• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제21권3호
• /
• pp.89-114
• /
• 2011

Environmental disputes not only possess the special characteristics of collectivity and plural value relativity but it also possesses the unique features of difficulty to prove cause and effect as well as the structural maldistribution of evidence and information. Therefore, the positive resolution of an environmental dispute can be brought about more easily with the Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) which can take the form of talks, compromises, as well as arbitration or mediation rather than through a trial process. Such being the case, this paper first looks into the problems and effectiveness of the arbitration system of environmental lawsuits and then takes an even closer look at Korea's environmental dispute arbitration system and finally offer some reform methods. In Korea, the environmental dispute arbitration system was implemented in 1991 and has been executed since then. Although this system does have positive features such as the high rate of coming to an agreement between the involved parties but unfortunately, most of the cases rely on decisions based on right and wrong which cannot but be far away from the intentions of the ADR system. It is heavily centered around claims regarding psychological compensation regarding noise and vibrations and the ratio of the actual amount of compensation is comparatively lower than the requested amount. In addition, with the limits in organization and manpower, it leads to a lack of professionalism as well as the problem of low usage with the low awareness rate. As reform measures against the aforementioned problems, this paper suggests the following. First, in order to activate the arbitration process more fully, it proposes aggressive usage of compulsory arbitration as well as submission to arbitration, while at the same time raising ADR professionals to fill in the missing gaps. Secondly, in order to overcome the problem of concentration of related cases, making representative lawsuits of environmental organizations would be a good idea. It also states that in order to make the compensation amount more realistic, it should go out of the across-the-board decision making process and reach a decision about the compensation amount that takes the individual situation's dispute into consideration. In order to boost the professionalism of the environmental dispute arbitration, it is necessary to reform the organization and manpower such as expanding the number of members of full standing, and increasing the professionalism of the examiners. Also, to increase the usage rate of the ADR system, the paper suggests stationing a civilian consultant regarding environment, or activating the compulsory arbitration which is the premise for public participation on the part of the residents.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제32권4호
• /
• pp.53-85
• /
• 2022

Small and medium-sized enterprises ("SMEs") are vulnerable to trade secret misappropriation. Korea's legislation for the protection of SMEs' trade secrets and provision of civil, criminal, and administrative remedies includes the SME Technology Protection Act, the Unfair Competition Prevention Act, the Industrial Technology Protection Act, the Mutually Beneficial Cooperation Act, and the Subcontracting Act. Among these acts, the revised SME Technology Protection Act of 2018 introduced the "administrative technology misappropriation investigation system" to facilitate a rapid resolution of SMEs' technology misappropriation disputes. On September 27, 2021, Korea's Ministry of SMEs announced that it had reached an agreement to resolve the dispute between Hyundai Heavy Industries and Samyeong Machinery through the administrative technology misappropriation investigation system. However, not until 3 years and a few months passed since the introduction of the system could it be used to resolve an SME's technology misappropriation dispute with a large corporation. So there arose a question on the usefulness of the system. Therefore, we conducted a comparative legal analysis of Korea's laws enacted to protect trade secrets of SMEs and to address technology misappropriation, focusing on their legislative purpose, protected subject matter, types of misappropriation, and legal remedies. Then we analyzed the administrative technology misappropriation investigation system and the cases where this system was applied. We developed a proposal to enhance the usefulness of the system. The expert interviews of 4 attorneys who are experienced in the management of the system to check the practical value of the proposal. Our analysis shows that the lack of compulsory investigation and criminal sanctions is the fundamental limitation of the system. We propose revising the SME Technology Protection Act to provide correction orders, criminal sanctions, and compulsory investigation. We also propose training professional workforces to conduct digital forensics, enabling terminated SMEs to utilize the system, and assuring independence and fairness of the mediation and arbitration of the technology misappropriation disputes.

