• 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.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제57권
• /
• pp.79-108
• /
• 2013

International transactions of plant and construction project need to time to time for completing the contract. During the performing the contract there may arise many claims and disputes it should be settled rapidly for processing schedule of works. However, arbitration and litigation for settlement of dispute are inappropriate in time and expense under the specifications of plant and construction project. Dispute boards are one of the successful resolution method of dispute prior to litigation or arbitration. If the dispute board was failed, of course, it may be allowed to continue into litigation or arbitration. As the creative methods of parties agreement, dispute boards may be expected to avoid claims and dispute in long and medium international contract. The purpose of this paper is to explore the specification and limitations of dispute boards that may clear disputes under long and medium contract of construction and procurement. It needs to be understand to determine whether is the useful methods for resolving dispute in the international project. This paper considers the specific natures of dispute board and its rules, procedures and problems including ICC and FIDIC for the contract of long and medium transaction.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제31권4호
• /
• pp.3-27
• /
• 2021

Recent Discussions on Third-Party Funding (TPF) in the forums of UNCITRAL, ICSID, and ICC are making different levels of progress towards finalizing the rules. However, they also have similarities in dealing with legal issues related to TPF, such as definitions, disclosure, allocation of costs, and security for costs. International treaty tribunals have dealt with TPF issues, too. When it comes to the standing of funded claimants, the tribunal in Ambiente v. Argentina did not accept the argument that claimants were controlled by the TPF provider. Concerning the scope of the disclosure, the tribunal in Tennant v. Canada ordered the disclosure of the TPF arrangement. As for the allocation of costs, the tribunal in Kardassopoulos v. Georgia noted that there is no reason why a TPF agreement should be treated differently than an insurance contract. Regarding the security for costs, the tribunal in South American Silver v. Bolivia considered the mere existence of a third-party funder as not an exclusive factor to determine costs in the earlier stage of the proceedings. Lastly, relating to TPF as a ground for annulment, the tribunal in Teinver v. Argentina declined the respondent's argument that the TPF agreement was the vehicle of fraud.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제26권
• /
• pp.35-86
• /
• 2005

International distributorship contract(IDC), as well as international agency contract is a type of contract which is most frequently used in international trade. But one of the main difficulties faced by parties of IDC is the lack of uniform rules for this type of contract. This means that both parties should be careful about each clause of the contract when they draw up it. The ICC prepared model form which incorporates the prevailing practice in international trade, and which aims at protecting and balancing the legitimate interests of both parties. This author examined the several important clauses in this model contract. The purpose of this examination is to help the contracting parties for better understanding and applying them in their actual contracting practice, which based on this model contract. When the supplier and the distributor execute their contract or use ICC Model Contract, they should be careful about the following points: First, some terminologies(like, "territory", "product", "competing products" and "exclusivity") should be clearly defined in their contract. Second, regarding the supplier's functions including "supplying products" and the distributor's responsibility including "undertaking not to compete", and "attaining guaranteed minimum targets", both parties should make clear about each party's right and obligation as well as one party's remedies available when other party makes breach of its obligation. Third, both parties should examine the relationship between the "exclusivity" or "sole" and competition law which is regarded as a mandatory rule in the territory. Forth, when both parties lay down "termination clause" in the contract, they should make clear about the indemnity in case of termination. Fifth, as there is not uniform law for the distributorship contract, it is inevitable to choose any local law as an applicable law in case of litigation. So both parties should keep in mind to insert arbitration clause to avoid the application of the local law. Besides, both parties should consider their individual and specific circumstances and try to reflect them in their contract by Annex I to XI attached to the end of model contract.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제21권
• /
• pp.129-151
• /
• 2003

