• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제63권
• /
• pp.133-156
• /
• 2014

With the development of Chinese commercial arbitration, there have been a large number of cases regarding the parties raised objection to the jurisdiction in arbitration and judicial practice. The argument relating to dealing with the subject matter, time limitation, identified subject of arbitration objection to the jurisdiction as well as the inadequate of Chinese Arbitration Law and relevant judicial interpretations has caused adverse impact on the conduct of the arbitration proceedings. This paper firstly look ar the overview of the arbitration jurisdiction objection, mainly on the arbitration jurisdiction objection determination and what is arbitration jurisdiction objection. The raise and abandonment of the arbitration objection to jurisdiction then will be analyzed in terms of subject, form, time and the legal consequences of giving up. The third part illustrates the handling of arbitration jurisdiction objection, main body, practices, procedures and whether the arbitration objection to jurisdiction is established. And the last part discuss how the condition of effectiveness on the arbitral agreement applies to through Chinese cases. Finally, the author suggests some cautions and countermeasures relates to arbitration agreement for domestic investors and traders dealing with the Chinese partner.

• 해양환경안전학회:학술대회논문집
• /
• 해양환경안전학회 2017년도 공동학술발표회
• /
• pp.141-141
• /
• 2017

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제28권1호
• /
• pp.27-42
• /
• 2018

Due to the increasing number of foreign investments made by state-owned enterprises, there has been a growth in the number of investment arbitration claims submitted by them. However, international investment treaties including the ICSID Convention are intended to apply to investor-state disputes and according to Article 25 of the ICSID Convention, the claimant has to be "a national of another Contracting State." This raises the question of whether state-owned companies can be considered as "nationals of another Contracting State" or private investors. This issue has been discussed in the ICSID Decision on Jurisdiction in BUCG v. Yemen which has been released in 2017. Since there would be more claims related to the standing of state-owned enterprises as claimants, it is required to understand whether state-owned enterprises could be permitted access to the ICSID under the ICSID Convention Article 25. Moreover, the ICSID cases addressing the jurisdictional issues including BUCG v. Yemen has to be closely analyzed. In particular, as the Broches test was applied in order to decide the standing of state-owned companies, it is necessary to examine how the Broches criteria has been interpreted and adopted in the ICSID cases.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제21권2호
• /
• pp.3-25
• /
• 2011

국제상사중재를 다루는 중재판정부의 중재인은 당사자들 간의 유효한 합의를 통하여 구속력 있는 중재판정을 행사할 권한을 가진다. 중재계약에 다른 정함이 없는 한 중재인의 판정권에 대한 결정은 중재인 자신이 내린다. 중재인은 중재합의에 의하여 그 권한이 부여된 사건에 대해서만 권한을 갖게 되나, 명시적으로 그 권한에 따라야 하는 사건 외에 당해 사건을 해결하기 위하여 처리하지 않으면 안 될 모든 문제, 즉 당해 사건과 절단될 수 없는 형태로 연계되어 있는 문제 또는 그 부차적인 조건의 문제를 해결하여야 하는 책임을 지게 된다. 중재판정부는 그 자율적인 권한범위를 규율하는 권한을 가지며, 그 권한 속에는 중재합의의 존부 또는 효력에 관한 것도 포함된다. 중재인의 판정권에 이의가 있는 당사자는 법원에 중재계약의 부존재 무효 확인을 청구할 수 있고, 중재판정이 이미 내려진 경우에는 중재판정취소의 소를 제기하거나, 집행판결에서 이의를 제기할 수 있다. 우리 중재법의 입장에서 국제중재판정의 판정기준에 대해 는 중재판정부는 당사자들이 지정한 법에 따라 중재판정을 내려야 하며, 특정 국가의 법 또는 법체계가 지정된 경우에 달리 명시되지 아니하는 한 그 국가의 국제사법이 아닌 분쟁의 실체법을 지정한 것으로 보고 있다. 국제중재의 법적 안정성, 예측가능성의 관점에서 실정법을 그 판단의 규준으로 삼는다. 한국의 국제중재의 특성은 국제성 중립성, 보편성을 보장받는 점이다. 중재인 구성원은 세계 각국의 국적을 가진 전문 중재인들이 참가하고 있다. 중재절차에 있어서도 중재인은 실체법이나 절차법, 또는 법률의 상충에 관계없이 어느 특정법률을 적용하도록 강요받지 않고 각각의 경우에 가장 적합한 법률에 따르며 중재판정부의 진행절차는 국제중재규칙에 의해 규율된다.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제16권3호
• /
• pp.23-52
• /
• 2006

