• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제14권2호
• /
• pp.199-241
• /
• 2004

This paper discusses to what extent the party autonomy can be allowed in intellectual property dispute resolution agreements in determination of governing law, international jurisdiction, and ADR agreement for arbitration, etc. in considering of the territoriality principle of IP. The party autonomy in choice of governing law and jurisdiction can be fully enjoyed in IP contract disputes. However, the freedom of choice is limited to the disputes regarding IF infringement disputes. The party autonomy is denied in the issues of determination of validity of patent or other IP rights. The author seeks the possibility to allow as much freedom in making choice of applicable law or jurisdiction, or entering into arbitration agreement.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제25권
• /
• pp.165-187
• /
• 2005

Arbitration is a creature of contract. The parties agree that selective dispute resolution clause provides them with a choice to litigate or arbitrate certain disputes. Under the agreements, the parties had the option in the action. In the event any dispute arises between the parties concerning our representation or payment of our fees and disbursements which cannot be promptly resolved to our mutual satisfaction, you agree that dispute will be submitted to arbitration. Arbitration is a matter of contract and a party cannot be required to submit to arbitration any dispute which he has not agreed so to submit. The selective arbitration agreement has become an accepted method of dispute resolution. However, the trend of dispute settlement has changed. The selective arbitrations clauses are to be construed as broadly as possible, and arbitration will be compelled unless it may be said with positive assurance that arbitration clause is not susceptible of an interpretation that covers the asserted dispute.

• 법제연구
• /
• 제44호
• /
• pp.487-538
• /
• 2013

최근에는 지식재산권의 국제적 이용이 보편화되면서 라이센스 계약 관련 분쟁에 있어 다국적 요소가 개입되는 경우가 많아 실제 분쟁의 해결에 있어서도 준거법의 결정이 가장 첨예한 쟁점이 되고 있다. 특히 2011년 7월 한-EU FTA가 발효됨에 따라 우리나라와 유럽 각국 사이에 경제적 사회적 교류가 활발해지면서 그로 인한 법적 분쟁 또한 증가할 것으로 예상된다. 이러한 상황을 고려할 때 국제적 지식재산권 이용 계약과 관련하여 유럽연합(EU)의 준거법 결정 원칙에 대한 연구가 필요하다. 지식재산권 라이센스 계약과 관련하여 발생하는 국제분쟁에 있어서의 준거법 결정을 위해서는 기본적으로 국제사법 원칙에 의한 유형화가 필요하며 이때 지식재산권 라이센스 계약은 그 성질상 계약의 문제로 유형화된다. 유럽연합(EU)의 경우에는 라이센스 계약상의 쟁점 판단을 위한 준거법 결정을 위하여 기본적으로 로마 I 규정(the Rome I Regulation)의 적용을 검토하여야 한다. 그런데 분쟁의 대상이 되는 계약이 체결된 시점에 따라 국제사법 일반원칙, 로마협약(1980), 로마 I 규정 등 각각의 경우에 적용되는 규범이 달라지므로 계약 체결 시점을 파악하는 것이 가장 우선되어야 하고, 이들 중 로마 I 규정은 2009년 12월 17일부터 체결된 계약에 적용된다. 계약상의 분쟁에 관한 준거법 결정에 있어서는 기본적으로 당사자의 합의에 의한 준거법의 지정이 널리 허용되지만, 당사자의 합의에 의하여 준거법을 결정할 수 없는 경우에는 국제사법 이론상 '객관적 연결 방식'에 의하여 준거법이 결정된다. 이러한 원칙을 반영하여 로마 I 규정 제4조 제1항은 계약의 유형에 따른 준거법 결정 원칙을 제시하고 있지만 지식재산권 라이센스 계약이 해당되는 규정은 없다. 결국 로마 I 규정 제4조 제2항이 검토되어야 하고 로마 I 규정 제4조 제3항에 의하여 해당 계약이 더 밀접한 관련을 가지는 국가가 있는 경우에는 이 국가의 법이 준거법으로 적용된다. 이들 규정에 의하여서도 라이센스 계약의 준거법을 결정할 수 없는 경우에는 최종적으로 로마 I 규정 제4조 제4항에 의하여 해당 계약과 가장 밀접한 관련을 가지는 국가의 법이 준거법으로 결정된다. 이러한 로마 I 규정을 중심으로 지식재산권 라이센스 계약의 준거법 결정 원칙에 대한 연구를 수행함으로써 향후 우리나라와 유럽연합 국가들이 준거법 결정의 연결점으로서 작용할 수 있는 관련 국제계약 분쟁의 해결을 위하여 보다 체계적이고 효과적인 대응책을 마련할 수 있을 것으로 생각되며, 우리나라 국제사법 규정을 적용함에 있어서도 보다 풍부한 이론적 기초를 제공할 수 있을 것으로 기대된다.

