• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.16 no.2
• /
• 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.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.9 no.2
• /
• pp.209-229
• /
• 2008

When we are totalizing the lawsrelated to the medical, as the Laboratory medical testing is a kind of the medical act, it is the regulation that the medical technologist can analyze the specimen using in vitro diagnostic devices and diagnosticdrugs under the guidance of doctor or dentist from a corresponding medical institution and can report through verification and interpretation. However, in real medical fields, 'the guidance of doctor' is seriously in-sufficient or even the person who is not the medical technologist is executing. Furthermore the cases that produce inspection results with devices or reagents which are not validated nor approved have been frequently occurred. The result of Laboratory medical testing derived from this procedure can become the important information for the disease control of a country, and also can be decisive to the definite diagnosis and the prognostic monitoring about the patient disease. In spite of its significant medical act to be applicable to an unique proof with the related expert appraisal result in the medical mal-practice lawsuit, our reality in which the quality control is not properly working due by the costs and the labor shortage related to the Laboratory medical testing is quietly in bad condition. Even from now, the government should recognize the significance of the Laboratory medical testing and must achieve more strict administrative management as well as the law maintenance.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.49
• /
• pp.61-86
• /
• 2011

Korea Supreme Court has given thirty-nine time's judgments on enforcement of Arbitral awards for thirty-six arbitration cases and made four time's decision on the arbitration cases since Korea arbitration act was enacted in 1966. Most of the arbitration cases appealed to the Supreme Court was to obtain the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards or to set aside the arbitral awards according to the Korea arbitration Act article 36 and article 37, by reason of (a) a party to the arbitration agreement was under some incapacity under the law applicable to him or the said agreement is not valid under the law to which the parties have subjected it, or failing any indication thereon, (b) a party making the application was not given proper notice of the appointment of the arbitrator or arbitrators or of the arbitral proceedings or was otherwise unable to present his case (c) 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. However, 5 cases of these arbitral awards were refused to obtain the enforcement of Arbitral awards and have been cancelled finally by the Supreme Court only by the New York Convention of 1958.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.19
• /
• pp.169-190
• /
• 2003

Uniform Computer Information Transactions Act (UCITA) for e-commerce in non-UCC and non-UETA transactions, promulgated in 1999. The Act Drafted by the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws. UCITA applies to contracts to license or buy software, contracts to create computer programs, contracts for on-line access to databases and contracts to distribute information over the Internet. UCITA does not apply to goods such as television sets, stereo equipment, airplanes or traditional books and publications. Goods generally remain subject to UCC Article 2 or Article 2A. Many transactions may include more than computer information. If that transaction covers non-goods subject matter, UCITA applies only to the part of the transaction which is computer information and other law applies to the other subject matter. In the event the other subject matter is goods, UCC Article 2 or 2A applies to the goods subject matter and UCITA applies to the computer information part. UCITA is coordinated with existing Articles 2 and 2A, so coverage of each to part of the transaction will be facilitated. With respect to other subject matter (primarily services) UCC Articles 2 and 2A have worked in mixed transactions with the common law applicable to the services.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.43
• /
• pp.3-23
• /
• 2009

The meaning of Good faith is honest intent to act without taking an unfair advantage over another person or to fulfill a promise to act, even when some legal technicality is not fulfilled. The term is applied to all kinds of transactions. According to the CISG only regulated Art. 7. that is in the interpretation of this Convention, regard is to be had to its international character and to the need to promote uniformity in its application and the observance of good faith in international trade (1) and questions concerning matters governed by this Convention which are not expressly settled in it are to be settled in conformity with the general principles on which it is based or, in the absence of such principles, in conformity with the law applicable by virtue of the rules of private international law (2). In the other hand PICC is related to the good faith and fair dealing, each party must act in accordance with good faith and fair dealing in international trade (1) and the parties may not exclude or limit this duty (2). Good faith of PECL is these principles should be interpreted and developed in accordance with their purposes. In particular, regard should be had to the need to promote good faith and fair dealing, certainty in contractual relationships and uniformity of application. Further more regarding to the good faith and fair dealing, same to the PICC regulations.

• International Commerce and Information Review
• /
• v.11 no.2
• /
• pp.233-257
• /
• 2009

The 21st century is witnessing the explosive increase in the usage of internet and international electronic transactions. Due to the unique characteristics of the electronic information, substantial part of such transaction can and do take the form of cross-border transactions. However, there have not been settled appropriate set of rules applicable to the international electronic transactions. Currently, in respect to e-L/C transactions in international trade, there are laws such as Electronic Transaction Basic Act in our country, E-Trade Promotion Act, E-Signature Law, Act on Promotion of Information and Communication Network Utilization and Information Protection and Marine Charter 5 in the Commercial Law. Nevertheless, a complete legislation, that is a uniform rule for e L/C which could support e L/C transactions fully hasn't been established yet. Accordingly, those laws concerned need to improve to regulate e-L/C transactions. The purpose of this paper is to look into the national status for law readjustment to prepare for a new electronic environment and to use appropriately the e-L/C issued by electronic means, and to conduct a comparative analysis on the related regulations to introduce a pertinent laws and propose related regulations to contribute to the making of effective laws to regulate e-L/C.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.41
• /
• pp.25-50
• /
• 2009

In this article, I have reviewed the definition of international mercantile customs, their preferential application, the developing status of the credit practice, the effectiveness and relationship of the international standard banking practices, e.g. UCP 600 and ISBP 2007, ISP98, URR 725, eUCP 1.1. and the like, established by the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC). It is important to emphasize that the autonomous agreements between the credit parties and the international practice on the credit transaction are respected above all because of the special nature of its transaction. When we want to apply to a letter of credit by the international rules - UCP 600, ISP98, URDG, URR 725 and eUCP 1.1, we must indicate expressly in the text of the credit that it is subject to the respective rule. But the International Standard Banking Practice, 2007 revised by the ICC is applicable to without its indication in case of the UCP 600 credit. On the other hand, the UN Convention on Guarantees and Standby Credits applies to an international undertaking referred to in its article 2, (a) if the guarantor/issuer is in a Contracting State, or (b) if the rules of private international law lead to the application of the law of a Contracting State, unless the undertaking excludes the application of the Convention. And this Convention applies also to an international credit not falling within its article 2, if it expressly states that it is subject to this Convention.

• Transactions of the Korean Society of Automotive Engineers
• /
• v.2 no.6
• /
• pp.117-126
• /
• 1994

This paper deals with a robust semi-active control algorithm which is applicable to a semi-active suspension with a multi-state damper. Since the controllable damping rates are discrete in case of a multi-state semi-active damper, the desired damping rate can not be produced exactly even if force-velocity relations of a multi-state semi-active damper is completely known. In addition, damping characteristics of the semi-active dampers are different from damper to damper. A robust nonlinear control law based on sliding control is developed. The main objective of the proposed control strategies is to improve ride quality by tracking the desired active force with a multi-state damper of which the force-velocity relations are "not" completely known. The performance of th proposed semi-active control law is numerically compared to those of the control law based on a bilinear model and a passive suspension. The proposed control algorithm is robust to nonlinear characteristics and uncertainty of the force-Velocity relations of multi-state dampers.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.26
• /
• 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.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.21
• /
• 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.