• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제30권2호
• /
• pp.121-144
• /
• 2020

If the interim disposition of the Arbitration Tribunal is not immediately enforceable, it will only give pressure to the other party concerned and the arbitration could work against him if the other party fails to implement it. If enforcement is impossible, the disposition will have no practical effect or practical benefit. In addition, if a system is contrary to its unique characteristics or nature, it will not function as a system or it will become an unnecessary decoration. There is no room for argument that the above provisions are wrong or misinterpreted if the temporary disposition in arbitration cannot be characterized by its characteristics, such as its provisionality, urgency, incidentality, or invasibility. As attracting international arbitration cases can create enormous added value for the national economy, countries are scrambling to create a mediating-friendly legal environment in their countries, and Korea has been more active in arbitration than in the past. Despite various efforts, however, attracting international arbitration cases is still a long way off. Therefore, Korea should create a mediating-friendly, legal environment to attract arbitration cases. There are many reasons why arbitration is activated internationally, but the most important of them is that it is easier to approve and execute. The use of the approval and execution of heavy court is, in turn, the most important requirement of a mediating-friendly environment. It is natural that temporary dispositions made in arbitration should be as easy to approve and enforce as in the case of arbitration. In addition, it is natural for the parties to consider the use of approval and execution when deciding where to mediate or when applying for arbitration; thus, the degree of ease of execution, along with the procedural use of arbitration or provisional disposition, will be a measure of the likelihood of hosting international arbitration cases, as well as the activation of arbitration.

• 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.

• 무역학회지
• /
• 제45권1호
• /
• pp.203-219
• /
• 2020

The parties shall perform all actions necessary for the proper and expeditious conduct of arbitral proceedings. This includes complying without delay with any determination of the tribunal as to any and all procedural or evidential matters, or with any order or directions of the tribunal, and where appropriate, taking without delay any necessary steps to obtain a decision of the court on a preliminary question of jurisdiction or law. The parties are free to agree on the powers of the tribunal in case of a party's failure to do something necessary for the proper and expeditious conduct of the arbitration. The parties' general duty may be based on agreements, such as the duty not to ask the court for a dispute, the duty to carry out arbitral awards, and the duty of confidentiality. In this study, as a premise, after confirming the discussion related to Article 40 (general obligations of the parties) of the law, the arbitral tribunal will analyze the authority to execute it based on Article 41. As a matter of fact, in LMAA Terms 2017, the parties want to analyze what is required in order to proceed effectively.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제19권3호
• /
• pp.3-24
• /
• 2009

This article discusses the validity of selective/unilateral arbitration agreement that provides arbitration as one of several dispute resolution methods. The Supreme Court has held selective/unilateral arbitration agreement that is conditional invalidity since the judgement of 2003Da318 decided on Aug. 22, 2003: In the following judgements of 2004Da42166 decided on Nov. 11, 2004 and 2005Da12452 decided on May 27, 2005, the Court stated that the selective/unilateral arbitration agreement that stipulates to resolve a dispute through arbitration or mediation would be valid as an effective arbitration agreement only if a party elects and proceeds an arbitration proceeding and another party responses to the arbitration proceeding without any objection. The definition of arbitration agreement, the formation of selective/unilateral arbitration agreement, the summary of relative judgements and academic theories will be reviewed in order to examine the appropriateness of the series of judgements of the Supreme Court. Based on such reviews, this article will investigate the adequacy of the Supreme Court judgements from the perspectives of i) the principle of party autonomy, ii) the structure of dispute resolution methods, iii) legal provisions of Arbitration Act, iv) legal stability, and v) the policy to revitalize the use of arbitration. At conclusion, this article will suggest the change of precedents of the Supreme Court's judgements with regard to the selective arbitral agreement.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제32권2호
• /
• pp.3-30
• /
• 2022

On 27 October the Supreme Court of UK handed down its much anticipated decision in Kabab-Ji SAL (Lebanon) v Kout Food Group (Kuwait) [2021] UKSC 48. The issues for the Supreme Court to decide were as follows: (1) which law governed the validity of the arbitration agreement; (2) if English law applied, whether, as a matter of English law, there was any real prospect that a court might find that KFG became a party to the arbitration agreement, and (3) whether, procedurally, the Court of Appeal was correct in giving summary judgment refusing recognition and enforcement the award, or whether there should have been a full rehearing of whether there was a valid and binding arbitration agreement for the purposes of the New York Convention and the AA 1996 (the 'procedural' issue) The decision in Kabab-Ji provides further reassuring clarity on how the governing law of the arbitration agreement is to be determined under English law where the governing law is not expressly stated in the arbitration agreement itself. The Supreme Court's reasoning is consistent with its earlier decision on the same issue, albeit in the context of enforcement pursuant to the New York Convention, rather than considering the arbitration agreement before an award is rendered. This paper presents some implications of Kabab-Ji case. Also, it seeks to provide a meaningful discussion and theories on the arbitration system in Korea.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제20권2호
• /
• pp.27-47
• /
• 2010