• 해양환경안전학회지
• /
• 제28권4호
• /
• pp.577-586
• /
• 2022

한·중 무역거래가 날로 증가함에 따라 한·중 양국의 해상운송 규모가 빠르게 확대되고 있다. 하지만 이는 선박충돌문제를 초래하고 있으며, 특히 한·중 양국 선박이 밀집한 황해와 동해 수역에 집중되어 있다. 선박충돌 사고가 해상 교통안전과 해상 환경에 부정적인 영향을 미치는 동시에 선적국, 충돌발생지 등 섭외적 요인으로 인한 복잡한 법적 문제를 야기하고 있다. 한·중 양국의 국내법 규정이 서로 다르기 때문에 양국은 같은 문제에 대해 서로 다른 의견을 보이고 있다. 국제적으로도 일부 관련 선박충돌에 관한 국제조약들이 있으며 이러한 국제조약들은 모두 각국의 이익균형의 결과물이며 궁극적인 목적은 글로벌 선박충돌과 관련한 법률의 통일에 있다. 한중 양국은 선박충돌 방면에서 모두 국제조약을 참조하여 국내법을 국제조약에 접목하였으며 이는 동시에 해사국제법의 통일에도 적극적인 작용을 하였다. 침권책임법의 발전은 선박충돌의 침해에 대한 이론적 뒷받침을 제공하였다. 중국 해사법원이 발표한 보고서에 따르면 과학기술 수준의 제고에 따라 자연환경과 객관적 영향요인이 선박 충돌사고 위험을 크게 낮췄으나 해안에서 상선과 어선이 충돌하는 사고가 자주 발생하므로 이를 중시해야 한다. 국제조약과 중국국내의 입법에서는 선박충돌에 대한 세부적인 법적 규정을 두고 있지만 선박충돌침해이론에 대하여 여전히 이를 보완하고 발전해 나가야 한다. 본 글은 선박충돌 적용에 있어서 중국입법 및 사법사례의적용을 검토하는 동시에 한국의 법률규정을 참조하여 선박충돌문제에 대한 한중 양국의 법률규정에 대하여 비교하고자 한다.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제20권2호
• /
• pp.173-198
• /
• 2010

The purpose of this paper is to research on the liability for the space damage and the settlement of the dispute with reference to the space activity under the international space treaty and national space law of Korea. The United Nations has adopted five treaties relating to the space activity as follows: The Outer Space Treaty of 1967, the Rescue and Return Agreement of 1968, the Liability Convention of 1972, the Registration Convention of 1974, and the Moon Treaty of 1979. All five treaties have come into force. Korea has ratified above four treaties except the Moon Treaty. Korea has enacted three national legislations relating to space development as follows: Aerospace Industry Development Promotion Act of 1987, Outer Space Development Promotion Act of 2005, Outer Space Damage Compensation Act of 2008. The Outer Space Treaty of 1967 regulates the international responsibility for national activities in outer space, the national tort liability for damage by space launching object, the national measures for dispute prevention and international consultation in the exploration and use of outer space, the joint resolution of practical questions by international inter-governmental organizations in the exploration and use of outer space. The Liability Convention of 1972 regulates the absolute liability by a launching state, the faulty liability by a launching state, the joint and several liability by a launching state, the person claiming for compensation, the claim method for compensation, the claim period of compensation, the claim for compensation and local remedy, the compensation amount for damage by a launching state, the establishment of the Claims Commission. The Outer Space Damage Compensation Act of 2008 in Korea regulates the definition of space damage, the relation of the Outer Space Damage Compensation Act and the international treaty, the non-faulty liability for damage by a launching person, the concentration of liability and recourse by a launching person, the exclusion of application of the Product Liability Act, the limit amount of the liability for damage by a launching person, the cover of the liability insurance by a launching person, the measures and assistance by the government in case of occurring the space damage, the exercise period of the claim right of compensation for damage. The Liability Convention of 1972 should be improved as follows: the problem in respect of the claimer of compensation for damage, the problem in respect of the efficiency of decision by the Claims Commission. The Outer Space Damage Compensation Act of 2008 in Korea should be improved as follows: the inclusion of indirect damage into the definition of space damage, the change of currency unit of the limit amount of liability for damage, the establishment of joint and several liability and recourse right for damage by space joint launching person, the establishment of the Space Damage Compensation Review Commission. The 1998 Final Draft Convention on the Settlement of Disputes Related to Space Activities of 1998 by ILA regulates the binding procedure and non-binding settlement procedure for the disputes in respect of space activity. The non-binding procedure regulates the negotiation or the peaceful means and compromise for dispute settlement. The binding procedure regulates the choice of a means among the following means: International Space Law Court if it will be established, International Court of Justice, and Arbitration Court. The above final Draft Convention by ILA will be a model for the innovative development in respect of the peaceful settlement of disputes with reference to space activity and will be useful for establishing the frame of practicable dispute settlement. Korea has built the space center at Oinarodo, Goheung Province in June 2009. Korea has launched the first small launch vehicle KSLV-1 at the Naro Space Center in August 2009 and June 2010. In Korea, it will be the possibility to be occurred the problems relating to the international responsibility and dispute settlement, and the liability for space damage in the course of space activity. Accordingly the Korean government and launching organization should make the legal and systematic policy to cope with such problems.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제24권4호
• /
• pp.99-125
• /
• 2014