• 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
• /
• 제24권2호
• /
• pp.3-31
• /
• 2014

As all aspects of international activity have kept growing in good transaction, transnational investments, joint ventures, and the licensing of intellectual property, it is inevitable for disputes to increase across national frontiers. International disputes can be settled by arbitration and ADR. In the situation presented in the paper, any dispute shall be finalized by arbitration and conciliation in the Gaeseong Industrial Complex. Inter-Korean Commercial Arbitration in the Gaeseong Industrial Complex has become the principal method of resolving disputes in trade, commerce, and investment in accordance with the "Agreement on South-North Commercial Dispute Settlement Procedures," "Agreement on Organization and Operation of Inter-Korean Commercial Arbitration Committee," and the Annexed Agreement on "Organization and Operation of Inter-Korean Commercial Arbitration Committee" (2013). But the follow-up measures of the said agreements have not been fulfilled. Some prerequisite measures of the Inter-Korean commercial arbitration must be satisfied. In order to proceed with arbitration and conciliation in the Gaeseong Industrial Complex, we need to ask the following: Does the status of an arbitrational matter? Should an agreement to arbitrate contain a choice of law clause? Should one provide for one arbitrator or three? How should the arbitrators be selected? What is the relation between party-appointed arbitrators and the presiding arbitrator (neutral arbitrator)? Do arbitrators compromise more than the litigation? Can conciliation be combined with arbitration? To execute the enactment of arbitration regulations, the contents of the Arbitration Rules of the Korean Commercial Arbitration Board (South) and the Korea International Trade Arbitration Committee (North), together with the Korean Arbitration Act and External Arbitration Act of North Korea and the UNCITRAL Model Arbitration Law and UNCITRAL l Arbitration Rules are reflected in the Rules. There are many aspects of the Inter-Korean Commercial Arbitration. It is essential to understand key elements; namely, the arbitration agreement, appointment of arbitrator, arbitral proceeding and arbitral award, and enforcement and setting aside of arbitral award. This research deals with five chapters. Chapter 1 provides the introduction. Chapter 2 deals with trade volume between South and North Korea and the kinds of dispute in Gaeseong. Chapter 3 addresses contents and follow-up measures of the agreement on the "South-North Commercial Dispute Settlement Procedures," "Agreement on Organization and Operation of Inter-Korean Commercial Arbitration Committee," and the Annexed Agreement on "Organization and Operation of Inter-Korean Commercial Arbitration Committee" (2013). Chapter 4 features the problems and tasks of the pertinent agreements. Chapter 5 gives the conclusion. Enabling parties to find an amicable solution to the dispute in the Gaeseong Industrial Complex can lead to a useful and appropriate framework either through direct negotiation or by resorting to conciliation or mediation in accordance with pertinent agreements and follow-up measures contained in the agreements.

