• Korean Architects
• /
• s.523
• /
• pp.24-48
• /
• 2012

• Korean Architects
• /
• s.536
• /
• pp.26-52
• /
• 2013

• Korean Architects
• /
• s.584
• /
• pp.126-127
• /
• 2017

• Korean Architects
• /
• s.474
• /
• pp.91-103
• /
• 2008

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.33
• /
• pp.145-164
• /
• 2007

The Arbitration costs provided in Article 31 consist of arbitrators' fees, arbitrators' expenses, ICC administrative expenses, expenses of experts appointed by the Arbitral Tribunal, and parties' costs. Among them the first three items are independently determined by the Court in accordance with the Scale, while another two items are determined by the arbitrator and each party. The three items determined by the Court are communicated by Secretariat to the Arbitral Tribunal for inclusion in the award following the approval of the draft submitted to the Court. Also the final award may decide which of the parties shall bear them or in what proportion they shall be borne by the parties. According to Article 31(3), the arbitrators have complete jurisdiction or discretion to allocate the costs. Three common approaches are as follows; First, all of the costs are borne by the losing party. Second, all of the costs are allocated in proportion to the outcome of the case. Third, all of the costs determined by the Courts are shared equally by the parties and both parties bear their own costs. But, both parties may include intentions in accordance with the principle of party autonomy. For example, if the parties wish to ensure that the arbitration costs be shared equally and that the arbitrator make no allocation of costs or fees, the following sentence could be added to the arbitration clause in their contract. "All costs and expenses of the arbitrators [and the arbitral institution] shall be borne by the parties equally; each party shall bear the costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees, of its own counsel, experts, witness and preparation and presentation of its case" And also, if the parties wish expressly to link any allocation of costs, and fees to the result of the award the following could be added to the arbitration clauses. "The arbitrators may award to the prevailing party, if any, as determined by the arbitrators, its costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees"

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.69
• /
• pp.523-541
• /
• 2016

According to Chinese Arbitration Law, combination of mediation with arbitration means that in the process of arbitration, arbitrator may conduct mediation proceedings for the case they are handling, provided both parties agree to do so. If mediation succeeds and the parties reach a settlement agreement, the arbitrators may render a consent award or a written mediation statement in accordance with the contents of the settlement agreement. If mediation fails, the arbitration proceedings will be resumed until the case is concluded by making of an arbitral award. There is no formal name of this system in China, it is called "combination of mediation with arbitration", "mediation in arbitration process" or "arbitration-mediation", the author of this thesis select "arbitration-mediation" and make it simply as "Arb-Med". This thesis concentrates on three issues that arbitrators and the parties have to clarify and pay attention to once they choose to use Arb-Med. The first part is about the 'waivable problems', include waive the right to challenge a arbitrator who act as a mediator at the same time with parties' approval, as well as the question about the waiver of the arbitrator's duty to disclose confidential information obtained during mediation. The second part is 'public policy in Arb-Med', introduces the concept of public policy, the bias may arise the complaint about public policy, and the due procedure problem. And the last part is about the award deals with a difference not contemplated by or not falling within the terms of the submission to arbitration, or it contains decisions on matters beyond the scope of the submission to arbitration, especially about the award including some contents which has relation to third party's interests.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.21 no.1
• /
• pp.3-31
• /
• 2011

In response to complexity and diversity of a social phenomenon, the dispute also is various, therefore can not be settled efficiently by means of court adjudication to which applies a law strictly. To overcome such problems we are going to seek to make use of arbitration. According to Korean Arbitration Act Art. 3 (1), any dispute in private laws would be the object of arbitral proceedings. It could be the object of arbitral proceedings that disputes which are capable of a settlement by arbitration. It is a matter for debate that disputes containing punitive damages may be resolved by arbitration. This problem is concerning the arbitrability of the subject-matter of a dispute. To offer some solution to these issues, it is necessary to inquire into the nature of punitive damages. the policy and function of alimony, the fair apportionment of a loss. Moreover, international relations formed with international transactions should be considered. Punitive damages would be the object of arbitral proceedings as the dipute in private laws. When punitive damages pursue only punishment in the domestic arbitration that there is not foreign factors, arbitral tribunal could not make arbitral award containing punitive damages. However, if punitive damages are admitted under the rules applicable to substance of dispute, and there is the arbitration agreement in which is implied that the parties agree to submit to an arbitral award, arbitral tribunal could make arbitral award containing punitive damages in international arbitration. When it is questionable whether it is offend against our public policy or not, that we accept the effect of arbitral award containing punitive damages, and we admit the enforcement of it, we have to take the nature of punitive damages, the policy and function of alimony, the fair apportionment of a loss and the stability of international transactions into consideration.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.29 no.4
• /
• pp.121-140
• /
• 2019

