• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제29권4호
• /
• pp.33-55
• /
• 2019

This study is aimed at drawing up improvement measures in connection with the resolution of claims, one of the major constraints in revitalizing South-North Korean economic cooperation. To that end, we first looked at the structure of South-North Korean economic cooperation and the institutional status related to resolving the claims. Also we analyzed the current status of the claims in the process of promoting South-North Korean economic cooperation by companies and the provisions of the claims between the parties in order to derive any problems. Through these research results, we were able to identify directions and implications for efficient improvement of the causes of several South-North Korean economic cooperation claims. First, at the corporate level, there is a need to create specific details of a contract for resolving disputes and to add additional third-party coordination functions in the relevant clause of the contract in preparation for the occurrence of a dispute. In addition, it is necessary to seek ways to advance jointly with corporations in China and other third countries in order to secure stability. Second, the government should continue to discuss ways of promoting South-North Korean commercial arbitration with North Korea so that follow-up measures can be completed as soon as possible. In addition, a two-track strategy is suggested to provide a practical negotiation channel at the private level. Also it is necessary to be active in persuading North Korea to join the international arbitration treaty in preparation for the activation of full-fledged economic exchanges.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제16권2호
• /
• pp.51-88
• /
• 2006

The obligation on a national court to recognize and enforce arbitral awards as provided in Article III New York Convention, which both Korea and China have ratified, is subject to limited exceptions. Recognition and enforcement will be refused only if the party against whom enforcement is sought can show that one of the exclusive grounds for refusal enumerated in Article V(1) New York Convention has occurred. The court may also refuse enforcement ex officio if the award violates that state's public policy. This article explores the circumstances where arbitral awards may be refused enforcement under the Korean and Chinese arbitration laws. It first analyzes the relevant statutory provisions. In Korea and China, which have adopted the UNCITRAL Model law, the grounds of challenge are exhaustively defined within their respective arbitration laws. According to their arbitration laws, an arbitral award may be set aside if a party making the application proves that (i) a party to the arbitration agreement was under some incapacity or the agreement is not valid under the applicable law, (ii) the party making the application was not given proper notice of the appointment of an arbitrator or of the arbitral proceedings or was otherwise unable to present his case, (iii) the award deals with a dispute not contemplated by or not falling within the terms of the submission to arbitration or contains decisions on matters beyond the scope of the submission to arbitration, or (iv) the composition of the arbitral tribunal or the arbitral procedure was not in accordance with the agreement of the parties. An arbitral award may also be set aside ex officio by the court if the court finds that (i) the subject-matter of the dispute is not capable of settlement by arbitration under the applicable law or (ii) the award is in conflict with the public policy. This article then reviews relevant judicial decisions rendered in Korea and China to see how the courts in these countries have been interpreting the provisions specifying the grounds for challenging arbitral awards. It concludes that the courts in Korea and China rarely accept challenges to arbitral awards, thereby respecting the mandate of the New York Convention.

• 통상정보연구
• /
• 제14권2호
• /
• pp.369-387
• /
• 2012

한미 FTA의 협상 과정에서부터 비준을 걸쳐 발효된 이후까지 끊이지 않는 논쟁의 중심에는 바로 투자자-국가 소송제도인 ISD가 있다. ISD의 본 취지인 외국인 투자자에 대한 보호기능은 국제통상환경에서 없어서는 안 될 보호장치이며 지금까지 수많은 양자투자협정(BIT)에도 적용되어온 제도임에도 ISD에 대한 부정적인 시각은 여전히 존재한다. 그중에서도 가장 큰 우려는 정부의 공공정책이 ISD 때문에 제한될 수 있다는 것이다. 실제로 한미 FTA의 당사국인 미국이 맺은 NAFTA의 경우를 보면 ISD로 인하여 캐나다와 멕시코 정부가 ISD 제소를 당해왔으며, 그로 인하여 공공정책을 추진하면서 제약을 느껴온 것은 사실이다. 그러나 일부의 ISD 사건에서는 일국 정부의 공공정책이 투자자의 이익을 우선한다는 판정부의 결정도 있었다. 그렇다면 한미 FTA가 막 발효된 이 시점에서 우리가 앞으로 일어날 수 있는 우리 정부에 대한 미국기업이나 미국인 투자자의 ISD 제소에 어떻게 대비해야 하며, 정부의 공공정책이 어떻게 해야 ISD 제소의 표적이 되지 아니할지에 대한 분석이 필요하다. 이러한 분석에 가장 효과적인 자료가 미국이 당사국으로 있는 NAFTA의 ISD 사건들이다. NAFTA의 ISD 사건 분석은 판정부가 판정을 함에 있어 어떠한 법리적 해석을 하는지를 알 수 있는 근거자료이며 나아가 우리의 상황에 적용하여 대비하는데 필수적인 도구이기도 하다.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제22권1호
• /
• pp.89-110
• /
• 2012

