• 건설관리
• /
• 제3권1호
• /
• pp.27-29
• /
• 2002

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제26권2호
• /
• pp.115-134
• /
• 2016

Arbitration is a consensual process in which a dispute is resolved by an impartial arbitrator outside the courts. Arbitration is flexible, neutral, time- and cost-efficient, and confidential. In 1985, the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law(UNCITRAL) enacted the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration to help countries reform and modernize their arbitration laws. In 1999, South Korea adopted the model law. Later in 2006, UNCITRAL amended the model law to promote international arbitration. The amended model law includes, among other things, specific provisions regarding interim measures. In 2016, in order to adopt the newly amended version of the model law, South Korea revised its Arbitration Act. The revised act includes a more comprehensive legal regime regarding interim measures, including definitions, types, processes, requirements, the court's recognition and enforcement, and liability. This paper examines the revision of the Arbitration Act of Korea and its legislative intent, presents the problems, and offers recommendations for resolving the problems.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제16권1호
• /
• pp.187-217
• /
• 2006

This study has the purpose to investigate other countries' arbitrator systems to compare with the current KCAB's system and to find their merits and demerits so that we can make up for the demerits of KCAB's arbitrator system and to make the most use of its merits. The most important factor of arbitral procedure is the arbitrator. If we compare clauses related with the arbitrator to KCAB's arbitration rules, expand the merits of it and apply the merits of other arbitrating organs, KCAB's arbitration can avoid criticism which it has got so far while it was handling the international cases. Also, we may need to grow up the role of the executive office in the range of respecting the self-government of the concerned party for the rapid proceeding of arbitral procedure. According to the foreign countries' international arbitration rules, they go with the process that they firstly give the concurrence period to the concerned parties, especially related with the arbitral procedure such as selection of arbitrator or filling the vacancy of the arbitrator, and as for the concerned party who doesn't fulfill within that period, the arbitrating organ or the other one corresponding to the pertinent arbitrating organ in case of the ad-hoc arbitration rules fulfill instead.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제23권2호
• /
• pp.141-164
• /
• 2013

The current Korean Arbitration Act (KAA) ${\S}37(2)$ requires that a formal copy of an arbitral award or a duly certified copy thereof and the original arbitration agreement or a duly certified copy thereof be produced for the recognition and enforcement of a arbitral award. But as the KAA provides that the recognition and enforcement of a foreign arbitral award to which the New York Convention applies shall be granted in accordance with the Convention, the duly authenticated original award should be produced instead of a formal copy in that case. The provision on the documents to produce for the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award is set to establish a reasonable and transparent standard and to facilitate the recognition and enforcement of awards by prohibiting parochial refusal of the recognition and enforcement on the grounds of formalities. Therefore it is necessary to simplify those documents according to the internationally acknowledged standard. It would be desirable to amend KAA ${\S}37(2)$ to require only "the original arbitral award or a copy thereof" without authentication or certification and a translation into Korean without any condition, adopting the 2006 amendment to the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제33권1호
• /
• pp.23-49
• /
• 2023

An ICSID award on Lone Star case has been rendered finally on August 31st, 2022 after almost ten years since the Lone Star Funds submitted the request for arbitration against the Republic of Korea in 2012. The Lone Star case is the first investor-state dispute settlement(ISDS) case brought against Korea, and this case, also known as "eat and run" case, has given rise to heated debates for years. Moreover, as the ICSID tribunal has ordered Korea to pay the Lone Star Funds the sum of USD 216.5 million plus interest in the award, this case has become once again the subject of controversy. Any arguments and evidence submitted by the parties in dispute have not been disclosed until recently, however, as the memorials and the award are now open to the public, it has become possible to realize the assertions of each party and the decisions of the tribunal in detail. Therefore, this paper aims at analyzing the main issues of the Lone Star case with a focus on the ICSID award. By examining the substantive and procedural issues of the case one after the other, it might be able to understand the whole picture of the case and prepare for the remaining procedures of this case and other upcoming cases as well.

• 통상정보연구
• /
• 제16권5호
• /
• pp.67-86
• /
• 2014

상사중재는 문제를 해결하고 사업 파트너간 분쟁에 대한 해결책을 찾는 신속하고 효과적인 방법이다. 상사중재 발전을 위해 이론 뿐 만 아니라 실무차원에서 중재연구의 접근이 필요하다. 본 논문은 파키스탄 국내 중재법과 파키스탄에서 적용되는 국제상사중재제도에 대한 상황과 접근방법 등을 제시하였다. 파키스탄에서 새롭게 정비된 2009년 중재법은 국내중재, 국제상사중재, 외국 중재판정의 집행뿐 만 아니라 국제투자분쟁의 해결에 관한 법률을 통합하는 것을 목표로 한다. 더 나아가 2011년에 파키스탄 투자자의 신뢰를 회복하기 위해 외국인 투자자를 보호할 수 있는 법을 도입하기도 하였다. 본 논문은 파키스탄의 중재법의 과거부터 현재까지 진전된 관계를 설명하고 새로운 법령에 의해 적용된 변경사항을 설명하고 중재계약 및 판정을 다루는 파키스탄 중재 법률, 규칙 및 절차를 실무차원에서 포괄적으로 제시하였다. 잠재시장인 파키스탄관련 통상정보가 부재한 상황에서 한국무역학자들에게 파키스탄 상사중재제도에 관한 실무적 이해를 돕기 위하여 작성되었다.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제30권2호
• /
• pp.43-68
• /
• 2020