1997년 외환위기 이후 국내 부실기업의 해외매각을 빠른 속도로 진행하여 매각과정에서 협상력 부재로 인해 기업가치를 제대로 평가받지 못하였을 뿐만 아니라 계약조건 부분에 있어서도 협상성과는 매우 낮은 것으로 평가되고 있다. 또한, 부실한 계약조건으로 인해 계약이행이 종료되지 못하고 소송이나 중재와 같은 분쟁발생이 급격이 증가하고 있다. 이러한 문제인식 하에 본 논문은 부실기업 매각협상 사례중 국제중재와 관련된 한보철강 매각의 사례를 통해 매각시 국제중재를 통해 분쟁을 해결하는 과정을 상세하게 설명함으로써 향후 매각협상 과정뿐만 아니라 매각이후 분쟁이 실제로 발생한다면 이에 대한 정확한 대처와 중재 대처 전략을 수립할 수 있도록 하기 위함이다. 중재는 소송과 달리 단심제로서 중재기간이 상대적으로 짧다고 볼 수 있으나 단심제의 특성을 감안하여 최대한 유리한 증거와 증인확보 등 보다 더 적극적인 자세로 임해야 할 것이다. 본 사례연구에서 중요한 시사점은 국내 협상자들이 협상시 매각가격에만 중요성을 부여하며 기타 계약조건 특히, 준거법 및 관할권에 대해 소홀히 취급하는 경향이 있다는 점이다. 본 한보 중재에서도 승리의 결정적인 원인은 바로 계약서에 준거법을 한국법이라고 명시하였기 때문에 가능했던 것이다 이러한 점은 향후 국제협상시 중요하게 다루어져야 할 사항이라고 판단된다.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제22권3호
• /
• 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.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제18권2호
• /
• pp.129-148
• /
• 2008

국제거래에서 분쟁이 소송으로 발전될 경우 당해 사안에 적용될 준거법의 결정문제와 어느 나라의 법원에서 재판을 받을 것인가에 대한 국제재판관할권의 문제가 빈번히 대두되고 있다. 소송을 제기하는 당사자들로서는 자신에게 유리한 재판결과를 얻을 수 있는 법이 준거법으로 선택될 가능성이 있는 국가의 법원에 소송을 제기하는 소위 '포럼 쇼핑 (forum shopping)' 전략을 세우기도 한다. 이러한 포럼 쇼핑에 대응하기 위해 영미 판례법인 common law에서는 오래 전부터 forum non conveniens를 확립하였다. 본 논문에서는 forum non conveniens를 심리한 미국 대법원의 판단기준을 살펴보면 먼저, 적절한 대체관할지의 존재여부이며, 둘째 사적이익 부분에서 자국민이 현저하기 불리한 위치에 처하는지를 확인하고, 셋째 공적이익 부분에서 미국의 이익이 심각하게 침해되지는 않는지를 검토하여 판단하게 된다. 이러한 법리적 판단근거를 제시하고 이에 대한 적용사례를 분석하여 향후 무역거래를 포함한 일련의 국제계약에 있어 분쟁시 국내기업들이 미국법정에 재판받지 않고 국내법원으로 재판관할지를 선택할 수 있는 전략을 제시함으로써 패소가능성 등의 계약위험을 줄일 수 있을 것으로 판단된다.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제33권1호
• /
• 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.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제13권2호
• /
• pp.235-262
• /
• 2004

A study on the international Jurisdiction to Application in Electronic Transaction Disputes The implementation of electronic commerce raises some new legal and institutional problem so it is necessary for us to prepare alternatives. As the development of electronic commerce is difficult without smooth settlement of dispute the pursue of smooth settlement of dispute is very important menu. while the most common method relating to the settlement of dispute is litigation. them relating to the litigation, the subject of jurisdiction and the subject of governing laws should be resolved above all. Further more in addition, the old act prior act was regarded as insufficient in that it lacked rules on international jurisdiction to adjudicate, or international adjudicatory jurisdiction, where as the expectation of the public was that the private international law should function as the basic law of the legal relational encompassing rules on international jurisdiction given the increase of It international disputes. for the move the private international law has also attracted more attention from the korean. Therefore, International jurisdiction to application concerned about electronic commerce should be prepared and the environment to keep electronic commerce secure and stable be guaranteed. And we should make plans to protect companies and consumers and should make efforts to expand electronic commerce infrastructure.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제27권2호
• /
• pp.37-57
• /
• 2017

On 9 March 2017, a Tribunal constituted under the ICSID Convention issued its ruling in the case of Ansung Housing v. People's Republic of China, dismissing with prejudice all claims made by the Claimant, Ansung Housing Co., Ltd., in its Request for Arbitration, pursuant to ICSID Arbitration Rule 41(5). Ansung Housing v. PRC has drawn attention since it is the first case where an investor with Korean nationality initiated an ICSID arbitration on the basis of the Korea-China Bilateral Investment Treaty (BIT) as amended in 2007 between the Republic of Korea and the People's Republic of China. The Tribunal finds that its ruling is about a lack of jurisdiction of the ICSID and of its own competence as well as regarding manifest lack of legal merit due to a lack of temporal jurisdiction, since a Respondent's Rule 41(5) objection is concerned with the three-year limitation period in Article 9(7) of the Korea-China BIT. The Tribunal held that, under Article 9(7) of the Korea-China BIT, the limitation period begins with an investor's first knowledge of the fact that it has incurred loss or damage, not with the date on which it gains knowledge of the quantum of that loss or damage. Finally, the Tribunal held that Ansung submitted its dispute to ICSID and made its claim for purposes of Article 9(3) and (7) of the BIT after more than three years had elapsed from the date on which Ansung first acquired knowledge of loss or damage and that the claim is time-barred and, as such, is manifestly without legal merit. It remains to be seen whether the aggrieved Claimant initiates annulment proceedings before an ad hoc committee under the ICSID Convention. It is quite interesting to see whether the decisions by the Tribunal should be reversed on the basis of the Claimant's arguments as to the start date as well as the end date of the limitation period under the Korea-China BIT.