It is well recognized that the availability of prompt, effective and economical means of dispute resolution is an important element in the orderly growth and encouragement of international trade and investment. Increasingly, arbitration, instead of litigation in national courts, has become the preferred means of resolving private international commercial disputes. Under the situation, it will be important thing for arbitral institutions to reach an agreement to promote the dispute settlement of the commercial disputes, for which efforts have been made between the Korean Commercial Arbitral Board(KCAB) and principal arbitration institutions of the foreign countries. Since 1973, the KCAB has entered into many arbitration agreements with well-known foreign institutions of arbitration. If the place of arbitration is not so designated by the parties, it, as a general rule, shall be the country of the respondent(s) under the Korea-Japanese Arbitration Agreement. On the other hand, the U.S.-Korean Commercial Arbitration Agreement maintains 'Joint Arbitration Committee which finally decide the place of arbitration. In 1996, the Korea-Austria Agreement of Cooperation was concluded for the prompt and equitable settlement on an amicable basis of commercial disputes. Under this Agreement, arbitral institutions between Korea and Austria agreed to act as an appointing authority in accordance with the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules. It is also very important for Korea and China including North Korea to cooperate each other for the settlement of the commercial disputes within the Pan Yellow Sea Economic Bloc(PYSEB). The PYSEB is quickly becoming a distinctive and crucial region in the world sharing geographical proximity, many common historical experiences, and similar cultural norms and values although they have disparities in stages of development, trade and economic policies, and financial and legal frameworks. Finally, it should be considered to establish a central common system for settlement promotion of the commercial disputes within the PYSEB through the arbitration agreement. Such a dispute resolution system was already introduced and established within the area of the NAFTA, and it is called the Commercial Arbitration and Mediation Center for the Americas(CAMCA).

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제13권1호
• /
• pp.207-244
• /
• 2003

There are many parties who connected with contracts like a contract for construction. Dispute arising from the two parties can be souled by themselves. but it grows the necessity of settlement at one effort. The meaning of multiparty arbitration is solution of mixed disputes without inconsistency through multiparty concerned. H the parses wish to settle the disputes by arbitration, they must come to an arbitration agreement. The arbitration agreement is necessary to resolve disputes autonomously, that may be in the form of a separate agreement or in the form of a clause in a contract. More ever it is resonable to view the arbitration agreement as a substantive contract in its legal nature enabling the authority for dispute resolution by the arbitrator. I had argument about who should appoint the arbitrator. That is to say, each party can appoint the arbitrator, otherwise the courts can appoint one. The basis of multiparty arbitration is focused on the factor that the courts may have the right to order the consolidation of arbitration proceedings without consent of the parties. The dispute can be settled by the arbitrators who are appointed. Appointing arbitrator is very important because it affects the party's equality. The right to appoint arbitrator shall be entitled each party in multiparty arbitration. Therefore they can appoint plural arbitrators by mutual agreement. for .reference to Rules of Arbitration of The International Chamber of Commerce, the Court shall appoint a sole arbitrator or three arbitrators in condition. The Arbitration Act of Korea dose not have the clause on multiparty arbitration including the arbitration rules. But if we have the clause enacted, it brings a situation in which both parties gain a benefit.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제32권4호
• /
• pp.87-101
• /
• 2022

Since Research and Development has been expanded by government, It is very important to evaluate the outcome of Research and Development. Government have levied the penalty of researchers who misused research funding as time goes on. However, there is no protect law for the research before 2021. Government put new committee for the researchers to judge whether their action is legal or illegal based of Innovation Act 2021. Due to the various outcome index of research and development, many firms which is paticipating the research and development have been confused the outcome index. Also, It is difficult for government agencies for management to evaluate the outcome. Even if the committee is trying to solve dispute between researchers and the government agencies, it is not enough to solve it. Therefore, we need to consider Alternative Dispute Resolution(ADR), because the ADR has been developved detail skills for long time.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제32권1호
• /
• pp.71-91
• /
• 2022

The legal integration in the European Union that seeks a unified system in consumer disputes and the German Consumer Dispute Mediation Act based on this pursues the procedural fairness of consumer disputes and the equality of results. The role and legal status of the dispute mediator, who plays a very important role in this process, and the stable operation of the dispute resolution system and the guarantee of reasonable results through the guarantee of fairness and independence are very important values. In particular, the dispute mediator under the Act is conceptually different from the existing mediator or mediator, and through this distinction, the duties and contents of the dispute mediator are also distinguished. For this reason, the qualifications of dispute mediators that affect the outcome of dispute mediation are strictly stipulated. There have been some criticisms of this strictness, and such strictness is also seen as an excessive limitation. However, these standards can be understood as one of the efforts to make the dispute mediation procedure more systematic and to operate objectively in accordance with laws and procedures. In addition, in relation to the issue of independence and impartiality of the dispute mediator, the status of the dispute mediator is guaranteed in various aspects. In economic terms, it is not influenced by external factors, and furthermore, in order to guarantee job stability, the results of job security and dispute resolution are not linked. By examining the appropriate level of discipline for these dispute mediators, we expect the developmental growth of the consumer dispute resolution system under our Act.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제16권2호
• /
• pp.89-120
• /
• 2006

If the existence and effect of the arbitration agreement becomes an issue in international business transactions, it is the key point how we shall determine the applicable law by national rules for the conflict of laws, or by other methods. The argument in determination of the applicable law to the existence and effect of the arbitration agreement is related to regal nature of the arbitration agreement. As there are foreign factors in international arbitration, therefore we must consider such an aspect. Besides, we have to examine whether the general theory of contract is universally applicable to the arbitration agreement. Currently, it is the general trend that the party's autonomy principle is applicable in determining the applicable law for the arbitration agreement. However, it is a difficult problem to recognize the applicable law chosen by the parties, whether it is based on any regal standard(for example New York Convention or the private international law or the essential quality of the arbitration agreement). In the light of the actual transactions, when the parties don't make a choice of the applicable law expressly, it will finally come down to presuming the party's implied intent. Nevertheless, finding the implied intent is a difficult problem. Some argue that we shall presume the choice of applicable law by an objective standard such as a place of arbitration, to prevent too much expansion of the scope of the recognition. But we need to review that this interpretation harmonizes with the principle of party autonomy. Especially, if we desire to detect the vital point where it is most closely linked to the arbitration agreement, we have to inquire how we will decide such a relation by means of any standard. However, as the existing Arbitration Act doesn't offer the solution to these issues, therefore we have to settle these problems through the development of adjudications and theories.