• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제31권1호
• /
• pp.107-127
• /
• 2021

Vietnam is an important country with many trade transactions with the Republic of Korea. Arbitration is a method of resolving disputes that can arise with the increase in trade transactions. It is essential to study the legal system and precedents of Vietnam on the approval and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards. Such is the case because the law in Vietnam and the court's position on the approval and enforcement of foreign arbitration awards issued by the courts depend on the possibility of realizing the parties' rights concerning their disputes. Therefore, it is of great value both theoretically and practically to analyze the exact differences between approval and the denial of approval. Vietnam has enacted the Commercial Arbitration Act, which replaces the previous Commercial Arbitration Decree and creates an arbitration-friendly environment that meets international arbitration standards. Regarding the approval and execution of foreign arbitration awards, the Commercial Arbitration Act, the Civil Procedure Act, the Civil Execution Act, and the Vietnam Foreign Arbitration Awards Approval and Enforcement Ordinance are regulated. Following these laws and regulations, the reasons for the approval, enforcement, and rejection of the arbitral award are specified. In accordance with these laws and inappropriate arbitration agreements, an arbitral award beyond the scope of its right of disposition, an arbitral tribunal, or the concerned parties could not be involved in a proceeding or an arbitral award if the involved party does not have an opportunity to exercise its rights lawfully. If the state agency in the forum does not recognize the arbitral award, the dispute is not subject to arbitration under Vietnamese law, or the arbitral award does not conform to the basic principles of Vietnamese law, the parties are not bound, and the foreign arbitration award is rejected for approval and execution.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제27권3호
• /
• pp.53-76
• /
• 2017

Korean businesses, and their legal representatives, have observed the improvements of enforcement of commercial judgments through arbitration over traditional collections litigation in U.S. Courts-due to quicker proceedings, exceptional cost savings and more predictable outcomes-in attaching assets within U.S. jurisdictions. But how are the 2016 interim measures implemented by the Arbitration Act of Korea utilized to avoid jurisdictional and procedure pitfalls of enforcement proceedings in the Federal Courts of the United States? Authors examine the necessary prerequisites of the U.S. Federal Arbitration Act as adopted through the New York Convention, to which Korea and the U.S. are signatories, as distinguished from the Panama Convention. Five common U.S. arbitration institutions address U.S. "domestic" disputes, preempting U.S. state law arbitrations, while this article focuses on U.S. enforcement of "international" arbitration awards. Seeking U.S. recognition and enforcement of Korean arbitral awards necessitates avoiding common defenses involving due process, public policy or documentary formality challenges. Provisional and conservatory injunctive relief measures are explored. A variety of U.S. cases involving Korean litigants are examined to illustrate the legal challenges involving non?domestic arbitral awards, foreign arbitral awards and injunctive relief. Suggestions aimed toward further research are focused on typical Korean business needs such as motions to confirm foreign arbitration awards, enforce such awards or motions to compel arbitration.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제22권2호
• /
• pp.125-157
• /
• 2012

This study is to vindicate the vacation of arbitral awards in the United States. It focuses on the harmony of case law with statutory law of the United States. Until the early twentieth century, the American legal system, having adopted the English common law view, harbored a hostile attitude toward arbitration. The purpose of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) of the United States, enacted in 1925, was to eliminate the hostile attitude of courts toward arbitration. Congress is to enforce arbitration agreements into which parties have entered and to place arbitration agreements upon the same footing as other contracts. The structure of grounds for vacating arbitration awards has two layers. One is of vacating grounds with statutory origins, such as the FAA and the Uniform Arbitration Act, and the other, of vacating grounds originating from a nonstatutory, case law background. For a while, vacatur based on case law has coexisted with vacatur on statutory grounds for arbitration awards. After the Supreme Court decision in Hall Street Associates, L.L.C. v. Mattel, Inc., however, the justification of vacating based on case law has weakened. Post-Hall Street decisions of circuit courts show ways to deal with manifest disregard of the law. One of them is the harmonization of the case law grounds for vacating with the statutory grounds. It seems that the manifest-disregard-of-law and public-policy exceptions show a possibility of survival after Hall Street. However, other nonstatutory grounds for vacation of arbitration awards have no firm basis after Hall Street.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제27권2호
• /
• pp.19-36
• /
• 2017

This paper reviews and analyzes the U.S. cases and statutes on the writing requirements of arbitration agreement. In order to discuss the legal aspects of writing requirement on arbitration agreement in the U.S., it is necessary to delve into both the contractual aspects of arbitration agreement and statutory specifications of the writing requirements of arbitration agreement. Statute of frauds and parole evidence rule were reviewed and employed to find legal implications on the writing requirement of arbitration agreement. Relevant cases were analyzed to verify how the courts have been responded to the conflicts regarding the validity of the arbitration contract with respect to writing requirement. International treaties absorbed into the U.S legal system were also reviewed and commented to analyze their implications on the writing requirement of arbitration agreement, including the UNCITRAL Model Arbitration Law and the New York Convention.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제32권
• /
• pp.59-91
• /
• 2006

