• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.17 no.3
• /
• pp.3-30
• /
• 2007

The New York Convention(formally called "United Nations Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards") done in New York on June 10, 1958 has been adhered to by more than 140 States at the time of this writing, including almost all important trading nations from the Capitalist and Socialist World as well as many developing countries. The Convention can be considered as the most important Convention in the field of arbitration and as the cornerstone of current international commercial arbitration. Korea has acceded to the New York Convention since 1973. When acceding to the Convention, Korea declared that it will apply the Convention to the recognition and enforcement of awards made only in the territory of another Contracting State on the basis of reciprocity. Also, Korea declared that it will apply the Convention only to differences arising out of legal relationships, whether contractual or not, which are considered as commercial under the national law of Korea. The provisions relating to the enforcement of arbitral awards falling under the New York Convention begin at Article III. The Article III contains the general obligation for the Contracting States to recognize Convention awards as binding and to enforce them in accordance with their rules of procedure. The Convention requires a minimum of conditions to be fulfilled by the party seeking enforcement. According to Article IV(1), that party has only to supply (1) the duly authenticated original award or a duly certified copy thereof, and (2) the original arbitration agreement or a duly certified copy thereof. In fulfilling these conditions, the party seeking enforcement produces prima facie evidence entitling it to obtain enforcement of the award. It is then up to the other party to prove that enforcement should not be granted on the basis of the grounds for refusal of enforcement enumerated in the subsequent Article V(1). Grounds for refusal of enforcement are stipulated in Article V is divided into two parts. Firstly, listed in the first Para. of Article V are the grounds for refusal of enforcement which are to be asserted and proven by the respondent. Secondly, listed in Para. 2 of Article V, are the grounds on which a court may refuse enforcement on its own motion. These grounds are non-arbitrability of the subject matter and violation of the public policy of the enforcement country. The three main features of the grounds for refusal of enforcement of an award under Article V, which are almost unanimously affirmed by the courts, are the following. Firstly, The grounds for refusal of enforcement mentioned in Article V are exhaustive. No other grounds can be invoked. Secondly, and this feature follows from the first one, the court before which enforcement of the award is sought may not review the merits of the award because a mistake in fact or law by the arbitrators is not included in the list of grounds for refusal of enforcement set forth in Article V. Thirdly, the party against whom enforcement is sought has the burden of proving the existence of one or more of the grounds for refusal of enforcement. The grounds for refusal of enforcement by a court on its own motion, listed in the second Para. of Article V, are non-arbitrability of the subject matter and public policy of the enforcement country. From the court decisions reported so far at home and abroad, it appears that courts accept a violation of public policy in extreme cases only, and frequently justify their decision by distinguishing between domestic and international public policy. The Dec. 31, 1999 amendment to the Arbitration Act of Korea admits the basis for enforcement of foreign arbitral awards rendered under the New York Convention. In Korea, a holder of a foreign arbitral award is obliged to request from the court a judgment ordering enforcement of the award.

• Journal of International Area Studies (JIAS)
• /
• v.14 no.3
• /
• pp.57-80
• /
• 2010

This study aims at the evaluation of procedural changes and policy outcome caused by the Open Method of Coordination(OMC) on Social Inclusion in the European Union. The policy instruments of the OMC introduced by the Lisbon Council can be divided into two groups: the outcome-oriented New Public Management(NPM) and the process-oriented Directly Deliberative Polyarchy(DDP). By considering the adoption process of the NPM instruments, it can be said that OMC could not be effective due to the vagueness of its objectives, the institutional barriers in decentralized decision-making, and the rejection of benchmarking by the Member States. The intended learning by deliberation and peer review as indicated by the normative DDP, is hard to achieve because they are not so reflexive due to relatively restricted and closed participation. We also cannot find any significant reduction of poverty after the long implementation of the OMC. Considering the higher recognition of poverty problem and expanding NGOs concerned with it, however, we may see some significant impact in the future.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.15 no.2
• /
• pp.225-261
• /
• 2005