• 한국무역상무학회:학술대회논문집
• /
• 한국무역상무학회 2004년도 제32회 산학협동 세미나
• /
• pp.149-170
• /
• 2004

Arbitration is a creature of contract. The parties agree that selective dispute resolution clause provides them with a choice to litigate or arbitrate certain disputes. Under the agreements, the parties had the option in the action. In the event any dispute arises between the parties concerning our representation or payment of our fees and disbursements which cannot be promptly resolved to our mutual satisfaction, you agree that dispute will be submitted to arbitration. Arbitration is a matter of contract and a party cannot be required to submit to arbitration any dispute which he has not agreed so to submit. The selective arbitrations clauses are to be construed as broadly as possible, and arbitration will be compelled unless it may be said with positive assurance that arbitration clause is not susceptible of an interpretation that covers the asserted dispute.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제25권1호
• /
• pp.3-23
• /
• 2015

As the Internet rapidly emerges as a speedy and cost-effective way of purchasing goods from overseas websites, the number of disputes arising out of overseas direct purchases also increases. In such situations, a disgruntled consumer might be left without an effective remedy. Providing an alternative approach to redress such grievances might assist in resolving such disputes and in increasing consumer confidence in e-commerce. Online Dispute Resolution (ODR) will allow consumers to solve their disputes without going to court, in a quick, low-cost, and simple way. It also helps to eliminate complex jurisdictional and choice-of-law problems. On the other hand, it has many problems such as having inadequate confidentiality and security, not being able to meet the "writing" requirement for arbitration of disputes, having difficulty in enforcing online arbitration agreements, having difficulties in enforcing online decisions and so on. This article investigates relationship online disputes and ODR and suggests ways that ODR can work best in resolving disputes arising out of overseas direct purchases. To expand the ODR system in online disputes, it is very important for domestic consumers to recognize the concept and usefulness of the Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) and ODR systems. The Korean government must also help consumers recognize the ADR mechanisms of dispute resolution by public campaign advertisement of ADR systems. Further education of dispute resolution in higher educational institutions is also required as well as assisting the KCAB with funds and the establishment of ADR Law.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제27권4호
• /
• pp.91-113
• /
• 2017

UN Convention on International Sale of Goods (CISG) and International Commercial Arbitration aim at the promotion and facilitation of international trade. Both of them share similar general principles; i.e., party autonomy and pacta sunt servanda. Also they are often applied concurrently in the case of the international commercial trade. The purpose of this article is to investigate whether the CISG could apply the formation of the arbitration clause that is included in the main contract governed by CISG. Sellers and buyers have freedom of designating choice of law that is applied to their contracts. An international arbitration agreement is presumed to be separable from the contract in which it is found. However, arbitration clauses commonly form part of a general contract. Thus, the CISG is intended to be applied to dispute resolution clauses, including arbitration clause even if it is not completely suitable. Notably, there is a fundamental distinction between the CISG and arbitration. The CISG abolished the formalities of contract. New York convention requires Contracting States' Courts to enforce written international agreements to arbitrate.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제14권2호
• /
• pp.135-172
• /
• 2004

While doing business in China foreign companies occasionally find themselves embroiled in disputes with Chinese individuals, companies or the Chinese Government. There are three primary ways to resolve a commercial dispute in China are negotiation, arbitration and litigation. The best way of dispute resolution is negotiation as it is the least expensive method and the working relationship of both parties concerned in dispute. But negotiations do not always give rise to resolution. Arbitration is the next choice. Unless the parties concerned can agree to resort to arbitration after the dispute has arisen, the underlying contract namely, sales contract or separate agreement must show that disputes will be resolved by arbitration. Agreements to arbitration specify arbitration body and governing law. There are two Chinese government -sponsored arbitration bodies for handling cases involving at least one foreign party: China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission(CIETAC) and China Maritime Arbitration Commission(CMAC) for maritime disputes. Contracts regarding foreign companies doing business in China often designate CIETAC arbitration. CIETAC distinguishes between two kinds of dispute resolutions, foreign-related arbitration and domestic arbitration. For a dispute to be classified as foreign-related arbitration, one of the companies must be a foreign entity without a major production facility or investment in China. CIETAC has published rules which govern the selection of a panel if the contract does not specify how the choice of arbitration will be handled. CIETAC's list of arbitrators for foreign-related disputes, from which CIETAC's arbitrators must en chosen, includes may non-Chines arbitrators. But many foreign experts believe that some aspects of CIETAC needs to be improved. The purpose of this paper is to improve the understanding of arbitration in China, CIETAC by way of studying the current situation and improvement of international commercial arbitration in China.

