• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제29권2호
• /
• pp.89-105
• /
• 2019

This paper reviews and analyzes the U.S. cases and statutes on the issue of party autonomy in arbitration agreement. Arbitration agreement has been interpreted somewhat differently from general contracts because its legal characteristics are not purely contractual by nature. For example, some legal scholars insist that an arbitration contract is more about an agreement on a process of dispute resolution than a creation of rights and obligations to avoid litigation. Party autonomy was discussed in diverse legal perspectives including contract of adhesion, VKI principle, and separability of arbitration clause. These three legal perspectives are discussed to set the legal relationship between party autonomy and protection of consumers in consumer arbitration. In addition, it was discussed how legal defects in the formation of an arbitration contract can influence the party autonomy. The legal defects that were discussed to analyze the relationship between arbitration agreement and party autonomy included misrepresentation, fraud, mistake, duress, and undue influence.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제19권1호
• /
• pp.25-44
• /
• 2009

The purpose of this parer is to examine the specifies of Institutional Arbitration and Ad Hoc Arbitration. The court prefers the institutional award in the enforcement rather than the award issued under the name of arbitrators alone. For example, the ICC Court of Arbitration scrutinizes awards for completeness, adherence to the ICC Rules and internal consistency, which since the court assurance for enforcement. In terms of arbitration costs, for which the ad hoc arbitration is considered to have comparative advantages, the institutional arbitration may not be more expensive than ad hoc arbitration, as in most commercial case, the administrative fees are insignificant. This paper suggests the standard or model arbitration clauses in institutional and ad hoc arbitrations. These Clauses contains the minimum elements necessary to render the arbitration agreement enforceable and effective. So both parties may add the specific contents such as the number of arbitrator, the place of arbitration and the language. Especially, in Ad Hoc Arbitration without designated set of rules, more clean clause for appointing arbitrators will be needed.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제29권1호
• /
• pp.3-29
• /
• 2019

A franchise business is a business in which the owners, or "franchisors," sell the rights to their business logo, name, and model to third party retail outlets, owned by independent, third party operators, called "franchisees." There are a number of features in franchising or terms in franchise agreements that may lead to disputes between franchisors and franchisees. These disputes may arise because of underlying risks in the franchise relationship, franchise agreement, or conduct of the parties. In this case, ADR is an effective way to resolve disputes in a quicker and often less costly way than having to go to court. If an agreement cannot be reached through mediation, then arbitration becomes the next step to resolving the differences. Whereas mediation is non-binding and focused on facilitating the parties to find a resolution that is acceptable to both, arbitration is binding and may result in a decision that is not acceptable to one of the parties. These situations can be resolved through experienced arbitration as arbitration allows franchisees to settle matters promptly and outside of the public eye. In addition, franchise dispute arbitration is usually less costly than going to traditional court. Considering all of these, reaching an agreement will also have typical clauses that address the issue of dispute resolution. It is again a more efficient process than going through the legal process and courts and is often less costly. By going through arbitration, the parties agree to give up their rights to pursue the dispute in the courts. However, there is a problem that the arbitration prior to the agreement and under the terms would be contrary to the restriction of jurisdiction under the "ACT ON THE REGULATION OF TERMS AND CONDITIONS" in Korea.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제23권2호
• /
• pp.1-35
• /
• 2013

In the 21th century, its important role in international commercial disputes has established arbitration as the preferred form of dispute resolution. Because commercial disputes have become more complicated and varied with their quantitative increase, it is important that they be settled in a reasonable and rapid manner. Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) is now regarded as one of the most effective dispute resolution methods for the settling of commercial disputes and merits notice. Arbitration is a form of dispute resolution in which two parties agree to have their dispute resolved by one or more arbitrators and thereby avoid what could be costly and time-consuming court battles. Often contracts mandate that disputes be settled through arbitration. These arbitration clauses also frequently prohibit plaintiffs from banding together to bring an action on behalf of a larger class. An arbitration agreement is an agreement by parties to summit to arbitration all or certain disputes which have arisen or which may arise between them with respect to their defined legal relationship, whether contractual or not. According to the Supreme Court, general elective arbitration clauses may be considered valid in light of all the relevant facts. Arbitration has been the subject of a great deal of research and the scope of effect in arbitration agreements is a promising avenue for future research.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제30권1호
• /
• pp.67-86
• /
• 2020