No-fault automobile insurance system is a statutory scheme to provide automobile accident victims with compensation for certain expenses arising from personal injuries occurring in car accidents. New York State has enacted No-Fault Law to ensure that the injured in automobile accidents be paid rapidly by their own insurance company for medical expenses, lost earnings regardless of fault, replacing common law system of reparation for personal injuries under tort law. Its primary purpose is to facilitate compensation without the need to exhaust time-consuming litigation over establishing the existence of fault and the extent of damages. No-Fault Law allows arbitration as a method for settling the no-fault insurance disputes. No-fault arbitration, however, differs in a significant way from general arbitration system. First, No-Fault Law provides the parties with the option to submit any dispute involving no-fault automobile insurance to arbitration. Second, no-fault arbitration attempts to speed its procedure incorporating various methods. Third, the parties are required to seek review of arbitral awards by master arbitrator prior to seeking court's review. Fourth, the parties have right to bring de novo action in court if master arbitrator's award exceeds $5,000. Given the current state of law in Korea, it may not be easy to introduce no-fault arbitration system into Korea in the context of automobile insurance disputes settlement as its law has a long-established reparation system based on tort liability and no-fault arbitration system has its own features that differ from general arbitration system. Nonetheless, it could be suggested that no-fault arbitration be introduced in other fields which require speedy dispute resolution and a third party's decision to settle the disputes. The optional right of submitting disputes to arbitration as provided by No-Fault Law of New York State may offer a ground to supprot the effectiveness of an optional arbitration agreement.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제25권4호
• /
• pp.51-75
• /
• 2015

Administrative ADR to solve new problems has the characteristics of a new project, hence ADR is established and operated with a lack of human and material resources in the process of introducing administrative ADR. Therefore, it is preferred to resolve conflicts by less costly counseling and mutual agreement before mediation. When we try to settle the disputes through administrative ADR at the stage before mediation, it causes problems for the neutrality and impartiality of the dispute settlement procedures. In this case administrative ADR systems should introduce devices that ensure the impartiality of the process. In some issues becoming social problems, relevant administrative agencies are inclined to establish ADR systems. If ADR systems become available, a person who may use ADR services may have some trouble grasping ADR institutions because he/she can hardly distinguish their business affairs. By subdividing administrative affairs, when the disputes have the issues that touch on various fields of the affairs, parties in the disputes have to take ADR procedures one by one in all ADR-related institutions. This may lead to too heavy a burden on the disputing parties, furthermore forcing them to give up the remedies of their rights. For more efficient ADR operations, it is necessary that the institutions which set up and operate ADR systems should actively exchange and cooperate with one another. They need to forge and strengthen the solidarity between administrations and courts. The administrative agencies which run ADR themselves have to build up the devices for preparing human resources and material facilities for administrative ADR.

• 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).

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제29권2호
• /
• pp.161-199
• /
• 2019

As international trades between Korea and China increase, the number of civil disputes also increases. The civil dispute settlement system and the court system in China are distinctive from those of Korea. China has its own court systems which are characterized by the Chinese Communist System. Due to the influence of the decentralized local autonomy tradition, the case laws of each Province in China are not unified throughout the China. This is partly because only two instances are provided in China, and the parties cannot appeal to the Supreme People's Court of China unless there is a special reason. In Korea, three instances are provided and parties can appeal to the Supreme Court if a party so chooses. In addition, there are many differences in the judicial environment of China compared to Korea. Therefore, if there is a dispute between a Korean party and a Chinese party, arbitration is recommended rather than court litigation. This article examines the points to be considered for interim measures in China during arbitration. Where the seat of arbitration is Korea, interim measures cannot be taken by the order of the Chinese court in the middle of or before arbitration procedures. On the other hand, it is possible to take interim measures through the Chinese court in the middle of or before the arbitration procedure in China or Hong Kong. It also reviews the points to be noted in case of the enforcement of arbitration awards in China where permission from the upper Court is required to revoke or to deny the recognition or enforcement of a foreign-related or foreign arbitration award.