The purpose of this paper is to introduce the arbitral proceeding system in Indonesia. Arbitration in Indonesia is governed by Law No. 30 of 1999 on Arbitration and Alternative Dispute Resolution (Arbitration Law). Also, the Indonesian National Board of Arbitration (BANI) is the main arbitration body in Indonesia. BANI handles both domestic and international disputes. BANI has published its Rules of Arbitral Procedure (the BANI Rules). Within a period of not longer than 30 days after receiving the petition for arbitration, the respondent must submit its reply. Also, if the respondent wishes to assert against the claimant a counter-claim in connection with the dispute, the respondent may submit such counter-claim together with its statement of defense no later than the first hearing. This paper suggests that the following may be some of the disadvantages to using arbitration under the BANI Rules. The first is that final decision or approval regarding the designation of all arbitrators shall be in the hands of the Chairman of BANI. It is the chief problem facing the international stream of arbitration systems. The second is that arbitrators must have certain minimum qualifications. BANI Rules provide the same requirements for the qualifications of the arbitrators as the Arbitration Law. The third is that the BANI Rules require arbitrators in BANI-administered references to be chosen from BANI's list of arbitrators. BANI can also consider a recognized foreign arbitrator if the foreign arbitrator meets the qualification requirements and is prepared to comply with the BANI Rules. This includes the requirement that the appointing party must bear the travel, accommodation, and other special expenses related to the appointment of the foreign arbitrator.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제59권
• /
• pp.3-26
• /
• 2013

The purpose of this paper is to examine the several points at issue in international technology transfer contract from licensor's and licensee's perspectives, and to refer them when the licensor and the licensee draw up the contract. This author analyzed the critical points of the related provisions of ICC Model International Technology Transfer Contract(2009) by citing the explanations of the Introduction of the Model Contract. The provisions of the Model Contract are generally divided into two categolies; specific conditions and general conditions. This author selected four topics in the specific conditions; Contents of the Contract, Royalty, Modification and/or Improvements of Products, and Territory and Competition. Likewise this author selected three topics in the general conditions; Resolutions of Disputes, Applicable Law and Taxes. Both parties need to be mindful of the following points in the above topics, when they draw up the contract. First, both parties should make the definitions of special terminologies clear, which are included in the Contract. Second, before the parties sign the Contract, they should check any approvals to be necessary by the both countries' governments. Third, for the calculation of the royalty, they should clear the criteria, the scope, and the object. Fourth, as the local laws or regional laws regarding the territory limitation and taxation are mandatory, any provisions of the Contract should not be inconsistent with them. Therefore, both parties should check before-hand the local laws or rules related with the provisions of the Contract. Fifth, when the parties draw up the Contract, they should examine the Provisions of Dispute Resolution in consideration of the Governing Law. Thus both parties decide to make the technology transfer contract, the three aspects namely profitability, legal conflict with mandatory rules, and sustainability of the business resulting from the Contract should be examined in advance, and then proceed the business using the technology transfer.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제49권
• /
• pp.325-358
• /
• 2011