The Arbitration Act of Korea was promulgated in 1966. Since the promulgation of Arbitration Act of Korea, consecutive amendments took place in 1973, 1993, 1997, 1999, 2001 and 2002. Among the various set of amendments, those of 1999 were designed to accommodate the UNCITRAL Model Law on international Commercial Arbitration of 1985. Korea has acceded to special international conventions on dispute settlement such as the New York Convention of 1958 and the Washington Convention of 1965. The Korean Commercial Arbitration Board(KCAB) administers the arbitration proceedings in accordance with its Arbitration Rules approved by the Korean Supreme Court. Since the establishment of the first Arbitration Rules in 1966. consecutive amendments took place in 1973, 1981, 1989, 1993, 1996, 2000 and 2004. The KCAB plans to enact the International Arbitration Rules, which will be available to disputing parties in addition to the KCAB Arbitration Rules. In 2005, arbitration applications received at KCAB recorded a historic high at 213 cases, an increase of 22% from 175 cases in 2000. But in 2005, the total amount involved in the arbitration cases decreases to US$ 129 million, a decline of 63% from US$ 346 million in 2000. The KCAB should take the following measures for activating the commercial arbitration system: the globalization of KCAB, the advertisement of arbitration system, the security of qualified arbitrators, and the enhancement of the secretariat service. In conclusion, the KCAB should make efforts for the development of the arbitration system and for the upgrade of customer satisfaction. Moreover the KCAB should make further efforts to grow into a global arbitration institution as well as strengthening relations with international arbitration institutions.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제77권
• /
• pp.69-89
• /
• 2018

The United States of America is one of the most favoring countries in which mandatory pre-arbitration clauses in the form of adhesion contract have been widely recognized and supported by courts and the Federal Arbitration Act. However, after the financial crisis in 2008 and the National Arbitration Forum scandal in 2009, in enacting the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act ('Dodd-Frank Act'), Section 1028(a) of the Act requires the newly created Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) to provide Congress with a report on "the use of agreements providing for arbitration of any future dispute between covered persons and consumers". Section 1028(b) also grants the CFPB the authority to "prohibit or impose conditions or limitations on the use of an agreement between a covered person and a consumer for a consumer financial product or service providing for arbitration of any future dispute between the parties, if the Bureau finds that such a prohibition or imposition of conditions or limitations is in the public interest and for the protection of consumers." Pursuant to the Dodd-Frank Act, the CFPB issued a report entitled "2015 Arbitration Study: Report to Congress 2015 (Report)" in March 2015. This paper examines some major legal issues of the Report and makes a few recommendations for Korean financial institutions which entered into the U.S. financial market or has a plan to do so in the near future.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제32권4호
• /
• pp.3-31
• /
• 2022

In the past, there has not been a law with the main purpose of preventing or preventing a risk in advance in order to protect the safety of patients in relation to medical services. It is evaluated that the enactment of the Patient Safety Act has a very important meaning in protecting patient safety as the top priority and further improving the quality of medical care. However, looking at the status of patient safety accidents reported to the Patient Safety Reporting System after the Patient Safety Act was enacted and implemented, various types of risk factors for patient safety still exist in the medical field. Meanwhile, Korea Consumer Agency and Korea Medical Dispute Mediation and Arbitration Agency, the existing domestic ADR specialized agencies, have been operating reasonable damage relief procedures such as recommendation of settlement, mediation, and arbitration according to the purpose of their establishment. Therefore, with the aimof broadening the choice of compensation system for patients, we propose the establishment and revision of ADR-related laws to apply the damage relief procedures of both institutions.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제19권3호
• /
• pp.43-66
• /
• 2009

This paper investigates what are the types and legal grounds for interim measures in the U.S. arbitration practices. The statutory ground for the interim measures is the Revised Uniform Arbitration Act. Another ground, probably the most important, is the parties' own intentions to adopt the interim measures in their arbitration proceeding. Most typical interim measures in arbitration include preliminary injuction, attachment and antisuit injunction. In the U.S ex parte motion for interim measure is rarely allowed while the Revised UNCITRAL Model Law specified an ex parte interim measure. In launching the interim measures, the US courts have demanded several requirements including imparability, probability of success and passing of the balance test. In general, the U.S. courts have properly interfered with the procedural issues in arbitration unreined but leaving the substantive issues untouched. It is believed that such interference has helped to enhance the credibility in arbitration with respect to fairness and justice.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제12권2호
• /
• pp.93-114
• /
• 2003

The Federal Arbitration Act and the States Arbitration acts of the United States approve that the an arbitration clause should be construed broadly and the Courts interpreted it broadly without being curbed by the written meaning of clause itself. The Courts also divided the interpretation of arbitration clause from the interpretation of other clauses of contract to approve the validity of arbitration clause and further expanded the scope of arbitration. However, the Arbitration Act of Korea does not specify a general principle about how an arbitration clause should be interpreted. The Supreme Court did not have a case yet but the lower courts kept their posture that an arbitration clause should be clear by resulting narrow interpretation and should be written to the extent that it excludes the power of courts from jurisdiction. As a result, there would be cases that arbitration is not permitted although an arbitration clause exists. The parties intending arbitration are frustrated about how to draft an arbitration clause into their agreement. There were the cases that the parties which took the prevailing position attempted to delay dispute resolutions by dragging disputes into litigation even if they agreed to resolve through arbitration, on the basis that an arbitration clause was incomplete. Although the arbitration statutes of the United States cannot apply in Korea, the way of their approaches to the interpretation of arbitration clause can be taken into consideration in view of the globalization of arbitration.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제16권1호
• /
• pp.153-185
• /
• 2006

This article deals with the Improvement of Compulsory Arbitration System on Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act in Korea. If a labor dispute occcur, the settlement of labor dispute must be reached for the parties' own accord. The autonomy of the parties concerned is the fundamental principle in the settlement of labor dispute. If the Rights Which are guaranteed by art. 33 Constitutional Law belong to civil liberties, we should consider Trade Union Act as the restriction of basic rights. Arbitration is a procedure which permits the most positive intervention by the arbitrator. It is carried out by an arbitration committe which is composed of three arbitrators appointed by the chairman of the Labor Relations Commission. Compulsory arbitration system of the labor for parties should be improved. In case of necessary public enterprises, more strict requirements on assembly for labor disputes should be prepared and the government should support institutions to prevent labor-management disputes by educating experts on labor-management relations and improving the quality of arbitration.