of the UK Civil Procedure Act. The USA passed the federal law for ADR in 1998. Since then the world has tried to enact this model in UNCITRAL on international conciliation. When we consider this recent trend by the world's major countries, it is desirable that the fundamental law on ADR should be enacted in Korea also. This paper traces the object, and the regulatory content required, for the fundamental ADR law to be enacted in Korea's future. Firstly, the purpose of the fundamental ADR law is limited only to the private sector, including administrative and excluding judicial sector and arbitration, because in Korea the Judicial Conciliation of the Civil Disputes Act, the Family Disputes Act and the Arbitration Act already exist. Secondly I will I examine the regulatory content of the basic ADR Act, dividing it into: 1)regulations on the basic ideology of ADR, 2)those on the transition to trial procedures of ADR, and 3)those on the transition to ADR from trial procedures. In addition I will research the regulatory limitations of ADR.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제13권1호
• /
• pp.169-205
• /
• 2003

Arbitration means the procedure that a party inquires a third party arbitrator for a resolution on the dispute on certain matters of interest to follow through with the commitment of the arbitration, and a series of procedures performed by the arbitrator of the Korean Commercial Arbitration Board. Arbitration is implemented in accordance with the procedure determined by the Arbitration Act and Arbitration Regulations. In the event the parties reach to the reconciliation during the process of arbitration, the reconciliation is recorded in the form of arbitration award(decision), and in the event a reconciliation is not made, the arbitrator shall make the decision on the particular case. The arbitration award(decision) for reconciliation during the arbitration procedure (Article 31 of Arbitration Act, hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') or the mediation under the Arbitration Regulation of the Korean Commercial Arbitration Board (Article 18 of the Arbitration Regulations) shall have the same effectiveness with the decision rendered by a court that, in the event a party does not perform the obligation, the enforcement document is rendered under the Rules on Enforcement Document on Mediation Statement of various dispute resolution committees of the Supreme Court to carry out the compulsory enforcement. However, in the event that the party to take on the obligation to perform under the arbitration award (decision) rendered by the arbitrator (Article 32 of the Act) does not perform without due cause, a separate enforcement decision in accordance with the procedure determined under the Civil Enforcement Act shall be obtained since the arbitration award(decision) cannot be the basis of enforcement under the Civil Enforcement Act. And, in order to enforce the judgment compulsorily in accordance with the regulations under the Civil Enforcement Act under the foreign arbitration judgment (Article 39 of the A.1), it shall fulfill the requirement determined under the Civil Litigation Act (article 217 of Civil Litigation Act) and shall obtain a separate enforcement decision in accordance with the procedure determined under the Civil Enforcement Act (Article 26 and Article 27 of Civil Enforcement Act) since the arbitration judgment of foreign country shall not be based on enforcement under the Civil Enforcement Act. It may be the issue of legislation not to recognize the arbitration award(decision) as a source of enforcement right, and provide the compulsive enforcement by recognizing it for enforcement right after obtaining the enforcement document with the decision of a court, however, not recognizing the arbitration award(decision) as the source of enforcement right is against Clause 3 of Article 31 of the Act, provisions of Article 35, Article 38 and Article 39 that recognized the validity of arbitration as equal to the final judgment of a court, and the definition that the enforcement decision of a court shall require the in compulsory enforcement under Clause 1 of Article 37 of the Act which clearly is a conflict of principle as well. Anyhow, in order to enforce the arbitration award(decision) mandatorily, the party shall bring the litigation of enforcement decision claim to the court, and the court shall deliberate with the same procedure with general civil cases under the Civil Litigation Act. During the deliberation, the party obligated under the arbitration award(decision) intended to not to undertake the obligation and delay it raises the claim and suspend the enforcement of cancelling the arbitration award(decision) on the applicable arbitration decision within 3 months from the date of receiving the authentic copy of the arbitration award(decision) or the date of receiving the authentic copy of correction, interpretation or additional decision under the Regulation of Article 34 of the Act (Clause 3 of Article 36 of the Act). This legislation to delay the sentencing of the enforcement and then to sentence the enforcement decision brings the difficulties to a party to litigation costs and time for compulsory enforcement where there is a requirement of an urgency. With the most of cases for arbitration being the special field to make the decision only with the specialized knowledge that the arbitrator shall be the specialists who have appropriate knowledge of the system and render the most reasonable and fair decision for the arbitration. However, going through the second review by a court would be most important, irreparable and serious factor to interfere with the activation of the arbitration system. The only way to activate the arbitration system that failed to secure the practicality due to such a factor, is to revise the Arbitration Act and Arbitration Regulations so that the arbitration decision shall have the right to enforce under the Rules on Enforcement Document on Mediation Statement of various dispute resolution committees of the Supreme Court.