Nowadays even if environment of international commercial transaction is changing quickly municipal law could not meet with such change accordingly. So far, however, efforts towards unification have prevailingly taken the form of binding instruments, such as non-national or supranational legislation, international conventions or international model laws. Among them, the UNIDROIT Principles with parties' autonomous and yet non-binding character do not only meet the substantive requirements of a true law merchant. In addition they also counter some of the main points of criticism against the modern lex mercatoria. As such the Principles constitute a cornerstone in the lex mercatoria debate and may become the heart of the new lex mercatoria. The purpose of this article is to ask whether there could be applied the Principles in international commerce. For the purpose it is to investigate when the Principles are applied in international commerce and how effectively the Principles are applied for the decision in international commercial disputes. Even though the Principles are used for reference by parties involved for the voluntary regulation of their contract, it is sufficiently expected that the Principles are to be a stepstone of uniform contract law in international commerce. Until now cases of appling the Principles are not satisfied with its expectation as a source of non-legislative means of unification or harmonization of law. Given the party's autonomy in the contract, this is among other things because business parties are strongly tend to observe their national laws in their international commerce. And also, even though there are a number of neutral and uniform regulations for international commercial contracts, parties do not often recognize their usefulness with being up to expectation. In order to explore the applicability of the Principles a number of cases of ICC International Court of Arbitration and others are quoted.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제22권3호
• /
• 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.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제17권
• /
• pp.71-91
• /
• 2002

The purpose of this paper is to examine the viewpoints of the different legal systems for the validity of LD Clause and the possibility of gap-filling function of UNIDROIT Principles in International Sales Contract. The results of comparative study between common law system and civil law system, and between CISG and UNCDROIT Principles is as follows: First, common law system distinguishes LD Clause and Penalty Clause, but civil law system including Korean law does not strictly distinguish the difference between them, provided that the liquidated damages are not grossly excessive. Second, CISG does not concerned with the validity of LD Clause but entrust this matter to the law applicable by virtue of the rules of private international law; conversely the Principles follow similar position of civil law system. The possibility of gap-filling of the Principles is more positive in the case of arbitration than in the case of litigation. On the basis of above study, I also checked the LD Clauses of ICC Model International Sales and the Model Contracts of Korean Commercial Arbitration Board. The LD Clauses of there two Model Contract seem very appropriate and reasonable for the reference in practical application. The appropriate, not excessive, LD Clause will contribute not only to eliminate the burden of proof for the actual damages, but also to enforce both parties to perform their obligations in their contracts. Therefore, When we make contract, we should keep in our mind to insert the reasonable and appropriate LD Clause in the sales contract. If not, so to speak, litigated damages are grossly excessive, the Clause may be invalid in some legal system.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제54권
• /
• pp.145-166
• /
• 2012

This article examines the limitations of the choice of law caused by Internationally Mandatory Rules in Entering into the Turn-Key Contracts. In June 2007, Clough Engineering, a corporation based in Western Australia, approached the Federal Court of Australia seeking injunctive relief and leave to commence proceedings against an entity located outside Australia, the Oil & Natural Gas Corp of India (ONGC). Clough had contracted with ONGC to provide a range of services in relation to the construction of gas and oil wells off the coast of India. The contract was governed by Indian law, and included a clause by which the parties agreed to submit their disputes to arbitration. Yet the Federal Court assumed jurisdiction over the dispute, principally because Clough had framed its claim as a plea for relief for contraventions of Australia's Trade Practices Act 1974. The result of this cases that it is possible for an arbitral tribunal to hear a claim made under the Trade Practices Act even if that claim arises "in connection with"a contract the proper law of which is not the law of Australia. However, in Transfield Philippines Inc v Pacific Hydro Ltd, the turnkey contract included a choice of law provision, selecting the law of the Philippines, and a clause providing that all disputes arising out of or in connection with the agreement were to be arbitrated under the ICC Rules, with the seat in Singapore. Hearings were in fact conducted in Melbourne, Australia, although all awards were published in Singapore. The result of this cases that it would not be appropriate for an Australian court to adjudicate claims for misrepresentation under Australian statutes dealing with misleading and deceptive conduct, once the arbitral tribunal had determined, applying appropriate choice of law rules, that such claims are governed by the law of the Philippines. To do so would lead to a multiplicity of proceedings, usurp the jurisdiction of the tribunal and deny the intention of the parties as expressed by them in the arbitration agreement. In short, the Internationally Mandatory Rules as an active part of public order create limitation of party autonomy in choice of law rules in a different way. The court is fully entitled to refuse to use those rules of law applicable on the contract which are in the contradiction to the internationally mandatory rules of law of the forum. And the court may give an effect to those Internationally Mandatory Rules that form a part of a law of foreign country when deciding about applicability of certain rules of applicable law.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제47권
• /
• pp.129-156
• /
• 2010

