• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제28권2호
• /
• pp.91-110
• /
• 2018

Consumers repeatedly make small sum purchases through business-to-consumer contracts, usually without incident. Consumer areas have been increasing; therefore, consumer disputes have been occurring frequently as well. In international consumer transactions, it is not easy to solve consumer disputes by applying the laws of different countries. Resolving disputes by using the consumer arbitration system can be a measure to protect consumers. In the U.S., a class arbitration is being operated as a mixed dispute resolution system of class action and arbitration. Consumer Arbitration has long been a controversial issue in the U.S. It is therefore a lesson for us to examine related cases. A recent U.S. Supreme Court decision, DIRECTV v. Imburgia, was looked into and after a summary of the facts, issues, and opinions and opposing opinions that had a tight controversy, a close analysis was done. The analysis through this judgment is as follows: first, the contraction of consumer protection; second, the expansion of the Federal Arbitration Act scope; third, the class arbitration's restriction; and fourth, the submission of the arbitration fairness act.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제33권4호
• /
• pp.3-35
• /
• 2023

The Korean government has enacted the Arbitration Industry Promotion Act, which aims to foster the arbitration system as an industry, strengthen national competitiveness, and systematically provide government support so that the arbitration industry can become a future growth engine, and has been in effect since June 28, 2017. In accordance with Article 3 of the Arbitration Industry Promotion Act, the Minister of Justice must establish and implement the Basic Plan for the Promotion of the arbitration industry every five years to promote the arbitration industry. Accordingly, the Ministry of Justice established the "Basic Plan for the Promotion of the Arbitration Industry" (2019-2023) at the end of 2018, which has been in effect since January 1, 2019. This study first reviews and evaluates the domestic arbitration sector performance of the first basic plan, then reviews and evaluates the international arbitration sector performance of the first basic plan, and finally suggests what tasks to focus on when establishing the second basic plan for Promotion of Arbitration Industry.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제17권2호
• /
• pp.101-124
• /
• 2007

The legal systems and open-door policies to foreign affairs in North Korea have been followed by those of China. Whereas an arbitration system of South Korea accepted most parts of UNCITRAL Model Law, North Korea has succeeded to an arbitration system of a socialist country. China, under the arbitration system of socialist country, enacted an arbitration act reflected from UNCITRAL Model Law for keeping face with international trends. We have used these three arbitration system as a tool for analyzing an arbitration system in North Korea. With an open-door policy, North Korea and China enacted an arbitration act to provide a legal security. Therefore, the core parts of arbitration system in North Korea and China are based on a socialist system while those of South Korea is on liberalism. So, North Korea and China enacted an arbitration act on the basis of institutional arbitration, on the other side, South Korea is based on ad-hoc arbitration. Because of these characters, in terms of party autonomy, it is recognized with the order as South Korea, China and North Korea. Also North Korea enacted separate 'Foreign Economic Arbitration Act' to resolve disputes arising out of foreign economies including commercial things and investments. There are differences in arbitration procedures and appointment of arbitrators : South Korea recognizes parties' autonomy, however parties should follow the arbitration rules of arbitration institutes in North Korea and China. According to an appointment of arbitrators, if parties fail to appoint co-arbitrators or chief arbitrators by a mutual agreement, the court has the right to appoint them. In case of following KCAB's rules, KCAB secretariats take a scoring system by providing a list of candidates. A party has to appoint arbitrators out of the lists provided by arbitration board(or committee) in North Korea. If a party may fail to appoint a chief arbitrator, President of International Trade Arbitration Board(or Committee) may appoint it. In China, if parties fail to appoint a co-arbitrator or a chief arbitrator by a mutual agreement, Secretary general will decide it. If a arbitral tribunal fails to give a final award by a majority decision, a chief arbitrator has the right for a final decision making. These arbitration systems in North Korea and China are one of concerns that our companies take into account in conducting arbitration procedures inside China. It is only possible for a party to enforce a final arbitral award when he applies an arbitration inside North Korea according to International Trade Arbitration Act because North Korea has not joined the New York Convention. It's doubtful that a party might be treated very fairly in arbitration procedures in North Korea because International Trade Promotion Commission controls(or exercises its rights against) International Trade Arbitration Commission(or Board).

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제24권1호
• /
• pp.111-132
• /
• 2014

Recently, there have been discussions about the necessity of consumer arbitration such as ADR. The debate has progressed, because this area of arbitration has expanded into the press and medical fields. However, there is not an act for regulating consumer arbitration in South Korea. Thus, this issue has been deliberated at UNCITRAL Working Group III. The core issue of this deliberation is the validity of consumer arbitration. Especially if a pre-dispute arbitration agreement is contracted online, it progresses by using standardized terms; therefore it is possible that the Standardized Terms Regulating Act judges the relevant terms. This thesis consists of the following: First, concepts and categories of arbitration agreements. These include arbitration agreement, pre-dispute arbitration agreement, and arbitration agreement through standardized terms. Second, the validity of the above agreements will be discussed. There are three positions concerning their validity: affirmative as de lege ferenda, negative, and restrictively negative. Similar discussions concerning German law and cases would be helpful to specify and compare the issue. When a consumer arbitration agreement is contracted through standardized terms, it is necessary that the required formality of the agreement has been satisfied, before the effect of the agreement may be regulated by the German Civil Code.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제30권1호
• /
• pp.3-37
• /
• 2020