• 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.

• 한국소프트웨어감정평가학회 논문지
• /
• 제16권1호
• /
• pp.1-11
• /
• 2020

2016년 3월 29일 개정된 민사소송법은 감정절차에 관한 변화를 가져왔다. 감정인의 의무 신설, 감정진술 방식의 변화, 비디오 중계를 통한 감정인신문 도입 등과 같은 제도 변화는, 그 동안 제기되어 온 소송절차 상 감정이 갖는 문제를 절차적으로 개선하는데 초점을 맞춘 것 이다. 이러한 변화는 민사소송 절차의 틀 안에서 이루어지던 저작권 감정 절차에도 영향을 미치게 된다. 이에 감정절차에 관한 민사소송법 개정이 저작권 감정절차에 미치는 문제, 즉 감정인 추가지정과 위임금지 문제, 복수감정 운영의 문제, 참여 전문가 공개 문제, 감정인 체계의 밀접성 문제 및 전문분야의 일치 문제에 대한 실무적 대응방안을 살펴보았다. 이를 통하여 저작권 감정 절차와 소송 절차 간 절차적 정합성을 확보하고 효과적인 감정 절차를 확립하기 위한 논의의 시작이 될 수 있을 것으로 본다.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제30권2호
• /
• pp.43-68
• /
• 2020

The "arbitration" system resolves disputes through judgments on rights relations or claims between disputed parties by judging by private trial, but it does not have organizational and material bases to execute the contents of these judgments. Therefore, unless the parties succeed in voluntarily surrendering to the results of the arbitration award, the implementation of the award will be accomplished by the enforcement of the assistance of the National Court. However, unlike the court's ruling, the arbitration tribunal does not generate enforcement power from the judgment itself, and it must be filed with the court for execution. In this regard, Germany provides for arbitration proceedings in the Civil Procedure Act Volume 10. In particular, Article 1060 governs the approval and enforcement of domestic arbitral awards. Accordingly, the procedure for declaring the feasibility of domestic arbitration proceedings and the execution of forced execution are commenced. Regarding the enforceable declaration of a domestic arbitral award, it differs from the simpler process requirements compared to the procedure in a foreign arbitral award, and usually has the same effect as a final judgment between the parties without a separate approval procedure. However, the arbitration award does not constitute an enforceable power that can be implemented, but is enforced through the national court's declaration procedure. However, if there is a ground for cancellation as provided for in Article 1059 (2) of the German Civil Procedure Act, the arbitral award is canceled and the application for enforcement is dismissed.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제32권2호
• /
• pp.55-83
• /
• 2022

The United Nations Convention on International Settlement Agreements Resulting from Mediation (Singapore Mediation Convention) results in new challenges to the area of international dispute resolution by providing the enforcement regime for mediated settlement agreements, which have not been admitted as enforceable in some civil law countries, including Korea and Japan. Japan has struggled to promote international arbitration and international mediation, and such efforts were accelerated by the adoption of the Singapore Mediation Convention in 2018. In order to standardize arbitration proceedings and promote the practice of international arbitration, Japan produced two noticeable results: the new JCAA Arbitration Rules and the amendment to the Arbitration Act of Japan. In addition to that Expedited arbitration procedure and Interactive Arbitration Rules of JCAA present the new possibility of international arbitration procedure for civil law practitioners, the amendment to the Arbitration Act of Japan suggests significant implications to Korea for its manifest provisions regarding enforcement requirements and proceedings and its protection of Access to Justice for foreign law practitioners.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제34권1호
• /
• pp.3-26
• /
• 2024

"Arbitration" is a procedure to settle a dispute over property rights or disputes based on non-property rights that the parties can resolve through a reconciliation, not by a judgment of a court, but by an award of an arbitrator, and is a kind of Alternative Dispute Resolution(ADR). Arbitration is the most representative and efficient ADR system in many fields, so by activating it, disputes can be resolved smoothly and ultimately, and social costs caused by a heavy increase in lawsuit can be reduced. Arbitration costs are often evaluated as 'cheap', but in reality, they can be similar to or exceed litigation costs. Nevertheless, unlike the Civil Procedure Act, which stipulates the litigation aid system for those who are hard to pay litigation costs, the Arbitration Act or the Arbitration Industry Promotion Act does not have the arbitration aid system for those who are hard to pay arbitration costs. However, considering ① the utility of arbitration compared to other dispute resolution procedures, such as litigation, ② the possibility of resolving trial delays through vitalizing arbitration, ③ the need to guarantee access to arbitration, ④ the feasibility of revitalizing arbitration by the arbitration aid system, it is necessary to introduce the Arbitration Aid System. To explain the details of the Arbitration Aid System, a person who intends to apply for arbitration or a party who continues arbitration could be the applicant. Regarding the judge, this paper suggests the establishment of a council for arbitration aid to prevent the possibility of prejudgment by the arbitral tribunal. Also, if the council accepts the application for arbitration aid, it would be appropriate for the arbitral tribunal to determine the allocation of arbitration costs considering the decision of the council and to include it into arbitral awards.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제31권1호
• /
• pp.107-127
• /
• 2021

