• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제20권1호
• /
• pp.3-20
• /
• 2010

Traditionally, finality has been regarded as one of virtues of arbitration. However in many cases absence of appeal process in arbitration is also a factor deterring people from choosing arbitration. Even though unsatisfied party may resort to a court for annulment of an award, it is allowed only when there are procedural defects. When there are substantive defects in matters of fact or matters of law, it is not easy or almost impossible to bring the case on the table again. The introduction of arbitration appeal process has been discussed in international arbitration fora, and some countries have already been adopting appeal process. Realizing this trend, it is time for us to consider adopting similar appeal process. Arbitration being based on the party autonomy, there's no good reason to prohibit appeal when the parties agree to do so. Arbitration appeal should be allowed within arbitration system itself, rather than resorting to a court, so that many virtues of arbitration can be maintained in the appeal. In designing an arbitration appeal system, following measures should be considered: minimum amount in dispute to trigger the right of appeal should be set in order to reduce the volume of appeal; losing appellant should be responsible for the legal cost of his opponent in order to deter non-meritorious appeals; time limits on initial appeal application and subsequent briefs should be set in order to accelerate appeal process; and, appeal tribunals should be composed of more experienced arbitrators in order to provide more accurate award. If we are equipped with a well designed appeal process within arbitration system, Korea will be able to emerge as an attractive international arbitration forum.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제16권3호
• /
• pp.91-125
• /
• 2006

The arbitration rule of CIETAC was vastly revised and was put in force on May 1, 2005. By its revision, China has improved its arbitration system. Chinese arbitration law had many problems when it was enacted in 1995, but the problems could not be avoided because of the poor surroundings for arbitration in China. As China has not had much experience in operating its legal system effectively, and also has little in the way of studies on legal theory that would allow it to deal with its laws in a flexible manner, authorities usually wait to revise a law until enough relevant experience has been accumulated. Therefore, during the 10 years since its enactment, China has resolved the problems within its arbitration law through revision of arbitration rule rather than by revision of the law itself. As this law is a basic one in ruling the arbitration system in China, there are some limitations as to how far the system can be developed through revision of arbitration rule alone. In spite of the limitations, the revision in 2005 contributed a great deal to resolving the existing problems within Chinese arbitration law. The biggest problem in the arbitration law is the Chinese arbitration law that restricts party autonomy. With the revision of the arbitration rule, many problems concerning party autonomy were circumvented. This occurred because the arbitration rule now provides parties the opportunity to choose arbitration rule other than the CIETAC arbitration rule, and even allows parties to agree to amend articles in the CIETAC arbitration rule -- a very important revision indeed. In addition to party autonomy, there are other improvements for example, there is an enhancement of the independent character of the CIETAC, clearing of jurisdiction, easing in the formation of arbitration agreement, improvement in the way arbitrators are chosen, and enhancement in the cultural neutrality of the arbiter. Problems still remain that can only be solved by revision of the arbitration law itself. These problems relate to the governing law of the arbitration agreement, the collection of evidence, custody of property, selection of chief arbiter, interlocutory awards, etc. In addition, some non-legal problems must also be resolved, like the actual judicial review of arbitration awards or difficulties of executing arbitration awards.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제13권2호
• /
• pp.69-102
• /
• 2004

This paper discusses about the e-commerce and the various types of e-commerce disputes. Through empirical examination on the dispute consideration system and by comparative analysis it is derived out of the weakness of current system and finally some suggestions for improvement. First, it is recommended that the more sophisticated knowledge concerning e-commerce should be proliferated through the existing institutions. For example, disputes for B2C could be managed by the consideration system of consumer dispute consideration in Consumer Protection Board of Korea, while B2B by the arbitration system of the Korean Commercial Arbitration Board. Second, the role of Korea Institute for Electronic Commerce established for the purpose of consideration of e-commerce disputes is much emphasized. For successful achievement, it is necessarily required to reinforce the related laws, systems, institutions and human resources. Finally, it is also suggested that the Korean Commercial Arbitration Board and Consumer Protection Board of Korea fully cover consideration and arbitration, while Korea Institute for Electronic Commerce activates its proper role of consulting and ad hoc arbitration by using electronic information. This study results are how to minimize the disputes and the method of dispute settlement. Therefore, a role of arbitration proposed and emphasized. To protect the dispute in advance, it's suggested to revise rules timely following on technical changes, and emphasized that the dispute has to lead to arbitration settlement not for consuming unnecessary time and finance for enterprises and consumers.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제31권3호
• /
• pp.3-23
• /
• 2021