The Korean Arbitration Act (KAA) enacted in 1966 was entirely revised in 1999, adopting the 1985 UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration. Korea is trying to be an international arbitration hub in the region, taking advantage of its geographical location in Asia and its highly open economy. KAA was revised in 2016 again in order to reflect the criticisms against the previous KAA, changes in the arbitration environment, and the 2006 amendment to the UNCITRAL Model Law. The basic direction of the revision was to maintain the UNCITRAL Model Law system and to deal with the national arbitration and international arbitration in the same framework. The scope of revision covers all fields of arbitration, including arbitration agreements, arbitrators, arbitral proceedings, interim measures of the arbitral tribunals, recognition/enforcement of arbitral awards, and their annulment. This paper aims to introduce the important issues of the 2016 revision of KAA, to offer important information discussed in the process of revision, and thus to help those concerned in the interpretation and implementation of KAA. The 2016 revision of KAA is expected to help greatly in promoting not only the national arbitration, but also the international arbitration in Korea.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제26권3호
• /
• pp.27-50
• /
• 2016

International arbitration as a dispute resolution mechanism in Asia is growing in popularity. Singapore has long been acknowledged as a regional arbitration center but Korea is now facing an increased demand as an arbitration center as well. As Singapore competes with Hong Kong and other international arbitration centers, and as Korea tries to become an alternative to Singapore, both Singapore and Korea have updated their arbitral laws and arbitration rules to reflect the current international arbitration trends. This paper examines the recent changes in the arbitration laws of Singapore and Korea, with an emphasis on recent changes in Korean arbitration laws that are designed to increase Korea's popularity as a regional arbitration center. Though Korea's reputation as an arbitration center is increasing, it is still not viewed as a major arbitration service provider. It is against this backdrop that Korea's international arbitration laws and rules will be viewed, with suggested changes to increase Korea's reputation as not only a regional hub but a center of international arbitration.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제29권2호
• /
• pp.107-132
• /
• 2019

The arbitration procedure, which is a private trial, does not have a separate enforcement agency. Therefore, unless a party consents to the arbitration award and voluntarily fulfills the award, its execution is accomplished through the implementation of the national court. In particular, the decision in the foreign arbitration procedure will be refused or rejected for the arbitration award in case the proceedings of the law and procedure on which the judgment is based are caused by inconsistency with the domestic law or procedural defect. However, all foreign arbitration awards generally do not have to go through the approval process, and it will come into force with the arbitration award. In the case of Germany in the revision of the German Civil Procedure Act of 1996, the main provisions of the New York Convention concerning the ratification and enforcement of arbitration proceedings are reflected. Germany provides for the arbitration procedures in the arbitration proceedings of Book 10 of the Civil Procedure Act. Particularly, with Article 1061 in Book 10 Section 8 below, the approval and enforcement of foreign arbitrators shall be governed. Article 1061 has been referred to as "The New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Jurisdictions," Article 5 (1). The main reasons for approval and enforcement rejection are: (1) Reason for the acceptance or refusal of enforcement by request of the parties: Reason for failure of subjective arbitration ability, invalidation of arbitration agreement, collapse of attack or defense method, dispute not included in arbitration agreement, (2) Reasons for the approval and enforcement of arbitration considered by the competent authority of the arbitrator: violation of objective arbitration ability, violation of public order, but not based on the default of German statute.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제17권1호
• /
• pp.157-181
• /
• 2007

The commercial relationship between South and North Korea is defined under the concept of economic relation and cooperation. To resolve any dispute that can arise from the trade and investment relations between South and North Korea, 'Agreement on the Procedures to Resolve Commercial Arbitration of South-North Korea' came into force in August 2003. Commercial Arbitration Committee of South-North Korea will be organized as the member lists of the committee were exchanged in July 2006 between South and North Korea. This committee must become a central system to settle the trade and investment disputes between South and North Korea. North Korea's Foreign Economic Arbitration Act was enacted to provide the foreign investors with the safe measures in their investments such as dispute resolution. But this Act can not dispute the trade and investment disputes between South and North Korea. The purpose of this paper is to contribute to the activation of arbitration between South and North Korea by studying Commercial Arbitration Committee of South-North Korea introduced by Agreement on the Procedures to Resolve Commercial Arbitration of South-North Korea and Agreement on the Construction and Operation of Commercial Arbitration Committee of South-North Korea and finding the problems and solutions of Commercial Arbitration Committee of South-North Korea.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제25권2호
• /
• pp.19-47
• /
• 2015

International arbitration is an increasingly popular means of alternative dispute resolution for cross-border commercial transactions. The primary advantage of international arbitration over court litigation is enforceability. An international arbitration award is enforceable in most countries in the world. Especially, statistics indicate of ASEAN such as Malaysia and Singapore that the vast majority of defeated companies comply with the terms of international arbitral awards against them or settle soon after the award is rendered. Unlike Malaysia and Singapore, in Indonesia, there are several grounds for refusal of enforcement of an award including where both the nature of the dispute and the agreement to arbitrate do not meet the requirements set out in the Arbitration Law. Because Indonesia does not acknowledge decisions of foreign courts, theoretically they could enforce an international arbitral award which was set aside by the court in the seat of arbitration. This paper introduces the legal system and cases of recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitration awards in ASEAN, especially Malaysia, Singapore, and Indonesia. Secondly, by comparing their law and cases, the paper emphasized the international suitability and global fitness in involved in recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitration awards.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제33권3호
• /
• pp.95-106
• /
• 2023

This informative piece delves into the intriguing and crucial history of third-party funding in Nigeria and its application in the Arbitration and Mediation Act of 2023. The article analyses the impact of this funding on cross-border transactions while addressing concerns about mandatory disclosure. The absence of remedies or sanctions for non-disclosure is also a matter of concern that warrants thoughtful examination. The article looks closer at the role of courts, tribunals, and arbitral institutions in addressing gaps in the Act. Ultimately, it presents a well-considered set of recommendations for moving forward. Overall, this piece provides a comprehensive and insightful look into the intricate world of third-party funding and its significance within the Nigerian legal system.