The purpose of this study aims to analyse the implications of volume contract clause with Rotterdam Rules. The Hague-Visby Rules have been in force this jurisdiction for over 30 years. In those three decades they have performed valiant service, both for the development of maritime law in this country and for the countless parties from around the world who have chosen courts and arbitral tribunals in London for the resolution of disputes arising under bills of lading or under charterparties incorporating the Hague-Visby Rules. While the Hague-Visby Rules apply only to bills of lading or any other similar documents of title and hence all other contracts of carriage are not subject to the current regime, this is not the case for the Rotterdam Rules which, broadly speaking, apply to contracts of carriage whether or not a shipping document or electronic transport record is issued. To preserve freedom of contract where necessary, however, a number of significant concessions were made and Article 80 represents one of the most controversial: that of volume contracts. However, the provision lends itself to abuse under each one of the elements as there is no minimum quantity, period of time or frequency and the minimum number of shipments is clearly just two. This means that important contracts of affreighment concluded pursuant to, for example, oil supply agreements have the same right to be excluded from the scope of application of the Rotterdam Rules. The fact that a volume contract may incorporate by reference the carrier's public schedule of services and the transport document or other similar documents as terms of the contract would make a carefully drafted booking note for consecutive shipments a potential volume contract as well.

• 한국콘텐츠학회논문지
• /
• 제12권5호
• /
• pp.188-198
• /
• 2012

교회는 법인 아닌 사단으로 인정되는 단체 중의 하나이며, 법인 아닌 사단에 관한 민법의 일반 이론에 따라 교회 실체를 파악하고 교회의 재산귀속에 대해서 판단한다. 법인 아닌 사단의 내부관계는 일차적으로 정관의 적용을 받고 정관의 규정이 없는 경우에는 총회 결의와 민법의 사단법인에 관한 규정을 유추적용하게 된다. 법인 아닌 사단의 채무에 대해서는 사원의 준총유이다(제275조, 제278조). 지난 50여년 동안 대법원 판례는 법인 아닌 사단인 개신교 교회에 대하여서만은 일반적인 법리와는 달리, 교회의 분열을 허용하고 분열시의 재산관계는 분열당시의 교인들의 총유라고 판시했다. 새로운 판례(대법원 2006. 4. 20. 선고 2004다37775 전원합의체판결)는 법인 아닌 사단의 분열은 허용되지 않으므로 비법인 사단의 분쟁해결을 위해 대법원은 종전의 분열인정에서 부인하는 쪽으로 판례를 변경한 것은 분쟁을 해결해야 한다는 당위성이 반영된 것으로 이해된다.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제8권1호
• /
• pp.221-241
• /
• 1998

Though the arbitration agreement is a means to resolve disputes autonomously in essence, the Principle of Parties Autonomy and the Principle of Free Contracting can not be applied infinitely without any limitations but subject to the Public Policy and the Compulsory Provisions as established by an interested country. Such principle of law is applied to international arbitration agreements as well, but their validity should be determined by different standards from those in domestic arbitration agreements, in consideration of their internationality. The essential effect of arbitration agreement is to exclude from the jurisdiction of State courts. Depending upon definition of the legal nature of arbitration agreement, the range and contents of the effect of such agreement will vary. Whether State courts can intervene in claims related to Compulsory Provisions is an issue at the level of legislation policy which can not be easily concluded. But, the applicability of Compulsory Provisions can not serve as an imperative ground to deny the eligibility of claims for arbitration, so far as such claims can be disposed of by the parties. On the other hand, it is reasonable to view the arbitration agreement as a substantive contract in its legal nature enabling the authority for dispute resolution to be delegated to arbitrator, so that the Principle of Parties Autonomy can be widely applied throughout the arbitration procedure as well as with other legal acts on private laws. With this, the parties can enjoy an arbitration award appropriate for characteristics of a specific arbitration agreement, thus resulting in facilitating the use of arbitration procedure for international trade activities. To conclude, the Public Policy and the Compulsory Provisions as limitations on arbitration agreement should be applied to such an extent that they can protect States basic moral faith and social order.

• 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.