DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Recognition or Enforcement of Arbitral Awards under the German Civil Procedure Act

독일민사소송법상 외국중재판정의 승인 및 집행 - 「독일민사소송법」 제1061조를 중심으로 -

  • 성준호 (성균관대학교 법학연구원)
  • Received : 2019.05.10
  • Accepted : 2019.05.29
  • Published : 2019.06.01

Abstract

The arbitration procedure, which is a private trial, does not have a separate enforcement agency. Therefore, unless a party consents to the arbitration award and voluntarily fulfills the award, its execution is accomplished through the implementation of the national court. In particular, the decision in the foreign arbitration procedure will be refused or rejected for the arbitration award in case the proceedings of the law and procedure on which the judgment is based are caused by inconsistency with the domestic law or procedural defect. However, all foreign arbitration awards generally do not have to go through the approval process, and it will come into force with the arbitration award. In the case of Germany in the revision of the German Civil Procedure Act of 1996, the main provisions of the New York Convention concerning the ratification and enforcement of arbitration proceedings are reflected. Germany provides for the arbitration procedures in the arbitration proceedings of Book 10 of the Civil Procedure Act. Particularly, with Article 1061 in Book 10 Section 8 below, the approval and enforcement of foreign arbitrators shall be governed. Article 1061 has been referred to as "The New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Jurisdictions," Article 5 (1). The main reasons for approval and enforcement rejection are: (1) Reason for the acceptance or refusal of enforcement by request of the parties: Reason for failure of subjective arbitration ability, invalidation of arbitration agreement, collapse of attack or defense method, dispute not included in arbitration agreement, (2) Reasons for the approval and enforcement of arbitration considered by the competent authority of the arbitrator: violation of objective arbitration ability, violation of public order, but not based on the default of German statute.

Keywords

References

  1. 김용길, "우리나라에서 외국중재판정의 승인과 집행에 관한 고찰", 중재연구 제20권 제3호, 한국중재학회, 2010.
  2. 김학기, "중재판정의 승인과 집행", 원광법학 제27권 제4호, 원광대학교 법학연구소, 2011.
  3. 김희영, "외국 중재판정의 "공공질서위반으로 인한 집행거부"에 대한 우리나라 판례 연구", Ewha Law Review, 제3권 제1호, 2013.
  4. 석광현, "외국중재판정의 승인.집행제도의 개선방안", 국제사법연구 제16호, 한국국제사법학회, 2010.
  5. 성준호, "중재판정의 효력 - 중재법 제35조의 의미와 역할에 관한 논의 중심으로 -", 선진상사법률연구 제85호, 법무부, 2019.
  6. 이시윤, 신민사소송법 [제12판], 박영사, 2018.
  7. 정선주, 한국과 독일의 중재판례 비교연구, 민사소송 제20권 제2호, 한국민사소송법학회, 2016.
  8. 정선주, "UNCITRAL 모델법이 독일 중재법개정에 미친 영향", 중재연구 제7권, 한국중재학회, 1997.
  9. 정선주, "독일의 중재법 개정안에 관하여", 중재연구 제6권, 한국중재학회, 1996.
  10. 최성수, "우리나라 판례에 나타난 외국중재판정 집행거부사유", 국민대학교 법학연구소, 법학논총 제22권 제2호, 2010.
  11. 법무부, 세계중재법규 제1권, 박영사, 2014.
  12. Boor, Der aufgehobene auslandische Schiedsspruch als ,,rechtliches nullum"?, 2016.
  13. Musielak / Voit, Kommentar zur Zivilprozessordnung: ZPO mit Gerichtsverfassungsgesetz, 12. Auflage 2015.
  14. Prutting / Gehrlein, ZPO- Kommentar, 7. Auflage, 2015.
  15. Saenger, Handkommentar Zivilprozessordnung, 7. Auflage, 2017.
  16. Stein / Jonas, Kommentar zur Zivilprozessordnung (ZPO), 23. Auflage, 2014.
  17. Trittmann, 100 Jahre Rechtswissenschaft in Frankfurt, Vittorio Klostermann, 2014.
  18. Wilske/Markert, BeckOK ZPO, 31. Ed. 1.12.2018, ZPO $\S$ 1061.
  19. http://www.disarb.org/scho/16/rules/-id37
  20. https://www.international-arbitration-attorney.com/de/icc-rules-of-arbitration-2012/#article_22
  21. http://www.freilaw.de/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/01_2015_03_Kurth_ICSID_Uebereinkommen_freilaw.pdf
  22. http://www.disarb.org/scho/16/rules/-id37
  23. https://www.international-arbitration-attorney.com/de/icc-rules-of-arbitration-2012/#article_22

Cited by

  1. 독일민사소송법상 국내중재판정의 승인 및 집행 -「독일민사소송법」 제1060조 규정의 내용을 중심으로- vol.30, pp.2, 2019, https://doi.org/10.16998/jas.2020.30.2.43