In the case of multiple commerce contracts in commerce, as well as multiple contracts related to it, a solution for the merging of arbitration proceedings is necessary in order to ensure uniformity of dispute resolution. Since the arbitration proceedings are based on the parties' agreement, no merging of two or more arbitration proceedings may transpire unless all parties agree. Claims of merging in arbitration proceedings lead to problems such as lack of party autonomy, resulting from lack of consent of the parties to merging, and how to appoint an arbitrator in a multilateral arbitration proceeding. Many of the major arbitration bodies have recognized the significant benefits of the terms of consolidation, and have recently revised the Arbitration Rules to include or extend existing clauses to reflect the needs of the parties. This study introduces the merging provisions of several selected major arbitration rules, such as the ICC, Switzerland, SCC, LCIA, SIAC, HKIAC, ACICA, and UNCITRAL rules, and looks at the main similarities and differences among the rules.

• 시큐리티연구
• /
• 제11호
• /
• pp.129-157
• /
• 2006

급속한 사회변화와 함께 사회적 위험요소가 고조되면서 이에 대한 안전문제가 크게 대두되고 있다. 이에 안전욕구의 증대에 따라 위험에 대비하는 치안서비스를 제공하는 민간경호경비에 대한 수요도 증가하고 이에 따른 경호경비업도 발달하고 있다 이에 본고에서는 경호경비계약에 대한 법률 구조를 파악하여 경호경비업자와 의뢰자 사이에 발생 가능한 분쟁을 예방하거나 해결하기 위하여 계약의 성립과 그에 따르는 문제점을 분석하고자 한다. 특히 경호경비관계에 따르는 분쟁을 최소화하기 위하여 경호경비 계약을 체결하여 그 합의내용을 명확히 문서화하는 것이 필요하다. 여기에서 본고에서는 각 당사자간에 자율적으로 체결하는 경호경비계약조건을 표준화하는 방안 중에서 분쟁해결조항의 표준모델을 제시 하고자 한다. 특히 당사자 간 사법상의 분쟁을 해결하는 효과적인 방법으로 합의에 의한 방법이 최선이겠으나, 불가피한 경우에 재판에 의한 소송에 의한 해결보다는 중재를 통한 해결 방안을 권고한다. 당사자가 중재로 분쟁을 해결하기 위해서는 경호경비 계약서에 중재조항을 삽입하여 체결해야 한다. 실제 경호경비업계에서 이데 대한 적용성 시험 및 평가를 거쳐서 이를 경호경비 표준계약서로 제정하여 업계 전반에 확대 적용을 추진하고자 한다.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제23권2호
• /
• pp.37-54
• /
• 2013

This article focuses on integrating institutional mediation systems, especially the analysis of the leading ADR operation. Mediation is a process in which an impartial third party, a mediator, facilitates the resolution of a dispute by promoting voluntary agreements by the parties to the dispute. A mediator facilitates communications, promotes understanding, focuses the parties on their interests, and seeks agreement. These standards give meaning to this definition of mediation. Standard mediation clauses are construed as broadly as possible, and mediation is compelled unless it may be said with positive assurance that the mediation process is not susceptible to an interpretation that covers the asserted dispute. Performing the conflicts check early in the process helps in eliminating any awkwardness or delays caused by making disclosures after mediation commences. Mediator impartiality is central to the mediation process. A mediator should mediate only those matters in which she or he can remain impartial and evenhanded. If at any time the mediator is unable to conduct the process in an impartial manner, the mediator is obligated to withdraw.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제77권
• /
• pp.69-89
• /
• 2018