Since the 1970s, international construction employers have commonly requested first demand guarantees upon their contractors as a form of security for due performance of their works. Contractors prefer the greater protection offered by more traditional forms of security requiring presentation of an arbitral award or other evidence of the caller's entitlement to compensation. Many contractors nonetheless feel that they have no alternative but to provide these unconditional guarantees in order to compete. However, these unconditional first demand guarantees are controversial and have given rise to numerous disputes both in arbitration and litigation. Disputes arising from first demand guarantees can be broken down into a) applications to prevent a perceived fraudulent or otherwise unfair or improper calling of a guarantee, b) claims arising from such abusive calls and c) claims relating to the consequences of such calls even if the call itself may not be abusive as such. The contractors should carefully assess the risk of an abusive call being made bearing in mind the difficulties he may face in seeking to prevent such a call. He should also bear in mind the difficulties, delays and cost he is likely to encounter in seeking to recover any monies wrongfully called. One option would be to provide that the call can only be made once and to the extent that the employer's damages have been assessed or even incurred or even for the default to have been established by an arbitral tribunal or court. Another option would be to provide that any call be accompanied by a decision of a competent and impartial third party stating that the contractor is in breach. For example, such a requirement could be incorporated into a construction contract based on the FIDIC Conditions by submitting this decision to a Dispute Adjudication Board. Another option would be to provide for the "ICC Counter-Guarantee Scheme". In sum, there would appear to be room for compromise between the employer and the contractor in respect of first demand guarantees by conditioning the entitlement to call such guarantees to the determination of a competent and impartial third party.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제69권
• /
• pp.261-301
• /
• 2016

Recently the abusive calls on on-demand bonds have been a critical issue among many engineering and construction companies in Korea. On-demand bond is referred to as an independent guarantee in the sense that the guarantee is independent from its underlying contract although it was issued based on such underlying contract. For this reason, the issuing bank is not required to and/or entitled to look into whether there really is a breach of underlying contract in relation to the call on demand-bonds. Due to this kind of principle of independence, the applicant has to run the risk of the on demand bond being called by the beneficiary without due grounds. Only where the call proves to be fraudulent or abusive in a very clear way, the issuing bank would not be obligated to pay the bond proceeds for the call on on-demand bonds. In order to prevent the issuing bank from paying the proceeds under the on-demand bond, the applicant usually files with its competent court an application for injunction prohibiting the beneficiary from calling against the issuing bank. However, it is in practice difficult for the applicant to prove the beneficiary's call on the bond to be fraudulent since the courts in almost all the jurisdictions of advanced countries require very strict and objective evidences such as the documents which were signed by the owner (beneficiary) or any other third party like the engineer. There is another way of preventing the beneficiary from calling on the bond, which is often utilized especially in the United Kingdom or Western European countries such as Germany. Based upon the underlying contract, the contractor which is at the same time the applicant of on-demand bond requests the court to order the owner (the beneficiary) not to call on the bond. In this case, there apparently seems to be no reason why the court should apply the strict fraud rule to determine whether to grant an injunction in that the underlying legal relationship was created based on a construction contract rather than a bond. However, in most jurisdictions except for United Kingdom and Singapore, the court also applies the strict fraud rule on the ground that the parties promised to make the on-demand bond issued under the construction contract. This kind of injunction is highly unlikely to be utilized on the international level because it is very difficult in normal situations to establish the international jurisdiction towards the beneficiary which will be usually located outside the jurisdiction of the relevant court. This kind of injunction ordering the owner not to call on the bond can be rendered by the arbitrator as well even though the arbitrator has no coercive power for the owner to follow it. Normally there would be no arbitral tribunal existing at the time of the bond being called. In this case, the emergency arbitrator which most of the international arbitration rules such as ICC, LCIA and SIAC, etc. adopt can be utilized. Finally, the contractor can block the issuing bank from paying the bond proceeds by way of a provisional attachment in case where it also has rights to claim some unpaid interim payments or damages. This is the preservative measure under civil law system, which the lawyers from common law system are not familiar with. As explained in this article, it is very difficult to block the issuing bank from paying in response to the bond call by the beneficiary even if the call has no valid ground under the underlying construction contract. Therefore, it is necessary for the applicants who are normally engineering and construction companies to be prudent to make on-demand bonds issued. They need to take into account the creditability of the project owner as well as trustworthiness of the judiciary system of the country where the owner is domiciled.