• 한국IT서비스학회지
• /
• 제21권3호
• /
• pp.27-42
• /
• 2022

Open Data is an essential resource for the data industry. 'Act On Promotion Of The Provision And Use Of Public Data', enacted on July 30, 2013, mandates public institutions to manage the quality of Open Data and provide it to the public. Via such a legislation, the legal basis for the public to Open Data is prepared. Furthermore, public institutions are prohibited from developing and providing open data services that are duplicated or similar to those of the private sector, and private start-ups using open data are supported. However, as the demand for Open Data gradually increases, the cases of refusal to provide or interruption of Open Data held by public institutions are also increasing. Accordingly, the 'Open Data Mediation Committee' is established and operated so that the right to use data can be rescued through a simple dispute mediation procedure rather than complicated administrative litigation. The main issues dealt with in dispute settlement so far are usually the rights of third parties, such as open data including personal information, private information such as trade secrets, and copyrights. Plus, non-open data cannot be provided without the consent of the information subject. Rather than processing non-open data into open data through de-identification processing, positive results can be expected if consent is provided through active rights processing of the personal information subject. Not only can the Public Mydata Service be used by the information subject, but Open Data applicants will also be able to secure higher quality Open Data, which will have a positive impact on fostering the private data industry. This study derives a plan to establish a rights processing platform to enhance the usability of Open Data, including private information such as personal information, trade secrets, and copyright, which have become an issue when providing Open Data since 2014. With that, the proposals in this study are expected to serve as a stepping stone to revitalize private start-ups through the use of wide Open Data and improve public convenience through Public MyData services of information subjects.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제14권1호
• /
• pp.377-413
• /
• 2004

North Korea and South Korea agreed to refer their investment disputes to arbitration by adopting' Agreed Minutes on Procedures of Settlement of Commercial Disputes' on 16th December 2000. According to the Agreed Minutes, the two Koreas were to establish an arbitration commission within 6 months after the Agreed Minutes had been signed. In 2002, North Korea enacted laws to draw interest of foreign tourists to Mountain Kumgang and to boost investment into the region of Kaesung as it provided in those laws that commercial disputes should be settled by arbitration or judicial procedures. In October 2003, the two Koreas succeeded in adopting another Agreed Minutes as to the establishment and functioning of North-South Arbitration Commission. The fact that the two Koreas have agreed to establish an arbitration commission is meaningful since they are leading their lives quite differently in political, social, and economic sense for more than a half century. Although there still remain doubts as to the North Korean policy on nuclear matters, an arbitration commission could be a cornerstone for the set-up of the dispute settlement system between the two Koreas and a great help for investors from South Korea to pursue their possible legal claims as North Korea is eager to invite South Korean businessmen and other foreign investors to invest in its special economic areas. According to the Agreed Minutes of 2003, the two Koreas are going to adopt procedural rules for the arbitration commission. It will be a great challenge for them to agree on specific issues as to the operation of the arbitration commission. They have to set up a rester of arbitrators respectively and may have to enact or revise their own arbitration laws and rules reflecting the Agreed Minutes of 2000 and 2003. It is quite welcome that the two Koreas have agreed to set up an arbitration commission rather than resort to political or diplomatic means to settle their disputes. The success of the arbitration system between the two Koreas will make sure the safety of investment environment in the northen part of the Korean Peninsula and will bring the peace to the Korean peninsula earlier than expected.

• 의료법학
• /
• 제9권2호
• /
• pp.383-422
• /
• 2008

Considering above, It might be efficient that medical disputes would be settled by the intervention, the agreement, and the administrative relief that reflect mediators' opinion, who have rich social experience as well as specialized knowledge. Therefore, KCA needs to strengthen its function of mediation and improve relevant systems to become an effective settlement institution. And although Oriental medicine disputes have mainly given ex post facto explanations so far, administrative efforts such as policy development or legislation should be made for the high quality of Oriental medical services offered because an efficient way saving social or economic costs caused by the dispute would be precautionary measures. The traditional Oriental medicine is featured with the lack of baseline examination, the uncertainty of medical mistakes, the difficulty in clarifying and proving facts, the hardship of injury conformation and causality because of the characteristics of Oriental medicine, and the relative lightness of physical damages. Actually, there has been few legal settlements in Oriental medical disputes since the compensation, itself, compared to the lawsuit cost, is relatively much lower without practical benefits.