• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제23권1호
• /
• pp.177-200
• /
• 2013

Recently, many international arbitration institutions have responded to the business requirements of their users and have revised their rules to enhance the time and cost efficiency. Korean Commercial Arbitration Board (KCAB) revised the international arbitration rule in 2011, introducing new arbitration mechanisms like the expedited procedure. Also other Asian arbitration institutions introduced the expedited procedure in their international arbitration rules. Now expedited procedures are regarded as a very attractive system in the field of international arbitration. Accordingly, this paper reviewed the expedited procedures of four Asian countries, including China(CIETAC), Hong Kong (HKIAC), Singapore(SIAC) and Korea(KCAB). The purpose of this study is to find out meaningful implications to improve the Korean system. Based on this review, some recommendations are suggested as follows. First, the scope of the expedited procedure has to be adjusted upward than the current 200 million won. Second, there should be a fee schedule only for the expedited procedure. Third, in case of small amount international disputes, written examination should be more used in the expedited procedure. Finally, KCAB should make strong efforts to improve the awareness and usage of the expedited procedure in Korea.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제29권2호
• /
• pp.107-132
• /
• 2019

The arbitration procedure, which is a private trial, does not have a separate enforcement agency. Therefore, unless a party consents to the arbitration award and voluntarily fulfills the award, its execution is accomplished through the implementation of the national court. In particular, the decision in the foreign arbitration procedure will be refused or rejected for the arbitration award in case the proceedings of the law and procedure on which the judgment is based are caused by inconsistency with the domestic law or procedural defect. However, all foreign arbitration awards generally do not have to go through the approval process, and it will come into force with the arbitration award. In the case of Germany in the revision of the German Civil Procedure Act of 1996, the main provisions of the New York Convention concerning the ratification and enforcement of arbitration proceedings are reflected. Germany provides for the arbitration procedures in the arbitration proceedings of Book 10 of the Civil Procedure Act. Particularly, with Article 1061 in Book 10 Section 8 below, the approval and enforcement of foreign arbitrators shall be governed. Article 1061 has been referred to as "The New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Jurisdictions," Article 5 (1). The main reasons for approval and enforcement rejection are: (1) Reason for the acceptance or refusal of enforcement by request of the parties: Reason for failure of subjective arbitration ability, invalidation of arbitration agreement, collapse of attack or defense method, dispute not included in arbitration agreement, (2) Reasons for the approval and enforcement of arbitration considered by the competent authority of the arbitrator: violation of objective arbitration ability, violation of public order, but not based on the default of German statute.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제10권1호
• /
• pp.26-46
• /
• 2000

International arbitration has been recognized as an effective dispute resolution method. Among the arbitration institutions, the ICC(International Chamber of Commerce) international court of arbitration is one of the most well-known and frequently chosen organizations to which international claimants have resorted, when they were confronted with international disputes. In this paper, costs in the ICC arbitration are compared with those in the KCAB(Korean Commercial Arbitration Board) arbitration. seeking efficient ways to reduce the costs while maximizing the quality of arbitral awards. Three main points about costs in the ICC arbitration and the KCAB arbitration are discussed and analysed, First, the cost structures are analysed and decomposed into manageable units. Second, the cost allocation is discussed to clarify its proportional responsibility among the arbitration parties. Third, how advances in arbitration costs are conducted is examined to explore a well established procedure of arbitration. In conclusion, the KCAB arbitration procedure has been found faster and cheaper than the ICC arbitration procedure in terms of time and costs, respectively. However, it can be cautiously suggested that the quality of arbitral awards made by the KCAB is not necessarily higher than that made by the ICC.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제25권2호
• /
• pp.49-70
• /
• 2015

