• 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
• /
• 제25권3호
• /
• pp.113-133
• /
• 2015

This article reviews some recent decisions of the Supreme People's Court (SPC) of the People's Republic of China (PRC) on the recognition and enforcement of several South Korean arbitral awards. It explains the implementation of the New York Convention in the PRC and in particular the so-called Report System under the current Mainland Chinese law and judicial practice. It identifies some deficiencies in the People's Courts' approaches to the application and interpretation of the New York Convention and argues that the Mainland Chinese courts should adopt the pro-enforcement principle in the determination of the relevant issues under the New York Convention. It proposes further enhancement of the Report System and that the current categorization of 'domestic, foreign-related and foreign' in the context of arbitration agreements and arbitral awards needs to be further reviewed and clarified by the SPC. Last but not the least, it recommends some steps that South Korean parties should take to enhance the enforceability of South Korean Arbitral Awards in Mainland 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.

• 한국ITS학회 논문지
• /
• 제10권6호
• /
• pp.32-39
• /
• 2011

꼬리물기는 교차로에 정체가 발생하면 녹색 현시라도 진입해서는 안 되는데 이를 무시하고 무리하게 진입, 신호가 바뀐 뒤 다른 방향의 차량흐름에 방해를 주는 행위이다. 인력에 의한 단속 방법은 한계가 있어 지속적으로 단속을 하기위해서는 대체 방안이 필요하다고 하겠다. 교차로에서의 꼬리물기 위반를 시스템을 통해 단속가능한 지 여부를 파악하기 위해 실제 현장에서 실험을 통해 평가를 수행하였다. 본 연구에서는 현재 운영 중인 신호위반 단속장비와 달리 위반 차량을 단속하는 시점을 교차로 진출부 횡단보도 부근에서 하였으며, 위반 차량을 역추적 방식으로 궤적을 추적하는 방식을 적용하였다. 현장 실험 결과 시스템에 다음과 같은 결론을 얻었다. 교차로 꼬리물기 위반 차량에 대한 단속 능력, 즉 위반차량 검지율 및 오검지율을 평가한 결과, 평균 검지율은 83.5%, 오단속률은 0.2, 오인식률 1.5%로 나타났다. 따라서 꼬리물기 위반 차량을 무인단속장비에 의해 단속을 할 수 있을 것으로 판단된다.

• 한국ITS학회 논문지
• /
• 제22권1호
• /
• pp.126-142
• /
• 2023

본 연구는 이륜차 법규위반 및 교통사고 예방을 위한 무인교통단속장비 및 표준규격 개발을 목적으로 한다. 이를 위해 현재 운영중인 무인교통단속장비의 이륜차 단속의 문제점 및 신기술 검토를 진행하였고, 설문조사를 통해 이륜차 무인교통단속장비 도입타당성 및 기술현황을 조사하였다. 또한 개발장비 현장실험을 통해 이륜차 단속기능을 구현하였고, 성능개선을 통해 단속대상 추가 및 번호인식률이 향상되었다. 현장실험 및 성능평가 결과를 바탕으로 이륜차 무인교통단속장비의 성능기준을 마련하였고 통신프로토콜에서는 차종분류코드 및 위반항목에 이륜차에 관한 사항을 신규로 구성하여 규격을 개발하였다.

• 한국정보통신학회:학술대회논문집
• /
• 한국정보통신학회 2021년도 추계학술대회
• /
• pp.326-328
• /
• 2021

비교적 저렴한 가격으로 가까운 거리를 빠르게 이동할 수 있는 공유기반 전동킥보드의 이용률이 크게 향상되고 있다, 문제는 전동킥보드가 적절하지 않은 공간에 주차되어 안전사고를 유발하는 것이다. 본 논문에서는 딥러닝 기반 객체 인식 기술을 적용하여 방치된 전동킥보드의 잘못된 주차를 인식하는 체계를 제안한다. 본 논문에서는 실험 데이터의 특성을 고려하여 CNN과 유사한 모델을 별도로 생성하였으며 실험을 통하여 60%의 인식률을 얻었음을 보였다.

• 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
• /
• 제17권2호
• /
• pp.71-100
• /
• 2007

To promote the way of resolving the increasing disputes regarding international intellectual property by arbitration, we should overcome uncertainty thwarting the dispute resolution; i.e., whether a dispute regarding intellectual property would be an arbitrable subject, whether the arbitration agreement would be valid and enforceable, and whether the arbitral award could be recognized and enforced in a foreign country. This article is intended to seek how to promote and facilitate the resolution of international disputes regarding intellectual property by arbitration. This article in Chapter II will examine the characteristics of the IP disputes first. Chapter III of this article will study arbitrability of IP disputes. Then, Chapter IV will discuss the requirements, validity, and effectiveness of arbitration agreement of international IP disputes. The author will discuss the procedure of arbitration of the international IP disputes in Chapter V, and finally the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards thereon in Chapter VI. Due to the so called 'territoriality principle' in intellectual property, the international disputes thereof confront numerous procedural setback, e.g., jurisdiction, conflict of laws, the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments or awards. To overcome such setbacks, I propose resolution of international IP disputes by one-step arbitration procedure through widely recognizing the arbitrability of IP disputes, and utilizing unnational nature of arbitration. In addition, I propose to set up the principles as to arbitration of the international IP disputes as the American Law Institute has formulated the principles for International Intellectual Property Litigations. By setting up these principles, I am certain it will be helpful to just and prompt resolution of international IP disputes which occur more frequently these days.

• 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
• /
• 제18권3호
• /
• pp.23-50
• /
• 2008

In a global economy where, private parties increasingly favour arbitration over litigation, many foreigners are unfortunately reluctant to arbitration with China's parties because the China national courts do not scrutinize the merits when deciding whether to recognize and enforce foreign awards. As a result, the finality of arbitral awards hangs in uncertainty. Overseas concern is that China's courts may abuse "Public Policy" grounds provided for in the New York Convention to set aside or refuse to enforce foreign awards. The purpose of this article is to examine the distrust to enforcement of arbitral awards whether that is just an assumption. In spite of the modernize and internationalize her international arbitration system and many reforms provided in the related law and rules, the most vexing leftover issues are caused of the lack of "rule of law" in China. This situation imply the risk of pervert 'Public Policy' as the ground for refusing enforcement of arbitral awards. Some cases reflect the fear. But it is unclear whether those cases caused from the lack of "rule of law" in China. Same uncertainty present between Hon Kong-China under th one country-two legal system after the return of Hong Kong to China on 1 July 1997. While China is striving to improve its enforcement mechanism in regard to the enforcement of arbitral awards, it can only be expect following the establishment of rule of law in the future.