England is a significant base for international trade in Europe, and dispute resolution through arbitration is active. Therefore, due to the geographical relationship with the European continent, the settlement of trade transactions and disputes with European countries is one of the most essential tasks. In this regard, arbitration procedures in England have been actively used for a long time. In England, dispute resolution methods through arbitration have been developed centered on merchant groups such as guilds from the 16th century and have been actively used until today. However, the arbitration procedure also had the characteristics of the common law because there was no legislation related to arbitration. Therefore, arbitration based on common law was carried out until the first half of the 19th century. In the 'Arbitration Act 1889', two types of arbitration systems, 'common law arbitration' and 'statutory arbitration' coexisted. However, in the arbitration procedure, according to the newly enacted 'Arbitration Act 1889', the arbitration agreement was binding from the time the arbitration agreement was reached. There was a way to select an arbitrator even if it was not explicitly stipulated in the arbitration agreement, and the arbitration award was quickly enforced. Arbitration under contract was preferred over common law arbitration, where withdrawal and revocation of awards were possible. However, in response to these provisions, the England courts considered the arbitration system to deprive the courts of jurisdiction, while a strengthened judicial review of arbitration procedures was done. In particular, England unified the arbitration-related laws, which had been scattered for a long time, adopted the model law, and enacted the 'Arbitration Act 1996'. Under the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards in 'Arbitration Act 1996', Section 66 deals with the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards and foreign arbitral awards. Section 2 of the 'Arbitration Act 1950' is inherited and used as it is. Second, it deals with the execution of arbitral awards under the New York Convention: Article 100 (New York Convention), Section 101 (Approval and Enforcement of Awards), Section 102 (Evidence Presented by a Party Seeking Recognition and Enforcement), and Section 103 (Provides Matters Concerning Rejection Recognition and Enforcement).

• 무역학회지
• /
• 제45권3호
• /
• pp.147-166
• /
• 2020

As the volume of trade between Korea and Vietnam increases, the number and amount of commercial disputes between Korean and Vietnamese companies are increasing. In the case of Vietnam, due to differences in the arbitration system and norms due to the socialist state system, foreign companies lack confidence in the settlement of disputes through commercial arbitration in Vietnam. At this point, it is necessary to not only discuss commercial disputes and settlements, but also to closely review and understand Vietnam's commercial dispute settlement system. Therefore, this study examines the current status and characteristics of Vietnam's commercial disputes and analyzes the actual problems of Vietnam Commercial Arbitration System that arise through the arbitral award of the Vietnam International Arbitration Center (VIAC), Vietnam's representative arbitration agency, and precedents on the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitration awards in Vietnamese courts. In the end, this study seeks to revitalize the Vietnam Commercial Arbitration so that each disputed party may quickly deal with the commercial disputes, and seeks a more smooth solution through commercial arbitration in future trade claims between Korean and Vietnamese companies.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제11권1호
• /
• pp.75-93
• /
• 2001

The advantages of arbitration such as promptness, economy and flexibility apply to the disputes arising from corporate governance between shareholders and a corporation. The confidentiality of arbitration can be particularly highlighted in the disputes among the members inside corporation. But it appears that the shareholders believe litigation the best way to pursue liabilities of managers of corporation and improve the system of corporate governance. And it is claimed that the current litigation system lacks the implementation of shareholders rights due to structural deficiency and therefore need bring class actions into the system of Korean jurisprudence. The OECD, which afforded the rescue finances to Korea, also recommended shareholder class actions as a way to improve corporate governance. Class actions have merits but even advanced countries consider the changes of existing system or only stay class actions in the stage of discussion. Rather, legal experts urge arbitration to be used more frequently and the Courts also approved the dispute resolutions of the disputes as to corporate governance through arbitration. There is no report in Korea that arbitration was used to resolve the disputes between shareholders and the managers, or between shareholders and corporation, which is listed in the Stock Market. There only are the debates for bring class actions into the judicial system between NGOs and the organizations of corporate managers. But arbitration has greater advantages in resolving the disputes among the members of corporation that any other methods for dispute resolution. Arbitration can interpret flexibly the mandatory provisions of the Statutes of Security and the Code of Commerce to meet the needs of parties involved, which is not possible to the Courts. Arbitration can issue the award to meet the equity of the parties. And arbitration can avoid a resolution of All or Nothing by fully considering the specific situations of Korean corporations(such as family-dominated management) and can issue the award beneficial to all parties of shareholders, managers and corporation. Thus it should be sought to resolve the disputes as to corporate governance through arbitration.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제24권1호
• /
• pp.159-179
• /
• 2014

