• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.77
• /
• pp.43-67
• /
• 2018

Arbitration is one of alternative dispute resolution systems which settle a dispute by arbitrators(private persons) based on a contract between contracting parties without a judicial litigation system involved. As a valid arbitration agreement is an essential requirement for commencement of arbitration, the first thing to be determined is whether there is a valid arbitration agreement or not when a dispute is submitted. A consumer arbitration agreement usually exists as an arbitration clause in an adhesive contract between consumers and a seller. When consumers buy a product from a seller, they are requested to agree on a general terms and conditions which are unilaterally drafted by a seller in advance. These terms and conditions are not negotiable because it is an adhesive contract and consumers are placed in "take-it-or-leave-it" position. Therefore, even though there is an arbitration agreement between consumers and a seller, it has to be carefully considered whether it has a legal effect or not. In this respect, a court will examine if an arbitration agreement has procedural unconscionability and substantive unconscionability. Therefore, as U.S is a well-advanced and arbitration-friendly country, this paper analyzes four U.S cases to find out (i) what a court considers, (ii) how a court examines and interprets procedural and substantive unconscionability and (iii) if there has been a change in regard to a court's decision. By doing so, it will provide some suggestions and guidelines for a consumer arbitration in Korea.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.22 no.3
• /
• pp.71-92
• /
• 2012

The significant increase in international trade over the last few decades has been accompanied by an increase in the number of commercial disputes between Korea and India. Understanding the Indian dispute resolution system, including arbitration, is necessary for successful business operation with Indian companies. This article investigates characteristics of India's Arbitration and Conciliation Act in order to help then traders who enter into business with Indian companies to settle their disputes efficiently. The Arbitration and Conciliation Act(1996) based on the 1985 UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration and the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules 1976, has a number of characteristics including the following: (i) this act covers ad hoc arbitration and institutional arbitration (ii) parties to the arbitration agreement have no option except arbitration in case of any dispute (iii) the parties can choose their own laws, places, procedures, and arbitrators (iv) the decision of the arbitrators is final and binding (v)role of the court has been minimized and (vi) enforcement of foreign awards is recognized. However, there have been some court decisions that have not been in tune with the spirit and provisions of the Act. Therefore, Korean companies insert the KCAB's standard arbitration clause into their contracts and use India's ADR(Alternative Dispute Resolution) Methods to strategically resolve their disputes. Additionally, Korean companies investigate Indian companies' credit standing before entering into business relations with them.

• International Commerce and Information Review
• /
• v.14 no.3
• /
• pp.49-73
• /
• 2012

India is a gigantic market with a population of 1.2 billion and an economy that is growing at the second-fastest pace in the world. The volume of trade between India and Korea has been sharply increased with the increase of dispute since 2000. Although avoidance of disputes is always a priority, it is also important to prepare methods of dispute resolution which are efficient and economical. So, understanding of Indian dispute resolution system is a necessary requirement for successful business operation with Indian companies. This article analyzed and compared with the various ways of Indian ADR such as negotiation, mediation, conciliation, Lok Adalat and arbitration in order to help the Korean traders who enter into business with the Indian companies to settle their disputes efficiently. In conclusion, this article suggests the following ways to overcome problems of dispute with Indian companies: First, the Korean companies should recognize the characteristics of Indian ADR Ways respectively. Second, the Korean companies should utilize the conciliation or the mediation in small claim but arbitration in large claim. Third, Write a contract and insert the KCAB's standard arbitration clause in their contract.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.28 no.4
• /
• pp.153-172
• /
• 2018