There are three categories of arbitration - domestic arbitration, foreign-related arbitration and foreign arbitration. Although the meaning of foreign arbitration and International Commercial Arbitration is different, they are used to mean the same in practice. In fact, there is significant controversy about the meaning of non-domestic arbitration because it is too difficult to distinguish between non-domestic arbitration and domestic arbitration. In the Chinese arbitration system, there are two main laws,Chinese Arbitration Law and Chinese Civil Procedure Law. Chinese Arbitration Law regulates the internal matters, while Chinese Civil Procedure Law regulates the external legal regulations. After the 2012 revised Chinese Civil Procedure Law, a number of laws and regulations have been revised, and almost every Arbitrations Rules have been revised, and will be in effect in 2015. Depending on the nationality of arbitration, the applicable laws will be different. The nationality of arbitration is so important that this paper will pay more attention to it. Although the case in China has no precedent effect, it is so important to the parties that this paper will address it. This paper will analyze the process and the cases of the recognition and enforcement of the award system in China.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제24권2호
• /
• pp.137-160
• /
• 2014

These days, in line with the increase of opportunities in our country's firms to do transaction, large-scale M&A and investment with foreign firms incorporating arbitration clauses in the contracts have become general practice. Recently, Singapore has come to the fore as a place of arbitration and, particularly, Singapore International Arbitration Center (SIAC) was assessed as the favored international arbitration institution uniquely in Asia at the 2010 International Arbitration Survey: Choices in International Arbitration, along with the ICC, LCIA, and AAA/ICDR. Therefore, the country's firms need to understand properly the international arbitration procedure of Singapore. This study examines the international arbitration system of Singapore, focusing on the arbitration procedure of the SIAC. The Center revised arbitration rules twice in 2010 and 2013, and established the Court of Arbitration of SIAC in April 2013 for the first time in Asia in pursuit of stricter neutrality and promptness. It further seeks to run the arbitration procedure fairly by selecting a third country's people as an arbitrator, while its arbitration expenses are cheaper than those of the ICC. The study believes that for the country's international arbitration institutions such as the KCAB to jump forward as a world-class international arbitration institution, the Korean government should render positive support to them, learning from Singapore which does not spare any political and financial assistance to cultivate international arbitration institutions. On the other hand, KCAB should also try hard to improve in the aspects of neutrality, fairness, and promptness and to be selected as a trustworthy international arbitration institution by firms in Asian countries.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제19권2호
• /
• pp.3-26
• /
• 2009

This paper is to research on the role of party autonomy in the decision of applicable law for the arbitral proceeding, arbitral award and arbitration agreement, in the decision of the place of arbitration, in the composition of arbitration tribunal, and the choice of arbitral proceedings. The principle of party autonomy is fundamental to arbitration in general and to international arbitration in particular. Generally the tenn of party autonomy is used as the autonomy of the parties to decide all aspects of an arbitration procedure subject only to certain limitations of mandatory law. Party autonomy permits the parties to a commercial arbitration to choose the laws and make the rules which govern the arbitral proceedings. Party autonomy allows the parties freedom to choose the applicable laws for the arbitral proceeding and the place of arbitration. Party autonomy is recognized in relation to the choice of law for the merits of the dispute as well as for the arbitration agreement and the arbitration procedure. On the basis of the recognition of party autonomy in international treaties, national legislation and court decisions, arbitral practice has generally accepted and enforced party autonomy both regarding the procedure and the applicable substantive law. All modern institutional rules of arbitration follow that line. Today it is recognized by national legislators all over the world to the effect that the jurisdiction of national courts can be excluded by arbitration agreement and that the parties may choose the law applicable to arbitral proceedings. Limits on party autonomy are imposed by mandatory provisions of international or national law or of institutional arbitration rules regarding the procedure. Mandatory laws at the place of the arbitration or under any procedural law chosen by the parties may restrict party autonomy. These mandatory laws usually take the form of public policy considerations in the arbitration. Limitations on party autonomy have been reduced more and more, and the trend of modern national as well as international legislation on arbitration leans clearly in the direction of a maximum of party autonomy.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제25권2호
• /
• pp.97-118
• /
• 2015