Currently disputes related to sports arise in various ways. Moreover, as the awareness of the rights of the people in the field of sports grows the chances of disputes occurring increases. Therefore, the number of sports disputes which will be dealt with by courts will increase. On the other hand, there are demands for fast and efficient legal resolutions for diverse sports disputes. However, as a dispute resolution system, the current domestic arbitration for sports disputes exposed several problems: the lack of professional arbitrators for sports disputes, procedural elements of delay, and the lack of promotion of the arbitration system. This study will first analyze the system for the resolution of domestic sports disputes. Then this study will review of the system for the resolution of international sports disputes and propose the establishment of an arbitration system for the resolution of domestic sports disputes.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제20권3호
• /
• pp.47-69
• /
• 2010

From the review of Korean arbitration systems with the comparison of those of other countries, we can summarize some issues to be tackled as follows: First, Korean arbitration system started with the purpose of export promotion. This may be the main reason that various domestic disputes have not been resolved by arbitration. Second, the Korean Arbitration Law applies to private disputes. The Law's arbitration scope is wider than that of China and France, but narrower than that of the U.S.A. that encompasses a variety of disputes in the filed of consumer, labor, medical services, patents, etc. Third, active judges or public officials in Korea can not be arbitrator and there is no arbitration court. However, if chief judge allows the necessity, court's judges in the UK can be arbitrator with the mutual agreement of the parties and also arbitration system is operated in the court. Fourth, the Korean Commercial Arbitration Board(KCAB), the only representative institution for arbitration in Korea, is under the Ministry of Knowledge Economy(MKE). This makes it difficult for the KCAB to handle other disputes related to the Ministry of Health and Welfare, the Ministry of Strategy and Finance, the Ministry for Food, Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, the Ministry of Employment and Labor, etc. Fifth, as mentioned, the KCAB is the unique institution for arbitration by the Law in Korea, while other countries allow have a diversity of arbitration agencies such as maritime arbitration organization, consumer arbitration institution, arbitration court, etc. Therefore, we suggest some ideas to expand the arbitration's area of coverage in Korea as follows: First, there should be more active policies that promote various domestic disputes to be settled by the arbitration system. Second, it is quite needed to expand the scope of arbitration to cover many disputes in the fields of consumer, labor, medical service, advertising, fair trade, etc. Third, there should be discussions to allow court judges as arbitrator and to introduce the arbitration court. Fourth, the KCAB should strengthen its status and roles as general arbitration organization to overcome the limited scope of commercial disputes. For this, there should be the strong support and coordination among the MKE and other government agencies. Fifth, to reduce the burden of the court's complicated and expensive procedures, more efficient disputes resolution systems should be established on the basis of the parties' free will. Each central government agency should streamline the legal barriers to allow industrial organizations under its control to establish their own or joint arbitration system with the KCAB.

• 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
• /
• 제14권2호
• /
• pp.107-133
• /
• 2004

In these days, arbitration helps alleviate some of the burden of a heavy caseload from the judiciary and is a viable method to resolve disputes in a relatively quick and efficient manner. An award of punitive damages is often the most significant and detrimental part of an award arising from a judicial or arbitral proceeding. In 1995, the United States Supreme Court resolved a circuit split. upholding an arbitral panel's authority to award punitive damages under a securities arbitration agreement. This decision was monumental in establishing arbitral power. However, it left several questions unanswered. For example, which, if any, standards should be applied to such awards？ The decision in Sawtelle, adopting a separate ground for review of punitive damages awards, is one that signals a significant change in the field of arbitration. This article addresses the reviewability of punitive damages awards arising out of a securities arbitration hearing. It would be necessary to introduce securities arbitration system to our disputes resolution system. Compared to American practices, there could be many differences in recognition on arbitration and legal structure in our country. Thus it will be a future assignment to consider seriously and carefully what kind of securities arbitration system will be proper for us. This article analyzed predispute arbitration agreements and agreements to arbitrate after a dispute has already arisen.