In solving international commercial disputes, arbitration has a unique advantage. Therefore, when most parties sign a charter party, they contain arbitration clauses. Whether the arbitration clause in the charter party can be effectively incorporated into the bill of lading and bind to the third party-bill holder becomes an important issue. Based on the problem above, this paper compares the arbitration system between Korea and China, and discusses the composition of the Chinese Maritime Court and the Chinese court's adjudication of arbitration for foreign countries, which are recognized and enforced in China. What is most important in this study is observing the Chinese case from the beginning of 2000 to the present in order to rule whether the Chinese court can effectively incorporate the arbitration clause in the charter party into the bill of lading, as well as whether it constitutes an effective binding force for third parties and changes in standard of recognition. Finally, through comparative analysis, the study concludes that in China, the arbitration clause in the charter party can be effectively incorporated into the bill of lading, and that the conditions for the third parties can be effectively restrained. There must be several points to be noted when recording the bill of lading. This would then help reduce the legal risks and promote the sustainable development of international transactions.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.14 no.1
• /
• pp.85-116
• /
• 2013

Korea Medical Dispute Mediation and Arbitration Agency, "K-MEDI" in abbr. herein-after, is established on Apr. 9, 2012 according to the law cited in the title above for the purpose of settling medical disputes in a prompt, fair and efficient manner. Two special professional organizations are established in K-MEDI, one of them is Medical Dispute Mediation and Arbitration Committee(hereinafter referred to as the "Mediation Committee") and the other Medical Malpractice Appraisal Board(hereinaf-ter referred to as the "Appraisal Board"), the mission of the latter is to investigate the facts concerning the disputed medical conduct and to research as to and apprai-se whether the medical conduct was negligent and whether a causal relationship exists. Each panel organized in the Mediation Committee or the Appraisal Board shall be comprised of five mediators or appraisers, including necessarily a judge or a prose-cutor respectively and any disputed case regardless of the scale, the importance or the complicacy shall be handled by a panel. As the system is not thought efficient or economic, the number of the members comprising a panel or total members com-prising the Mediation Committee or the Appraisal Board shoud be adjusted, and the process shoud be versified, including the "Rapid Process," for instance. A petition for the mediation of a medical dispute shall be rejected if the respondent fails to notify K-MEDI of his/her intention to accede to the mediation within 14days from the day on which the petition for the mediation was served(Art. 27 Cl. 7). As the option of an arbitrary decision whether the mediation proceedings shall be commenced or not given to the respondent by the clause is thought unfair, making the process unstable, and moreover, diminishing the purpose of the system established by the law cited above for solving the medical disputes, the clause shoud be amended not to allow the respondent the option of such an arbitrary deci-sion. K-MEDI shall conduct the "Program for Compensation of Medical Accidents"(Art 46) according to which unavoidable injuries caused by the medical accidents in the cour-se of childbirth and the "Advances for Damages"(Art. 47) that are the compensating moneys paid to victims in medical malpractice cases who fail to receive money at all or partly from the operator or the professional of a public health or medical institution although he/she has a final and conclusive right to be paid by them. Some operators or professionals of such institutions claim that both the programs violate their fundamental rights assured by the constitution, and that it be a justifica-tion of refusal to accede to the mediation. As any of the programs needs not to be conducted by K-MEDI, it may be a proper solution to change the conductor of the programs to avoid the unproductive controversy.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.19 no.3
• /
• 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.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.33 no.1
• /
• pp.3-22
• /
• 2023

The purpose of this study is to present implications by analyzing the Swiss Federal Court's annulment of the arbitration Awards in Court of Arbitration for Sport(CAS). As international interest in the sports sector increases, related disputes are also increasing. Therefore, the role of CAS specializing in sports disputes is becoming very important. In particular, the Swiss federal court's annulment of the arbitral awards made by the CAS could contribute significantly to the development of sports arbitration in the future. Looking at the case analyzed in this study, first of all, it is about the partiality of the arbitrator. The court judged that the arbitrator posted and shared racist articles on SNS, which could be sufficiently biased. Next, it is about the uncertainty of the arbitration clause. The arbitral award was finally canceled due to the issue of whether the CAS could make an arbitral award with jurisdiction over a clause that includes both dispute resolution through a sports organization and dispute handling in a national court. As a result of the analysis of this study, in the case of unclear arbitration provisions, it will be necessary to prepare an arbitration agreement. In addition, in the case of unclear arbitration provisions, it will be necessary to prepare a post-arbitration agreement. Finally, in order to revitalize sports arbitration, it will be necessary to train professional arbitrators in Korea, support them to work internationally, and establish specialized arbitration institutions.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.17 no.1
• /
• pp.169-208
• /
• 2016