As China has quickly emerged as a global economic power, the total number of international commercial disputes arbitrated by Chinese arbitral institutions has increased dramatically. Along with this, the annulment procedure of arbitral awards in China have been newly brought to the fore. In accordance with the historical background and the demand of the times, the Chinese annulment procedure of arbitral awards reveals distinctive Chinese features. Although it was enacted in the face ofof an unwarranted prejudice against the dispute settlement system by arbitration as well as a deep mistrust of domestic arbitral institutions, the annulment procedure of arbitral awards showed a certain degree of justification and rationality in its initial stages of legislation. However, it is also the case that it has not adapted well to new domestic or foreign arbitration circumstances in the last twenty years. At present, there is a keen interest in revisions to and debates on arbitration law of China. It is necessary to take an active part in the amendment discussion and process of arbitration law. Moreover, we need to reform the annulment procedure of arbitral awards in order to meet the global trend of arbitration law.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제32권2호
• /
• pp.55-83
• /
• 2022

The United Nations Convention on International Settlement Agreements Resulting from Mediation (Singapore Mediation Convention) results in new challenges to the area of international dispute resolution by providing the enforcement regime for mediated settlement agreements, which have not been admitted as enforceable in some civil law countries, including Korea and Japan. Japan has struggled to promote international arbitration and international mediation, and such efforts were accelerated by the adoption of the Singapore Mediation Convention in 2018. In order to standardize arbitration proceedings and promote the practice of international arbitration, Japan produced two noticeable results: the new JCAA Arbitration Rules and the amendment to the Arbitration Act of Japan. In addition to that Expedited arbitration procedure and Interactive Arbitration Rules of JCAA present the new possibility of international arbitration procedure for civil law practitioners, the amendment to the Arbitration Act of Japan suggests significant implications to Korea for its manifest provisions regarding enforcement requirements and proceedings and its protection of Access to Justice for foreign law practitioners.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제26권4호
• /
• pp.3-41
• /
• 2016

This paper reviews the problems on the arbitral awards enforcement in the 2016 Korean Arbitration Act. In order to get easy and rapid enforcement of the arbitral awards, the new arbitration act changed the enforcement procedure from an enforcement judgement procedure to an enforcement decision procedure. However, like the old arbitration act, the new act is still not arbitration friendly. First of all, there are various problems in the new act because it does not approve that an arbitral award can be a schuldtitel (title of enforcement) of which the arbitral award can be enforced. In this paper, several problems of the new act are discussed: effect of arbitral award, approval to res judicata of enforcement decision, different trial process and result for same ground, possibility of abuse of litigation for setting aside arbitral awards and delay of enforcement caused by setting aside, infringement of arbitration customer's right to be informed, and non-internationality of enforcement of interim measures of protection, inter alia. The new arbitration act added a proviso on article 35 (Effect of Arbitral Awards). According to article 35 of the old arbitration act, arbitral awards shall have the same effect on the parties as the final and conclusive judgement of the court. The proviso of article 35 in the new act can be interpret two ways: if arbitral awards have any ground of refusal of recognition or enforcement according to article 38, the arbitral awards do not have the same effect on the parties as the final and conclusive judgement of the court; if arbitral awards have not recognised or been enforced according to article 38, the arbitral awards do not have the same effect on the parties as the final and conclusive judgement of the court. In the case of the former, the parties cannot file action for setting aside arbitral awards in article 36 to the court, and this is one of the important problems of the new act. In the new act, same ground of setting aside arbitral awards can be tried in different trial process with or without plead according to article 35 and 37. Therefore, progress of enforcement decision of arbitral awards can be blocked by the action of setting aside arbitral awards. If so, parties have to spend their time and money to go on unexpected litigation. In order to simplify enforcement procedure of arbitral awards, the new act changed enforcement judgement procedure to enforcement decision procedure. However, there is still room for the court to hear a case in the same way of enforcement judgement procedure. Although the new act simplifies enforcement procedure by changing enforcement judgement procedure to enforcement decision procedure, there still remains action of setting aside arbitral awards, so that enforcement of arbitral awards still can be delayed by it. Moreover, another problem exists in that the parties could have to wait until a seventh trial (maximum) for a final decision. This result in not good for the arbitration system itself in the respect of confidence as well as cost. If the arbitration institution promotes to use arbitration by emphasizing single-trial system of arbitration without enough improvement of enforcement procedure in the arbitration system, it would infringe the arbitration customer's right to be informed, and further raise a problem of legal responsibility of arbitration institution. With reference to enforcement procedure of interim measures of protection, the new act did not provide preliminary orders, and moreover limit the court not to recognize interim measures of protection done in a foreign country. These have a bad effect on the internationalization of the Korean arbitration system.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제13권1호
• /
• pp.169-205
• /
• 2003