• 항공우주정책ㆍ법학회지
• /
• 제24권2호
• /
• pp.139-161
• /
• 2009

필자가 세계에서 최초로 국제항공우주재판소(ICASL)의 설립을 제안한 것은 어디까지나 필자 개인의 학문적이고 실용적인 의견에 불과하다. 항공기, 인공위성, 우주선의 추락 또는 충돌 등으로 인하여 인적 또는 물적 손해가 발생되는 항공우주사고의 특성은 (1)전손성(全損性: all or nothing), (2) 순간성(Augenblick), (3) 지상종속성(항공우주관제계 등), (4)손해의 거액성, (5) 국제성 등이 있음으로 육상의 자동차, 기차사고 등과 해상의 선박사고 등과는 다른 특성을 지니고 있다. 따라서 국제항공우주법분야의 사건들을 신속하고 공정하게 처리하기 위하여서는 지역(대륙)별로 국제항공우주법분야에 조예가 깊은 전문가, 교수 및 법조인들 가운데 UN산하 국제민간항공기관(ICAO)의 이사회 및 총회와 UN우주평화적이용위원회(COPUOS)의 법률분과위원회 및 총회에서 다수결로 선출된 14명의 판사들로 구성된 국제항공우주재판소의 설립이 필요하다. 현재 국제재판소로는 네덜란드 헤이그에 있는 (1) 국제사법재판소(ICJ), 독일 함부르크에 있는 (2) 국제해양재판소(ITLS), 헤이그에 있는 (3) 국제형사재판소(ICC), 룩셈브르크에 있는 (4) 유럽공동체재판소(CEC)와 프랑스의 스트라스부르크에 있는 (5) 유럽인권재판소(EHRC) 등이 있으며 이들 재판소의 기능을 개별적으로 살피어 볼 때에 주로 국제법, 국제해양법, 국제형사법, EU법, 유럽인권법 등에 관련된 사건들을 재판한 후 판결을 내리고 있다. 상기 5개 재판소의 설립근거는 각 재판소의 설립에 관계된 국제조약 내지 제정법(statute :정관)에 근거하고 있다. 상기 국제항공우주재판소의 설립 근거가 되는 조약초안에는 (1) 본 재판소의 설립목적, (2) 판사의 선출방법, (3)판사의 임기, (4) 판사의 의무와 권한, (5) 심의회, (6) 재판관할, (7) 청문회, (9) 판결의 방법(주문과 이유 등), (10) 제소기한 등을 삽입하여야만 된다. 국제항공우주재판소는 ICAO 및 UNCOPUOS의 주된 사법기관으로서 법인격을 향유하며 9년 임기의 판사들은 재선이 가능하다. 국제항공우주재판소의 소재지는 대한민국의 서울 또는 기타 도시로 한다. 국제항공우주재판소를 설립하기 위하여서는 설립근거가 되는 국제조약과 세부적인 절차법 (정관: 定款등)의 제정이 필요하다고 본다. 국제항공우주재판소의 설립은 항공우주법 사건에 대한 재판의 기준을 설정하고 재판의 공정성과 신속성을 도모하는데 크게 기여하게 되리라고 본다. 국제항공우주재판소의 창설은 판례법의 축적으로 인하여 국제항공우주법을 통일을 시키는데 촉매적인 역할을 하게 될 것이며 "세계통일법 (unification of the law in the world)"을 형성시키는데 일익을 담당하게 될 것이다.