"Act on Remedies for Injuries from Medical Malpractive and Mediation of Medical Disputes)" has been enacted to solve medical dispute. In addition, mediation and arbitration procedures have started since April 8th, 2012 from the Establishment of Korea Medical Dispute Mediation and Arbitration Agency. The average initiation rate of mediation for the past three years turned out to be 43%. Hereupon, Establishment of Korea Medical Dispute Mediation and Arbitration Agency has created a solution for automatic initiation if relevant to particular conditions to improve initiation rate of mediation procedures and passed it through the Assembly plenary session in May, 2016 and promulgated on the 30th of the same month. However, even if mediation procedure initiation rate is increased, there is no guarantee for mediation establishment rate to be improved according to current law. If Establishment of Korea Medical Dispute Mediation and Arbitration Agency intends to increase aforementioned value, automatic initiation is not the only solution. Instead, it seems to be a major assignment to identify fundamental reasons for why major health care facilities have not participated in it and to restore reliability on them. In addition, among crimes specified on the Article 268 of Criminal Act in the Article $51^*$ of "Act on Remedies for Injuries from Medical Malpractive and Mediation of Medical Disputes)", revision must be made so that the clause of clue and death by occupational or gross negligence is applied. Furthremore, it is suggested to supplement previously insufficient policies with the operation so that mediation procedures created by Establishment of Korea Medical Dispute Mediation and Arbitration Agency are stably settled in the perspective of medical institutions including the establishment of new conditions for medical institutions founders or health and medical service personnel to claim the proxy payment for damage.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.17 no.1
• /
• pp.77-95
• /
• 2007

This article focuses on the history and evolution of the US court's attitude towards unilateral arbitration and dispute resolution clauses, but also considers the practical approach of national courts to theses clauses. It goes on to consider some potential pitfalls in the operation of unilateral clauses, which should be borne in mind when developing a strategy for bringing or defending a claim which falls within the scope of a unilateral clause. There can be few objections to the general validity of unilateral arbitration clauses. The principle of party autonomy is the driving force behind international arbitration and, provided it is tolerably clear that the parties intended the arbitration clause to operate unilaterally, courts should be reluctant to interfere with the parties' agreement. There are also no persuasive public policy reasons why such clauses should not be upheld in commercial agreements. In addition to the issue of whether such unilateral clauses are permissible under certain law, it is important to be aware of how they should properly operate in practice, that is, useful guidance on the subject of the proper operation and effect of such clauses where they are intended to be used to enable a party to decide whether, and in what circumstances, a claim should be referred to court or to arbitration.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.17 no.3
• /
• pp.101-119
• /
• 2007

Arbitration is contractual by nature. One cannot be required to submit to arbitration any dispute which he has not agreed to so submit. As commercial transactions become increasingly complex, involving multiple parties and numerous contracts for a single transaction, however, limiting the parties who are subject to arbitration to only those who have signed a contract containing an arbitration clause would frustrate the purpose of such arbitration clause and might lead to injustice among the relevant parties. Therefore, U.S. courts have recognized a number of theories under which non-signatories may be bound to the arbitration agreement of others: (1) incorporation by reference; (2) assumption; (3) agency; (4) veil-piercing/alter ego; and (5) estoppel. Incorporation by reference and veil-piercing theories have already been recognized by Korean courts. Agency theory and estoppel theory are not recognizable under Korean law. However, the same or similar result may be achieved by applying the third party beneficiary theory or assumption by third party theory. Although a couple of Supreme Court cases appear to be at odds with the assumption theory, on the basis of the recent amendments to the Arbitration Act, such court precedents can be and should be reversed.