Under Article IV of the United Nations Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (New York Convention), in order to obtain the recognition and enforcement of a foreign arbitral award, a party applying for recognition and enforcement of a foreign arbitral award shall supply (a) the duly authenticated original award or a duly certified copy thereof and (b) the original arbitration agreement or a duly certified copy thereof. In addition, if the arbitral award or arbitration agreement is not made in an official language of the country in which the award is relied upon, the party applying for recognition and enforcement of the award shall produce a translation of these documents into such language, and the translation shall be certified by an official or sworn translator or by a diplomatic or consular agent. In a case where a Vietnamese company which had obtained a favorable arbitral award in Vietnam applied for recognition and enforcement of a Vietnamese arbitral award before a Korean court, the recent Korean Supreme Court Judgment (Docket No. 2004 Da 20180. 'Judgment') rendered on December 12, 2004 has alleviated the document requirements as follows : The Judgment held that (i) the party applying for recognition andenforcement of a foreign arbitral award does not have to strictly comply with the document requirements when the other party does not dispute the existence and the content of the arbitral award and the arbitration agreement and that (ii) in case the translation submitted to the court does not satisfy the requirement of Article 4, the court does not have to dismiss the case on the ground that the party applying for recognition and enforcement of a foreign arbitral award has failed to comply with the translation requirement under Article 4, and instead may supplement the documents by obtaining an accurate Korean translation from an expert translator at the expense of the party applying for recognition and enforcement of the foreign arbitral award. In this regard, the author fully supports the view of the Judgment. Finally, the Judgment held that, even though the existence of a written arbitration agreement was not disputed at the arbitration, there was no written arbitration agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant and wenton to repeal the judgment of the second instance which admitted the existence of a written arbitration agreement between the parties. In this regard, the author does not share the view of the Judgment. The author believes that considering the trend of alleviating the formality requirement of arbitration agreements under Article 2 of the New York Convention, the Supreme Court could have concluded that there was a written arbitration agreement because the defendant participated in thearbitration proceedings in Vietnam without disputing the formality requirement of the arbitration agreement. Or the Supreme Court should have taken the view that the defendant was no longer permitted to dispute the formality requirement of the arbitration agreement because otherwise it would be clearly against the doctrine of estoppel.

• Korean Security Journal
• /
• no.13
• /
• pp.551-575
• /
• 2007

한국에서의 경찰제도는 국가경찰의 형태로 운영되어와 획일적이고 중앙집중식의 경찰활동에 대한 거부감이 전반적으로 있어왔다. 그러나 지역주민의 의사에 따른 자율규율에 의한 다원적 민주주의를 실현하고 국민의 기본권을 실질적으로 보장하기 위하여 지난 1995년 지방자치단체의 장과 지방의회 의원의 동시선거가 시행되어 온 이래 10여년이 흘렀다. 그러나 지방자치제도가 시행되기 이전부터 자치경찰제도에 대한 논의는 지속적으로 이루어져 왔다. 자치경찰제에 있어서 주요쟁점의 핵심사항은 자치경찰제를 도입하는 것의 득실관계라고 볼 것인데 이는 관점과 어느 측면에 중점을 둘 것인가에 따라 다르게 나타나게 된다. 지방자치의 존재 이유 중에는 주민 복지적 차원에서 주민의 안전보호가 중요한 부분을 차지하고 있다. 특히 자치경찰제는 수사권독립과 함께 지난 몇 대에 걸친 각 대통령의 선거공약이었기 때문에 노무현 정부 출범 이후 정부는 지방분권차원에서 정부혁신지방분권위원회에서 여러 가지 검토를 해 온 바 있다. 2004년 1월에 정부혁신지방분권위원회의 지방 분권과제 주요과제로 자치경찰제 방안을 검토하기 위해 위원, 관계 공무원 10명으로 자치경찰 T/F를 구성하여 운영한 이 후 자치경찰제 도입방안에 대하여 경찰정과 실시 단위 및 수행 사무 등 주요 쟁점에 대해 협의하면서 실천 가능한 방안을 마련하기 위해서 스페인, 프랑스, 이태리, 그리스 자치경찰기관을 현지 방문하여 외국 자치경찰 제도를 조사한 후 2004년 9월 중순에 자치경찰(안)을 발표하였다. 이 안은 크게 경찰을 사법경찰과 행정경찰로 구분하는 개념 하에 최초로 나온 자치경찰제에 대한 구체적 시행 안이라는 점에서 그 의의를 찾을 수 있을 것이나 지금까지의 기대수준에 과연 부응하는 안이 될 수 있을 것인가에 대한 의문이 제기되고 있다. 동 사안은 2005년 하반기에 시범적으로 시행하고 민선 4기 자치단체장이 출범하는 2006년 하반기에 본격적으로 시행될 것으로 발표하고 발표와 동시에 정부혁신지방분권위원회에서는 본 자치경찰제 기본방향과 법안제정의 원칙과 구체적인 내용에 대한 토론회를 개최하는 등 다양한 홍보를 하였으나 여러 가지 문제점으로 인하여 아직 시행되지 못하고 있다. 따라서 과연 이 안이 한국에서의 자치경찰제 시행에 효과적인 안인가 그렇지 않으면 대선공약을 지키기 위한 일종의 정치적 고려를 한 졸속적인 안이 아닌가에 대한 논란이 제기되고 있다. 지금까지 한국에서는 자치경찰에 대한 많은 토의가 있어 왔으나 이번에 제하고 있고 현재 지방자치단체에서 시행하고 있는 기존 법집행방식과 거의 차이가 없는 상태시된 안은 적어도 지금까지 논의되어왔던 제도와는 매우 생소한 자치경찰 제도를 근간으로 에서 ‘무늬만 자치경찰’ 이라는 비판이 일각에서 제기되고 있는 실정이다. 현재 자치단체에서 시행하고 있는 행정 경찰적 기능을 다소 보완하고 제복착용과 조직을 하나 더 만든 정도가 아닌가 하는 정도이다. 그러므로 본 연구에서는 정부혁신지방분권위원회에서 제시한 자치경찰제도(안)을 중심으로 자치경찰제도 운용의 목적 충족과 실질적인 효과의 측면에서 분석하고 바람직한 자치경찰제도의 운용에 대해 살펴본다.

