• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제68권
• /
• pp.123-148
• /
• 2015

Central Asian Countries had been independent in 1991 from USSR. Since then it have been increasing foreign trade and investment amount with outside countries including China, Japan, EU and South Korea. Korean enterprises and entities have endeavored to secure plentiful natural resources, oil and gas energy and expand the market share to exporting the consuming and industrial competitive goods and services for those countries. In the case of disputes of commercial transactions and investment, arbitration is regarded as a dispute resolution system which has been preferred in international transactions and investments by the business world. Since the collapse of the USSR, Central Asian Countries have worked to modernize its arbitration law and procedure to conform with international standard rules. Arbitral legislation in Central Asian countries is based on the Model Law as adopted in 1985. However, CIS's legislation systems of arbitration are not satisfied with the international standard in national laws and practices. That is the reason to consider for the specific parliament about arbitration for the dispute resolutions in the commercial transaction and investment between Korean enterprises and CIS. In this article, it is discuss problems and its alternatives in the dispute resolution about the commercial transaction and investment into Central Asian countries including the tendency to the increasing the trade volumes of goods and investment between South Korea and CIS. According to this article, South Korea consider the long term strategy followed the preferred economic relative partnership for business success on commercial transaction and investment with the Central Asian Countries.

• 통상정보연구
• /
• 제13권3호
• /
• pp.301-323
• /
• 2011

그동안 WTO에서는 미국의 제로잉 제도에 관해 여러 건의 분쟁이 있었는데 최근에는 연속적으로 제로잉이 WTO 협정에 위배된다는 판정이 내려지고 있다. WTO는 지난 2011 년 1월 한국 철강제품에 대해서도 미국에 대해 패소판정을 내린 바 있다. WTO에서의 연속적인 패소로 인해 미국은 어떤 형태로든 제로잉 관행을 변경할 수밖에 없는 상황이다. 따라서 미 상무부는 지난 2003년 12월에 원심에서의 제로잉 관행을 폐지하였고, 2010년 12월에는 재심에서의 제로잉 관행에 대해서도 개선할 것을 발표하였다. 그동안 제로잉으로 인해 텀핑마진이 과대 계산되고, 이로 인해 수입규제를 받아오던 우리나라의 주요 철강제품은 향후 제로잉 제도가 철폐되면 대부분의 제품에서 텀핑마진이 감소하고 일부의 경우에는 수입규제에서 벗어날 가능성이 높아졌다. 이번 연구는 덤핑마진 재계산과 가격분산을 이용한 실증 분석으로서 제로잉이 철폐되면 이번 WTO 분쟁대상 상품 12개 중에서 약 6개 상품의 덤핑마진이 절반 이상 하락하고 일부 제품의 경우 미소마진 이하로 감소하여 향후 반덤핑 규제 대상에서 제외될 가능성이 높은 것으로 나타났다.

• 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
• /
• 제22권2호
• /
• pp.103-124
• /
• 2012

Because the Korea-U.S. Free Trade Agreement (Korea-U.S. FTA) and the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) have an overlapping contracting party, the United States, their provisions have much in common. The investment chapters of these agreements, especially, show many similarities, and thanks to these similarities, it is likely that the Korea-U.S. FTA arbitration tribunal for investor-state disputes regarding the environment will put great weight on the NAFTA tribunals' interpretations of those similar provisions. Since the NAFTA tribunals have already handled many environment-related arbitration cases, their interpretations will help heighten the predictability of environment-related Korea-U.S. FTA arbitration cases. This paper analyzes the environment-related NAFTA cases in which the tribunal has issued an award, which are the Metalclad case, S.D. Myers case, Waste Management case, Methanex case, Glamis Gold case, and Chemtura case. According to this analysis, the most controversial NAFTA provisions have been Article 1102 (national treatment), Article 1105 (minimum treatment standard, fair and equitable treatment), and Article 1110 (expropriation). The NAFTA tribunals applied the requirement of these articles in a strict manner, reducing the possibility of finding a violation. After the aforementioned analysis, this paper proceeds to compare the national treatment, minimum treatment standard (fair and equitable treatment), and expropriation provisions of the Korea-U.S. FTA and NAFTA and to predict the impact that the environment-related awards under NAFTA can have on environment-related Korea-U.S. FTA cases. It is expected that the NAFTA interpretations of the national treatment and minimum treatment provisions are likely be used as they are, but not the interpretations of expropriation, because of the differences in the expropriation provisions of the two agreements.

• 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
• /
• 제29권4호
• /
• pp.33-55
• /
• 2019

This study is aimed at drawing up improvement measures in connection with the resolution of claims, one of the major constraints in revitalizing South-North Korean economic cooperation. To that end, we first looked at the structure of South-North Korean economic cooperation and the institutional status related to resolving the claims. Also we analyzed the current status of the claims in the process of promoting South-North Korean economic cooperation by companies and the provisions of the claims between the parties in order to derive any problems. Through these research results, we were able to identify directions and implications for efficient improvement of the causes of several South-North Korean economic cooperation claims. First, at the corporate level, there is a need to create specific details of a contract for resolving disputes and to add additional third-party coordination functions in the relevant clause of the contract in preparation for the occurrence of a dispute. In addition, it is necessary to seek ways to advance jointly with corporations in China and other third countries in order to secure stability. Second, the government should continue to discuss ways of promoting South-North Korean commercial arbitration with North Korea so that follow-up measures can be completed as soon as possible. In addition, a two-track strategy is suggested to provide a practical negotiation channel at the private level. Also it is necessary to be active in persuading North Korea to join the international arbitration treaty in preparation for the activation of full-fledged economic exchanges.