China, Hong Kong, Macao, and Taiwan have a singular political relationship. This distinctive relationship creates a unique impact on the nationality of the arbitral awards among the said countries. Each of these regions does not adopt the arbitral award of the other party as either a foreign arbitration award or a domestic arbitration award, but separately adopts the arbitral award in different jurisdictions within the same country. Therefore, in order to approve and enforce their arbitral awards in other areas, they have no choice to apply special laws or the conventions concluded between them, neither the New York Convention nor the individual arbitration laws in those areas. Therefore, this paper reviewed the convention and self-established laws among China, Hong Kong, Macao, and Taiwan regarding the approval and execution of the other arbitral awards. In addition, the domestic laws in China, Hong Kong, Macao, and Taiwan are compared with the New York Convention to ascertain the criteria for distinguishing domestic and foreign arbitral awards. This study also compared and analyzed what criteria were established for the determination of the nationality of the arbitral awards in the domestic law or the convention concluded in pan China. Through the analysis of these contents, the characteristics and problems of criterion for the determination of nationality among China, Hong Kong, Macao, and Taiwan were identified. Based on the results, this study examined the precautions Korean companies entering these regions should use in the arbitration system in these areas.

• Journal of Engineering Education Research
• /
• v.3 no.2
• /
• pp.84-92
• /
• 2000

U.S. Congress established the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award (MBNQA) program in 1987 to recognize U.S. organizations for their achievements in quality and business performance and to raise awareness about the importance of quality and performance excellence as a competitive edge. The Baldrige Award was envisioned as a standard of excellence that would help U.S. organizations achieve world-class quality. Recently the U.S, Congress approved legislation that made education and health care organizations eligible to participate in the Award Program. These criteria are applied to evaluate two academic departments (Computer Science & Industrial Systems and Electrical Engineering) at Yonsei University. It was an informal evaluation performed by the undergraduate students who took quality Engineering course. Evaluated total scores turn out to be 522.5 and 548.5 for both, respectively. According to the MBNQA diagnosis, this level of score represents that there are some areas or work units which need to be improved. We hightlight them so that they can be used as feedback information.

• Journal of Korean Society of Industrial and Systems Engineering
• /
• v.43 no.3
• /
• pp.101-111
• /
• 2020

Companies struggle to make their best products with high quality and service at a competitive price in global markets. However, customer needs and requirements keep changing with a variety of situations. Companies that face the changes can not stay the same and make an effort to adapt themselves to new circumstances. They would probably review the overall management system that is currently implementing to improve management efficiency. Among other things, quality might be considered to be a crucial element if they are manufacturing industries to be sustained in global markets. KSA (Korean Standards Association) is a government-affiliated organization under the Ministry of Trade, Infrastructure, and Energy. It is a Korean standards provider for quality and service industry. KSA confers national commendations for organizations, quality circles, artisans, QCEC (Quality Competitive Excellent Company), and the most honorable KNQA (Korean National Quality Award) every year. KSA established KNQA on the basis of Malcom Baldrige National Quality Award, Deming Prize, and European Quality Award. Research on quality awards shows that there are many similarities in the framework. Although KSA summarizes two factors for 13 evaluation indicators in the quality competitive excellent model of QCEC, the categorization is ambiguous to explain them according to earlier studies. We performed a deep analysis of foreign quality awards and background for KNQA and QCEC. We conducted a content analysis of KNQA and QCEC and matched evaluation items that were closely related. We proposed a quality competitiveness model with three factors, Technology, System, and Tools, summarizing 13 evaluation indicators in QCEC. Based on audit data for six years from 2012 to 2017 we carried out a confirmatory factor analysis for the proposed model by examining the model validity and fitness.