• Journal of Legislation Research
• /
• no.44
• /
• pp.283-314
• /
• 2013

Das koreanische Verwaltungsprozessgesetz (KVwPG) wurde am 24. 8. 1951 kodifiziert. Es hat bisher mehrmals $ge{\ddot{a}}ndert$. Der Regierungsentwurf des KVwPG-${\ddot{A}}nderungsgesetzes$ vom 30. 3. 2013, ist fast $drei{\ss}ig$ jahre nach der Novellierung des KVwPGs 1984 erfolgt und auch spiegelt sich die Erfolge der $Bem{\ddot{u}}hungen$ in Literatur und Rechtsprechung wider. Aber es gibt nicht nur einige Unterschiede zwischen dem Regierungsentwurf und dem Entwurf der Kommission des Justizministeriums zur ${\ddot{A}}nderung$ des KVwPG (dem sog. Kommissionsentwurf), sondern auch der Regierungsentwurf ist theoretisch nicht problemlos. Vor allem sind Begriff und Umfang der neuen Klagebefugnis nicht klar. Des weiteren sind in ${\S}$ 12 des Regierungsentwurfs die Klagebefugnis mit dem $Rechtsschutzbed{\ddot{u}}rfnis$ identisch gesehen. Der $Rechtsschutzbed{\ddot{u}}rfnis$ nach ${\S}$ 12 Satz 2 des Regierungsentwurfs kann aus meiner Sicht relativ eng ausgelegt. Die $Einf{\ddot{u}}hrung$ der Verpflichtugnsklage in den Regierungsentwurf ist sehr gut, aber es kann trotzdem als problematisch angesehen werden dass Feststellungsklage der Rechtswidrigkeit der Unterlassung und Anfechtungsklage gegen Ablehnung bestehen noch. Der Begriff der Unterlassung ist $unn{\ddot{o}}tig$ und auch strikt. $Vorl{\ddot{a}}ugier$ Rechtsschutz des Regierungsentwurfs ist unter dem Gesichtpunkt der Rechtsschutz der $B{\ddot{u}}rger$ noch zu verbessern, aber doch das Modell des japanischen Verwaltungsprozessgesetzes darf nicht befolgt werden. Aufbau und System des $vorl{\ddot{a}}ufigen$ Rechtsschutzes sind auch nicht eindeutig. Nach Gegenstand und Klageart muss das Institut des $vorl{\ddot{a}}ufigen$ Rechtsschutzes in Ordnung gebracht werden. Es ist nicht ${\ddot{u}}berzeugend$ dass die $Einw{\ddot{a}}nde$ gegen die $Einf{\ddot{u}}hrung$ der vorbeugenden Unterlassung mit dem Gewaltenteilungsprinzip und der $Eigenst{\ddot{a}}ndigkeit$ der Verwaltung erhoben sind. $Dar{\ddot{u}}ber$ hinaus ist ADR (Alternative Dispute Resolution) zu beachten. In Bezug darauf ist Rechtgrundlage $f{\ddot{u}}r$ Mediation in der Verwaltungsgerichtsbarkeit zu stellen.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.16 no.2
• /
• pp.263-291
• /
• 2015