The United States of America is one of the most favoring countries in which mandatory pre-arbitration clauses in the form of adhesion contract have been widely recognized and supported by courts and the Federal Arbitration Act. However, after the financial crisis in 2008 and the National Arbitration Forum scandal in 2009, in enacting the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act ('Dodd-Frank Act'), Section 1028(a) of the Act requires the newly created Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) to provide Congress with a report on "the use of agreements providing for arbitration of any future dispute between covered persons and consumers". Section 1028(b) also grants the CFPB the authority to "prohibit or impose conditions or limitations on the use of an agreement between a covered person and a consumer for a consumer financial product or service providing for arbitration of any future dispute between the parties, if the Bureau finds that such a prohibition or imposition of conditions or limitations is in the public interest and for the protection of consumers." Pursuant to the Dodd-Frank Act, the CFPB issued a report entitled "2015 Arbitration Study: Report to Congress 2015 (Report)" in March 2015. This paper examines some major legal issues of the Report and makes a few recommendations for Korean financial institutions which entered into the U.S. financial market or has a plan to do so in the near future.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제24권2호
• /
• pp.109-136
• /
• 2014

The separability of an arbitration clause is generally recognized throughout the world, but there are no provisions of it under the Federal Arbitration Act(FAA) of the United States. As such, the controversy over the recognition of separability has developed with the rise of certain cases. The Supreme Court recognized this separability based on section 4 of the FAA in the decision of the Prima Paint case. The Court ruled that courts must decide the claim about the fraudulent inducement of an arbitration agreement itself, but they must not decide the claim about the fraudulent inducement of a contract involving a broad arbitration clause, and they have to proceed with the arbitration. The Court said that the subject of an arbitral award is set by the agreement of the parties, and thereby arbitrators can decide the issues about the fraudulent inducement of a contract on the basis of the arbitration clause when it is broad to the point of including the issues. Many courts have extended the separability beyond the fraud context to include other defenses to contract formation in the federal courts such as the occurrence of mistake, illegality, and frustration of purpose. In interpreting the parties' intention of ensuring arbitrator competence, the Supreme Court has treated differently the issues about whether the arbitration agreement exists or not and the issues about whether the preconditions for dispute resolution by a valid arbitration agreement is fulfilled or not. The Court holds that the federal policy in favor of arbitration does not apply to the former issues, and arbitrators can decide theses issues only when parties assign them clearly and unmistakably to them. However, the later issues receive a presumption in favor of arbitration; i.e., when the interpretation of a valid arbitration clause is contested, the arbitrators can decide these issues. In the First Options case, the former issue was questioned. The question of the separability of an arbitration clause is where the validity of the main contract involving the arbitration clause is contested. Therefore, the doctrine of separability did not operate in the First Options case in which the validity of the arbitration clause itself was questioned, and the decision in the First Options was irrelevant to the separability. I think that the Prima Paint case and the First Options case have different issues, and there is no tension between them.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제22권3호
• /
• pp.165-185
• /
• 2012

Franchising has proved over many years to be a successful commercial vehicle for the international distribution of products and services. However, there has long been missing a user-friendly model contract that would reflect the diversity of international franchising contracts. Because the ICC has drafted a model form of international franchising contracts, taking into account the most commonly encountered clauses in franchising agreements, their model could be used as a checklist of the core obligations of a cross-border franchise contract. Because there is no internationally agreed-upon uniform legislation on franchising, parties must rely on national laws and regulations applicable to the international franchise (when such laws and regulations exist) and should therefore very carefully draft stipulations for the legal status of the contract. This study has been intended to cite some provisions for striking a fair balance between the interests of the franchisor and those of the franchisee and for avoiding unfair trade acts in international franchising contracts.