The "arbitration" system resolves disputes through judgments on rights relations or claims between disputed parties by judging by private trial, but it does not have organizational and material bases to execute the contents of these judgments. Therefore, unless the parties succeed in voluntarily surrendering to the results of the arbitration award, the implementation of the award will be accomplished by the enforcement of the assistance of the National Court. However, unlike the court's ruling, the arbitration tribunal does not generate enforcement power from the judgment itself, and it must be filed with the court for execution. In this regard, Germany provides for arbitration proceedings in the Civil Procedure Act Volume 10. In particular, Article 1060 governs the approval and enforcement of domestic arbitral awards. Accordingly, the procedure for declaring the feasibility of domestic arbitration proceedings and the execution of forced execution are commenced. Regarding the enforceable declaration of a domestic arbitral award, it differs from the simpler process requirements compared to the procedure in a foreign arbitral award, and usually has the same effect as a final judgment between the parties without a separate approval procedure. However, the arbitration award does not constitute an enforceable power that can be implemented, but is enforced through the national court's declaration procedure. However, if there is a ground for cancellation as provided for in Article 1059 (2) of the German Civil Procedure Act, the arbitral award is canceled and the application for enforcement is dismissed.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제29권1호
• /
• pp.71-89
• /
• 2019

When the host states do not comply with the investor-state arbitral awards voluntarily, it is difficult for the successful claimants to seek the enforcement of arbitral awards against the host state because of the doctrine of state immunity. This raises a question whether the investors might be able to seize the assets of the state-owned enterprises, as well as those of the host states. The investors might consider the properties held by state-owned enterprises as an attractive target especially when it has been established that the host state is responsible for the act of its state-owned enterprise. In such case, the investor might argue that the close relationship between the state-owned enterprise and the host state has already been recognized so that the commercial assets of the state-owned enterprise could be subject to attachment. On the other hand, the host state might argue that the state-owned entity exists separately from the state, and thus its assets cannot be equated with those of the host state. Moreover, even if this argument is not accepted and, as a result, the properties of the state-owned entity is equated with those of the host state, the host state might still be able to argue that non-commercial assets of the state-owned enterprise are immune from execution.

• 한국항만경제학회지
• /
• 제25권2호
• /
• pp.149-176
• /
• 2009

Count호 사건의 항해용선계약에서 선주는 양하항에서 Pongola호의 좌초사고에 의해 본선의 출항이 지연되었기 때문에 용선자의 안전항담보의무위반을 이유로 초과정박손해배상금을 청구하였다. 중재판정부는 양하항을 비안전항으로 보고 선주의 청구를 인정하였지만, 용선자는 중재판정에 다음과 같은 과오가 있다고 하여 영국 법원에 상소하였다. (1) 중재판정부는 Beira항이 안전하지 못하며 그 결과 용선자는 선주에게 초과정박손해배상금에 대해 책임이 있다고 판정한 것은 과오가 있으며, (2) 중재판정부는 Beira항에서 두 선박이 좌초했다는 사실과 관련하여 그 항이 안전하지 못하다고 판정한 것은 과오이며, (3) 선석에서의 양하를 종료하여 출항하려고 하였는데 거의 같은 장소에서 Pongola호가 좌초하여 항만당국에 의한 수로폐쇄에 의해 본선은 4일 후까지 출항할 수 없었다고 판정한 것 등이다. 본 연구에서는 항해용선계약과 관련하여 안전항담보의무위반에 따른 초과정박손해배상금의 청구에 대해 쟁점이 된 Count호 사건을 중심으로 분석하는데 목적이 있다.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제27권1호
• /
• pp.131-160
• /
• 2017

When any investment dispute arises, the investor has to exhaust the local remedies available in the host state, and according to the agreement between the parties, the investor is filed to the ICSID arbitral tribunal to seek arbitral awards. At this time, if the arbitral tribunal decides that the investment agreement has been violated, it normally demands the host state to provide financial compensations to the investor for economic loss. According to the rules of the investment agreement, the host state is supposed to fulfill the arbitral awards voluntarily. If it is unwilling to provide financial compensations according to the arbitral awards, however, the investor may ask the domestic court of the host state for the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards. In addition, if the host state is unwilling to fulfill arbitral awards on account of state immunity, the investor may ask his own country (state of nationality) for diplomatic protection and urge it to demand the fulfillment of arbitral awards. Effectiveness for pecuniary damages, a means to solve problems arising in the enforcement of investment arbitral awards, is found to be rather ineffective. For such cases, this study suggests an alternative to demand either a restitution of property or a corrections of violated measures subject to arbitral awards.