In May, 2015, a 68 years old man, who has been Middle East Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, had high fever, muscle aches, cough and shortness of breath. he went two local hospital near his house and the S Medical Center emergency center. He was diagnosed MERS(Middle East respiratory syndrome) and the diseases had put South Korea the fear of epidemics for three months. Especially, this disease has firstly reported in Middle East Asia in September 2012 and spreaded to twenty-six countries. In 21, July, 2015, European Center for disease prevention and control reported 533 people were died and in South Korea, 186 people were infected, 36 people were died and 16,693 people were isolated from MERS. South Korea government were faced into epidemic control and blamed from public. Especially, hospital acquired infection, disease control chain, opening of information, ventilation, lack of isolation bed, the problem of function of local health center, the issue of reparation for hospital and insurance cover rate, the classification of disease, the role of Korea Centers for disease control and prevention, the culture of visiting hospital to see sick people, the issue of hospital multiple room and other related social support policy. it is time to study and discuss to solve these problems. South Korea citizens felt fear and fright from MERS. What is wore, they thought the dieses were out of their government control. It was unusual case for word except Middle East Asia. numerous tourists canceled visiting korea. South korea economic were severly damaged especially, tourism industry. South korea government should admit that they had failed initial action against MERS and take full reasonability from any damages. The government have to open information to public in terms of epidemic diseases and try to prevent any other epidemic diseases and try to work with local governments.

• Journal of Korean Classical Literature and Education
• /
• no.38
• /
• pp.175-200
• /
• 2018

From the point of view of the law and public morals in Yi-dynasty, it is possible to discover new meanings in the love of Chunhyang and Mongryong-Lee, the conflicts between Chunhyang and Hakdo-Byeon, and the rescue of Chunhyang by Mongryong-Lee as a secret royal inspector. First, although the love of Chunhyang and Mongryong-Lee was against the law and public morals of Yi-dynasty, the narrator did not call to account, but he described the love as a romantic and new one conflicting with the ruling system. And it was an unprecedented case that Chunhyang asked a written contract as a legal guarantee for marriage when Mongryong-Lee courted her. Second, Hakdo-Byeon, the Namwon county governor, accused Chunhyang, a female entertainer of the Namwon county, of disobedience to his oder and contempt of him, and interrogated her with torture when she denied his demand for bed service which was prohibited by law. Chunhyang refuted against him and regarded his demand for bed service as the rape of a married woman. In this process, narrator sharply contrasted Chunhyang's claim for human rights with Hakdo-Byeon's legal administration. Characters such as people of Namwon county and king did not call Mongryong-Lee to account for that he, as a secret royal inspector, allegedly used his power privately to rescue his sweetheart Chunhyang from Hakdo-Byeon's illegal oppression. These different judgements on legal administrations of Hakdo-Byeon and Mongryong-Lee came from the legal emotion of characters and reading publics of . Namely, people who sympathized with Chunhyang's claim for love and human rights had the legal emotion that Mongryong-Lee's administrative order suspending Hakdo-Byeon's govenor's status could be approved as an legal and exciting one. Therefore the love of Chunhyang and Mongryong-Lee implied a new legal emotion which based on the sympathy with Chunhyang's human rights consciousness, and regarded the positive law of Yi - dynasty as one behind times.