Arbitration means the procedure that a party inquires a third party arbitrator for a resolution on the dispute on certain matters of interest to follow through with the commitment of the arbitration, and a series of procedures performed by the arbitrator of the Korean Commercial Arbitration Board. Arbitration is implemented in accordance with the procedure determined by the Arbitration Act and Arbitration Regulations. In the event the parties reach to the reconciliation during the process of arbitration, the reconciliation is recorded in the form of arbitration award(decision), and in the event a reconciliation is not made, the arbitrator shall make the decision on the particular case. The arbitration award(decision) for reconciliation during the arbitration procedure (Article 31 of Arbitration Act, hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') or the mediation under the Arbitration Regulation of the Korean Commercial Arbitration Board (Article 18 of the Arbitration Regulations) shall have the same effectiveness with the decision rendered by a court that, in the event a party does not perform the obligation, the enforcement document is rendered under the Rules on Enforcement Document on Mediation Statement of various dispute resolution committees of the Supreme Court to carry out the compulsory enforcement. However, in the event that the party to take on the obligation to perform under the arbitration award (decision) rendered by the arbitrator (Article 32 of the Act) does not perform without due cause, a separate enforcement decision in accordance with the procedure determined under the Civil Enforcement Act shall be obtained since the arbitration award(decision) cannot be the basis of enforcement under the Civil Enforcement Act. And, in order to enforce the judgment compulsorily in accordance with the regulations under the Civil Enforcement Act under the foreign arbitration judgment (Article 39 of the A.1), it shall fulfill the requirement determined under the Civil Litigation Act (article 217 of Civil Litigation Act) and shall obtain a separate enforcement decision in accordance with the procedure determined under the Civil Enforcement Act (Article 26 and Article 27 of Civil Enforcement Act) since the arbitration judgment of foreign country shall not be based on enforcement under the Civil Enforcement Act. It may be the issue of legislation not to recognize the arbitration award(decision) as a source of enforcement right, and provide the compulsive enforcement by recognizing it for enforcement right after obtaining the enforcement document with the decision of a court, however, not recognizing the arbitration award(decision) as the source of enforcement right is against Clause 3 of Article 31 of the Act, provisions of Article 35, Article 38 and Article 39 that recognized the validity of arbitration as equal to the final judgment of a court, and the definition that the enforcement decision of a court shall require the in compulsory enforcement under Clause 1 of Article 37 of the Act which clearly is a conflict of principle as well. Anyhow, in order to enforce the arbitration award(decision) mandatorily, the party shall bring the litigation of enforcement decision claim to the court, and the court shall deliberate with the same procedure with general civil cases under the Civil Litigation Act. During the deliberation, the party obligated under the arbitration award(decision) intended to not to undertake the obligation and delay it raises the claim and suspend the enforcement of cancelling the arbitration award(decision) on the applicable arbitration decision within 3 months from the date of receiving the authentic copy of the arbitration award(decision) or the date of receiving the authentic copy of correction, interpretation or additional decision under the Regulation of Article 34 of the Act (Clause 3 of Article 36 of the Act). This legislation to delay the sentencing of the enforcement and then to sentence the enforcement decision brings the difficulties to a party to litigation costs and time for compulsory enforcement where there is a requirement of an urgency. With the most of cases for arbitration being the special field to make the decision only with the specialized knowledge that the arbitrator shall be the specialists who have appropriate knowledge of the system and render the most reasonable and fair decision for the arbitration. However, going through the second review by a court would be most important, irreparable and serious factor to interfere with the activation of the arbitration system. The only way to activate the arbitration system that failed to secure the practicality due to such a factor, is to revise the Arbitration Act and Arbitration Regulations so that the arbitration decision shall have the right to enforce under the Rules on Enforcement Document on Mediation Statement of various dispute resolution committees of the Supreme Court.