• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제14권2호
• /
• pp.243-279
• /
• 2004

The construction arbitration field has developed considerably since the latter half of the 1990s. Through analysis of construction arbitration cases taken up by KCAB, this paper intends to show the present condition and the improvement direction of construction arbitration in Korea. The number of construction arbitration cases filed at KCAB has been increasing rapidly after 1997, but recently the rate of increase has tended to decline. From 2000 to 2003 the number of arbitration cases increased 23％ each year, on average, but in 2003 the increase was only 7.6％. In the very beginning, public construction claims made up the majority of all construction cases, however, civil construction claims are increasing gradually. The arbitration amount in the construction field is very high, owing to public construction claims. For example, the arbitration amount per case was 5 billion won, on average,. in the public construction field. It is shown that the claimants of arbitration are mostly constructors and the main reasons for making claims are to demand payment for construction and payment for additional work. KCAB investigated the performance status of arbitration awards. The voluntary performance rate for awards in construction arbitration is nearly 80％ and in 11％, a suit was filed to appeal the arbitration award. In spite of the development of construction arbitration, some improvements are requested. There have been arguments about the effectiveness of selective arbitration agreement in the General Terms of Construction Contract. This has caused a decrease in arbitration cases, so improvements in this dispute settlement clause need to be made. Enforcement of arbitration awards is granted by the judgment of a court. Resulting from this, appeals for arbitration awards are not allowed, however, up to three appeals for the enforcement of awards are allowed in court. As such, the enforcement system for arbitration awards needs to be improved and simplified.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제31권1호
• /
• pp.23-54
• /
• 2021

While maritime arbitration industry has not been prevalent in Korea, Korea ranked fifth in terms of export volume and its shipbuilding industry ranked top globally in shipbuilding order volume in 2020. The discrepancy between the maritime industry's productivity and relative lack of maritime arbitration has had a negative impact on Korea's economic development. To address these problems, this paper i) reviews preceding research, ii) examines the Korean maritime arbitration system's status and analyzes the KCAB's maritime arbitration statistics from 2005-2020, iii) examines major foreign maritime arbitration institutions' status and strategies including LMAA, SMA, SCMA, and HKMAG, and lastly iv) suggests practical ways to promote maritime arbitration in Korea. The Suggestions for promoting maritime arbitration are 1) to prepare and promote various maritime standardized forms for the Korean shipping industry, 2) to insert an arbitration clause in medium and large-size Korean shipping firms' B/L clause, 3) to expand professional maritime manpower training and other infrastructure, and 4) to enhance the predictability of the result of arbitration through maritime arbitral awards or by examining the feasibility of the appeal system against the arbitral award only on a point of law in the future. In conclusion, the success or failure of promoting maritime arbitration in Korea depends on the will, passion, cooperation and practice of the most important key players in maritime arbitration, such as the Asia Pacific Maritime Arbitration Center (APMAC), the Korean Commercial Arbitration Board (KCAB) and the Seoul Maritime Arbitrators Association (SMAA).

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제20권2호
• /
• pp.49-65
• /
• 2010

The expanded role of courts in arbitral procedures is said to have certain detrimental effects on the cost-effective approach to arbitration. This is the case when the court is appointing an arbitrator, pursuant to the specific domestic legal regime. The danger of decisions, especially those with expanded role of courts can create delays and hurdles. Even with contradictory viewpoints, the role of the court should complement the arbitral tribunal and not impede the functioning of arbitration independent of the judicial system. In this paper, two recent cases in Korean Supreme Court are reviewed, trying to find the proper implications on further arbitration practices especially in the stage of arbitrator appointment. Even though the proper appointment of arbitrators is essential to the existence of valid arbitration proceedings, appointment of arbitrators by the courts should constitute an administrative power, and not a judicial power. The cases reviewed make clear that the court must play a facilitative role in international commercial arbitration by assisting the parties in appointing the arbitral tribunal, the court intervention must be kept to a minimum.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제31권3호
• /
• pp.69-89
• /
• 2021