• 한국콘텐츠학회논문지
• /
• 제12권5호
• /
• pp.188-198
• /
• 2012

교회는 법인 아닌 사단으로 인정되는 단체 중의 하나이며, 법인 아닌 사단에 관한 민법의 일반 이론에 따라 교회 실체를 파악하고 교회의 재산귀속에 대해서 판단한다. 법인 아닌 사단의 내부관계는 일차적으로 정관의 적용을 받고 정관의 규정이 없는 경우에는 총회 결의와 민법의 사단법인에 관한 규정을 유추적용하게 된다. 법인 아닌 사단의 채무에 대해서는 사원의 준총유이다(제275조, 제278조). 지난 50여년 동안 대법원 판례는 법인 아닌 사단인 개신교 교회에 대하여서만은 일반적인 법리와는 달리, 교회의 분열을 허용하고 분열시의 재산관계는 분열당시의 교인들의 총유라고 판시했다. 새로운 판례(대법원 2006. 4. 20. 선고 2004다37775 전원합의체판결)는 법인 아닌 사단의 분열은 허용되지 않으므로 비법인 사단의 분쟁해결을 위해 대법원은 종전의 분열인정에서 부인하는 쪽으로 판례를 변경한 것은 분쟁을 해결해야 한다는 당위성이 반영된 것으로 이해된다.

• 의료법학
• /
• 제10권2호
• /
• pp.287-307
• /
• 2009

A person is injured in car accident caused by his/her slight negligence except he / she causes accident by his / her willfulness or gross negligence. Because the National Health Insurance Corporation (hereinafter called "Corporation") shall not provide any insurance benefit "when he has intentionally or through gross negligence caused a criminal conduct or intentionally contributed to the occurrence of an accident" referred to in Article 48 (1) 1 of the National Health Insurance Act. So, if he / she is insured by his / her own bodily injury coverage, he / she can be compensated for his / her medical expenses. The injured have the rights to file either National Health Insurance claim and Automobile Insurance claim but there is no clear and definite adjustment clause. The claim disputes between National Health Insurance (hereinafter called "NHI") and Automobile Insurance (hereinafter called "AI") in the own bodily injury coverage makes some problems. Firstly, there are some differences in co-payments which he / she chooses between NHI and AI. Profit per a patient is higher in the NHI than in the AI. Secondly, it can provoke criticism that people shall unnecessarily pay double contributions. Lastly, it can raise moral hazards. For example, if he / she can cover the compensations when the insured receives the compensations from his / her insurer, the Corporation can be claimed by medical care institution payment of the health care benefit costs. In conclusion, first of all, to improve the national health and preserve the insured's rights the Corporation shall keep notice these facts.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제22권3호
• /
• pp.187-213
• /
• 2012

The purpose of this article is to examine Fair and Equitable Treatment in International Investment Agreements. Most BITs and other investment treaties provide for FET of foreign investments. Today, this concept is the most frequently invoked standard in investment disputes. It is also the standard with the highest practical relevance: a majority of successful claims pursued in international arbitration are based on a violation of the FET standard. The concept of FET is not new but has appeared in international documents for some time. Some of these documents were nonbinding others entered into force as multilateral or bilateral treaties. Considerable debate has surrounded the question of whether the FET standard merely reflects the internationalminimum standard, as contained in customary international law, or offers an autonomous standard that is additional to general international law. As a matter of textual interpretation, it seems implausible that a treaty would refer to a well-known concept like the "minimum standard of treatment in customary international law" by using the expression "fair and equitable treatment." Broad definitions or descriptions are not the only way to gauge the meaning of an elusive concept such as FET. Another method is to identify typical factual situations to which this principle has been applied. An examination of the practice of tribunals demonstrates that several principles can be identified that are embraced by the standard of fair and equitable treatment. Some of the cases discussed clearly speak to the central roles of transparency, stability, and the investor's legitimate expectations in the current understanding of the FET standard. Other contexts in which the standard has been applied concern compliance with contractual obligations, procedural propriety and due process, action in good faith, and freedom from coercion and harassment. In short, meeting the investor's central legitimate concern of legal consistency, stability, and predictability remains a major, but not the only, ingredient of an investment-friendly climate in which the host state in turn can reasonably expect to attract foreign investment.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제17권2호
• /
• pp.23-41
• /
• 2007

The role of ICC Court of Arbitration in ICC Arbitration is critical in maintaining the good reputation and worldwide recognition. While most arbitration institutions are the products of regional on national private associations, which play a relatively limited role in appointing or confirming the arbitrators, the Court of Arbitration is not only international in the appointment of arbitrators through the each National Committee, but also intervene in the confirmation of the prospective arbitrators proposed by the parties. Thus the ICC Arbitration is undoubtedly the most highly-supervised form of institutional arbitration available. The purpose of this paper is to examine the appointment and confirmation system of ICC Arbitration, to find the distinctive features of the ICC Rules of Arbitration and to check how to apply the features in the Rules of International Arbitration for the Korean Commercial Arbitration Board(KCAB Rules). Although the KCAB Rules have inherent limitations in the appointment of the arbitrators comparing with the ICC Court. They do not have any confirmation system of the arbitrator proposed by the parties. Although no arbitral institutions is in a position to guarantee completely the ultimate quality and efficacy of the process, the ICC, more than any other institution has historically endeavored to do so through a combination of the efforts of its International Court of Arbitration and National Committees. Composed of legal professionals of more than 75 nationalities, the Court, with the support of its permanent Secretariat in Paris, brings to bear on the decisions that it is responsibility to make the collective and disparate knowledge and experience of a multinational body. Therefore, if the KCAB wants to attract many international disputes, it should try to benchmark the ICC Rules of Arbitration, expecially the Article 9, to secure the prominent arbitrators throughout the world, even though a lot of limitations are exist. The positive role of the ICC Court of Arbitration gives us very important signal.