Vietnam is an important country with many trade transactions with the Republic of Korea. Arbitration is a method of resolving disputes that can arise with the increase in trade transactions. It is essential to study the legal system and precedents of Vietnam on the approval and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards. Such is the case because the law in Vietnam and the court's position on the approval and enforcement of foreign arbitration awards issued by the courts depend on the possibility of realizing the parties' rights concerning their disputes. Therefore, it is of great value both theoretically and practically to analyze the exact differences between approval and the denial of approval. Vietnam has enacted the Commercial Arbitration Act, which replaces the previous Commercial Arbitration Decree and creates an arbitration-friendly environment that meets international arbitration standards. Regarding the approval and execution of foreign arbitration awards, the Commercial Arbitration Act, the Civil Procedure Act, the Civil Execution Act, and the Vietnam Foreign Arbitration Awards Approval and Enforcement Ordinance are regulated. Following these laws and regulations, the reasons for the approval, enforcement, and rejection of the arbitral award are specified. In accordance with these laws and inappropriate arbitration agreements, an arbitral award beyond the scope of its right of disposition, an arbitral tribunal, or the concerned parties could not be involved in a proceeding or an arbitral award if the involved party does not have an opportunity to exercise its rights lawfully. If the state agency in the forum does not recognize the arbitral award, the dispute is not subject to arbitration under Vietnamese law, or the arbitral award does not conform to the basic principles of Vietnamese law, the parties are not bound, and the foreign arbitration award is rejected for approval and execution.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제17권1호
• /
• pp.117-136
• /
• 2007

Currently, it is the general trend that the party's autonomy principle is applicable in determining the applicable law for the international private law and the international commercial arbitration. The purpose of this article is to make research on the party's autonomy principle for the international commercial arbitral awards. For this purpose ist to analyse regal issue the applicability of the lex mercatoria and the possibility of $d\acute{e}pe\c{c}age$ relating to the party autonomy. In this Article ist dealt with Art. 29 para. 1 of the Korean Arbitration Act in comparison with Art. 28 para. 1 UNCITRAL Model Law and Art. 1051 para. 1 of the German Code of Civil Procedure. The Art. 28 para. 1 UNCITRAL Model Law and Art. 1051 para. 1 of the German Code of Civil Procedure provides equally. "The arbitral tribunal shall decide the dispute in accordence with such 'rules of law' as chosen by the parties as applicable to the substance of the dispute. Any designation of the law or legal system of a given State shall be construed, unless otherwise expressed, as directly referring to the substantive law of that State and not to its conflict of laws rules." The term 'rule of law' used to describe the applicability of the lex mercatoria and the possibility $d\acute{e}pe\c{c}age$. Unlike Art. 28 para. 1 UNCITRAL Model Law and Art. 1051 para.1 of the German Code of Civil Procedure. Act, Art. 29(1) of the Korean Arbitration Act provides that the arbitral tribunal shall decide the dispute in accordence with the 'law' chosen by the parties as applicable to the substance of the dispute. However the majority view in Korea takes the position that the term 'law' should be interpreted broadly so as to encompass 'rules of law' at UNCITRAL Model Law and the German Code of Civil Procedure.

• 무역학회지
• /
• 제43권6호
• /
• pp.139-160
• /
• 2018

본 연구는 중재판정부의 임시적 처분에 대하여 중국 정부가 어떤 기준에 근거하여 판단하고 있는지 관련 사례분석을 통해 규명하고자 하였다. 먼저 대부분의 국가에서 중재판정부 에 의한 임시적 처분을 인정하고 있는 반면, 중국은 여전히 법원 고유의 권한으로 인정하고 있다. 이는 국제적 추세와 불일치하는 판단이기도 하다. 특히 주요법률 규정인 중재법과 민사소송법이 2017년에 개정되었음에도 임시적 처분에 대한 규정은 변화가 없고 여전히 중재규칙간의 불일치로 인한 문제가 남아 있다. 따라서 중재절차상 임시적 처분이 어떻게 적용하고 집행하는지 중국의 입장과 태도에 대해서 주의를 기울일 필요가 있다.