General lawsuits can be chosen as a method of resolving patent disputes. However, a significant amount of time and money is wasted on litigation until the dispute is resolved. The Intellectual Property Framework Act in Korea requires the government to simplify litigation procedures and improve litigation systems to resolve intellectual property disputes quickly and fairly. As a result, accurate and timely resolution of patent disputes is given importance by the Korean government. Interest in arbitration as an alternative method of dispute resolution is growing. Although dispute resolution through arbitration is effective, the issue of resolving patent disputes through arbitration can lead to the arbitrability of patent disputes. It is therefore necessary to examine arbitrability of patent contracts and validity disputes. Korea has made efforts to reflect the model arbitration law of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law for quick judicial resolution of patent disputes. Korea has also strengthened related systems for alternative resolutions. However, improving the arbitration system will necessitate a thorough examination of the systems and practices of the United States which is the country in the forefront of intellectual property. This paper examines the arbitrability of Korea's patent dispute and makes recommendations for more efficient dispute resolution system changes.

• 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
• /
• 제19권3호
• /
• pp.161-178
• /
• 2009

This article focuses on the enforceability of arbitration agreements m the dispute of standby letter of credit, especially with the case analysis of the leading case from the U.S. Bankruptcy Court. In Nova Hut a.s. v. Kaiser Group International Inc. case, while the underlying contract contained an arbitration clause, a guarantee to assure contractor's performance did not contain an arbitration clause. Nova Hut drew on the standby for the Contractor's failure to deliver contractual obligations. Against the Kaiser's action under US Bankruptcy law, Nova Hut moved to stay the proceedings pending arbitration, to compel arbitration, and to dismiss the complaint. The US Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware denied Nova Hut's motions. On appeal, Kaiser argued that it was not subject to arbitration since it was not a party to the contract. It also argued that Nova Hut had waived its right to arbitration by filing a proof of claim in the bankruptcy proceeding and commencing legal actions in other countries. The appeals court noted that in order to avoid arbitration on those grounds prejudice must be shown. It indicated that because there was no long delay in requesting arbitration and no discovery conducted m the course of litigation, the Kaiser could not demonstrate actual prejudice on the part of Owner. In light of public policy favoring arbitration, the nature of the claims in the parties' agreements, Kaiser's conduct in embracing the agreements, and their expectation of benefit, the appeals court ruled that the doctrine of equitable estoppel applied in requiring the Parent to arbitrate.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제27권1호
• /
• pp.37-57
• /
• 2017

An arbitrator in Pakistan is required to file an arbitral award in a civil court of competent jurisdiction for its recognition and enforcement if an arbitral award is domestic or before the concerned High Court if the arbitral award is international. The court of law is required to issue a decree upon submitted arbitral award if an interested party do not apply for modification or remission of an arbitral award and do not challenge it for setting it aside or for revocation of its recognition and enforcement within a prescribed time limit. The challenging process of an arbitral award can be started by the aggrieved party of an arbitration agreement at the seat of arbitration or at the place where recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award is sought. The aggrieved party to an arbitration agreement is required to challenge an arbitral award within a prescribed time limit if contracting parties have not excluded the right to challenge an arbitral award. Limitation for challenging an arbitral award in Pakistan is 30 days under article 158 of the Limitation Act 1908, starting from the date of service of notice of filling of an arbitral award before the court of law. Generally, 90 days are given for an appeal against decision of the civil court of law under section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, it is therefore highly recommended that challenging time of an arbitral award should be increased from 30 to 90 days.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제68권
• /
• pp.43-63
• /
• 2015

The number of final appeal(the rate of final appeal: 43%) has been on the increase every year over the past ten years in Korea. The number of final appeal cases given to a justice of the Korean Supreme Court amounts to nearly one everyday, which makes it vulnerable to faulty decisions. Reversal rate of final appeal is as low as 10% with most of the cases being dismissed and hence the percentage of people having trust in the judiciary is merely 27%. In this context, the Korean judiciary has announced its plan to set up a final appellate court in the Supreme Court. The establishment of final appellate court, however, is not only against the Constitution but also hardly seen in other nations. It would only overexpand the Supreme Court. Furthermore, the final appellate court would end up deteriorating into the court of fourth instance and impose extra burden on the government as well as on the disputing parties. Therefore, it is necessary to upgrade the quality of the court by increasing the number of judges in the lower court and let them focus on the fact finding process. Facilitating the ADR(Alternative Dispute Resolution) process such as arbitration would help improve the structure of the judiciary. The incompatibility among the four values of the dispute resolution process(equitability, truth, quickness and efficiency) calls for building comprehensive judicial system in which disputes are settled by choosing either jurisprudence or utility.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제28권1호
• /
• pp.43-75
• /
• 2018

The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) was created to focus on the procedural complexity in the resolution of sports-related disputes, confidentiality, the matter of expenses, and the necessity of prompt settlement in the field of international sports. The CAS had originally launched as one of bodies of International Olympic Committee (IOC), but later it became properly operational as an independent organization to facilitate sports-related disputes when the International Council of Arbitration for Sport (ICAS), which came into force in accordance with the Paris Agreement in 1984 and has acted in place of IOC, took responsibility for the administration and financing of the CAS. The CAS is composed of four divisions, the Ordinary Arbitration Division and the Appeals Arbitration Division, the Ad hoc Division created later in 1996 and the CAS Anti-Doping Division (CAS ADD) established as from 2016 only to conduct proceedings and to issue decisions on an alleged anti-doping rule violation, and two (Sydney and New York) permanent decentralized offices. The head office of the CAS is Lausanne, Switzerland. Since CAS ADD was established, CAS Ad hoc Division has had jurisdiction over the appeal case against a decision pronounced by the IOC, an NOC, an international Federation or an Organizing Committee for the Olympic Games. Although there are so many virtues of CAS as a resolution authority for sports-related disputes in terms of its organization, arbitration rules and procedures, it is also true that the CAS has not been showing the consistency. The CAS should overcome these issues through much more advanced system and its instant and fair decisions.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제27권4호
• /
• pp.3-33
• /
• 2017

This paper examines some questions and issues of the effect of an arbitral award, and discusses about the restriction of the trial level in other separate actions permitted under the existence of grounds of setting aside arbitral award after the amendment of the Arbitration Act in 2016. Because there are no interests of litigation in the action for setting aside arbitral award due to the exclusion of res judicata by provisory clause of Article 35, filing an action for setting aside is not allowed even when the grounds of setting aside exist. If we examine the precedent on possibility of retrial for excluding the outward form of invalid judgement, we can find that the court did not approve the retrial. Therefore, the action for setting aside that which is for excluding the outward form of an arbitral award will not be allowed for filing. On the issue of whether an arbitral award having a ground for setting aside can be an object of the action for setting aside for excluding its outward form or not, the views of scholars are divided. In the case of an arbitral award that has grounds for setting aside, it could be interpreted that the arbitral award would not have a formale Rechtskraft or effect of sentence (bindende Kraft). Even if there is formale Rechtskraft or effect of sentence (bindende Kraft), the significance of existence of action for setting aside arbitral award under paragraph 1 of Article 36 is reduced because other actions separate from arbitration is permitted under the 2016 Act. The amendment of the Arbitration Act in 2016 provides an opportunity to review the position and the role of action for setting aside the arbitral award. It also requires further studies on efficiently treating other actions separate from arbitration. Because the restriction of the trial level of other separate actions can make arbitration active by making arbitration procedures become 3 trial levels from 4 trial levels, it needs to be solved with legislative action. Specifically, if the trial starts at the stage of trial on appeal, it can utilize the strength of both the arbitration and the litigation, playing a chief role in boosting arbitration by removing the problems of action for setting aside and enabling arbitration institutes and the person interested to promote the activation of arbitration.