• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제17권1호
• /
• pp.57-75
• /
• 2007

Ever since franchising emerged in the industry of distribution, it has been growing explosively in the U.S.A. and all other countries as well. It is a method of expanding a business by licensing independent businessman to sell the franchiser's products and/or services or to follow a format and trade style created by the franchiser using the franchiser's trade marks and trade names. Franchising is a form of business that touches upon many different areas of law including, but not limited to, general contract law, general principles of commercial law, law of intellectual property, competition law, fair trade practices law and other industry specific laws e.g., the Fair Practices in Franchising Act in Korea. Arbitration is a long established, legally recognized procedure for submitting disputes to an outside person(s), mutually selected by the parties, for a final and binding decision. Despite its merits as an alternative dispute resolution, it has been criticized, on the other hand, particularly by franchisees' attorneys on the ground that even though it is required to protect the franchisees against the enforcement of pre-dispute arbitration agreements because of the franchisees' paucity of bargaining power vis-a-vis the franchiser, arbitration cannot afford it. Until recently, however, little has been written about the legal issues pertaining to franchise agreement and arbitration clause contained therein in Korea. This treatise reviews the cases and arguments in relation to the subject especially of the U.S.A., which have been accumulated for decades. The issues addressed herein are the pre-emption by the FAA, the disputes to be arbitrated, the selection and qualification of arbitrators, the place of arbitration hearings and the evidentiary rules applicable, the expenses of arbitration, theory of fiduciary duty and the like, all of which are relevant to franchise agreement.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제8권1호
• /
• pp.35-54
• /
• 1998

In recent years, there has been a significant increase in the number of large-scale projects involving construction, public works and the installation of industrial plants. These projects usually require the participation of a number of public and private entities and involve more than one contract. When disputes arising in connection with these projects are to be submitted to commercial arbitration, the parties often wish to have all disputes decided by one arbitral tribunal, in a single comprehensive proceeding. It has become apparent that the resolution of all major disputes which may arise in connection with such a project in a single comprehensive arbitration proceeding presents a number of advantages. The arbitral institution can provide for a multiparty arbitration proceeding only where all of the parties have agreed to it either at the time the disputes arise or at the time the parties enter into their various contractual arrangement. The discussion about multiparty arbitration centers on the question whether courts should have the power to order the consolidation of arbitration proceedings absent the consent of the parties. As the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly denied certiorari to cases presenting the consolidation-question, the conflict between the Court of Appeals' positions remains. The common method of selection in a bilaterial proceeding is the formula by which each party appoints one arbitrator and the two party-chosen arbitrators then mutually agree on a third, neutral arbitrator. This popular method poses, however, both a policy and practical problems In a 3-party-proceeding. It seems that the better solution is to have courts or arbitral institutions appoint all arbitrators for a multiparty proceeding. American courts have employed a variety of methods to appoint arbitrators for multiparty disputes in cases in which the parties had not provided for or could not agree upon a method themselves.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제24권3호
• /
• pp.33-46
• /
• 2014

Amiable composition is a means of dispute resolution based on the arbitrator's authority to base his decision on equity. Although this method has been used frequently in the last decades of the 20th Century, the number of the published awards by amiable compositeur arbitrators is getting lower and lower. The reason(s) for unpopularity of amiable composition should be sought in its very nature, in its relationships with other institutions such as arbitration in law, equity, ex aequo et bono arbitration, other means of dispute resolution and in its role in the development of the rules specific to international commerce. A brief look at the history of law shows that the concept of equity comes to the scene every time that the rigidity of the rules of law challenges the justice. This has been the case in the 20th Century with respect to international commercial law which was deprived of specific rules. The role of amiable composition has been to contribute to the development of the rules specific to international commerce. The progressive codification of such rules in the last decades is also owed to amiable composition, which has accomplished its mission in the evolution of these rules.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제45권
• /
• pp.51-82
• /
• 2010

The "rules of private international law" or "conflict of law rules" work to determine the governing law, the law applicable to international contracts. These rules permit parties' autonomy to choose the law applicable to their contracts in cases of both litigations and arbitrations. In this regards, the present article examines parties' five options for the choice of the law governing their contracts, which the parties should consider when negotiating and drafting an international agreement. This means that parties in international contracting should check the contents of the law that they are to choose as the governing law before doing so. The first option is to submit the contract to its own law, which can be the safest and simplest solution generally. However this option is subject to the consent of the other party, and is not appropriate when the domestic law chosen contains mandatory rules strongly protecting the other party. Secondly, the option of choosing the other party's law is not preferable in general. Even though the other party is strong enough to succeed in insisting on applying its own law, the other party is advised to counter-offer a neutral solution by suggesting the application of a transnational set of rules and principles of international contract, such as Unidroit Principles. The third option to choose the law of a third country should be taken with the caution that it should be harmonized with either, in case of litigations, the international jurisdiction clause which makes the country chosen have the jurisdiction over the dispute arising under the contract, or, in case of arbitrations, the way of selection of the arbitrator who has good knowledge of the law chosen. The fourth option of submitting the contract to the lex mercatoria or the general principles of law including the Unidroit Principles can be a advisable solution when a dispute is designed to be submitted to experienced arbitrators. The final and fifth is to be silent on the choice of the governing law in contracting. This option can be usefully available by experienced negotiators who are well familiar with the conflict of laws rules and enables the parties to avoid the difficulties to agree on the governing law issue and leave it open until a dispute arises.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제18권1호
• /
• pp.71-96
• /
• 2008

Arbitration is fundamentally a matter of contract, whereby contractual parties may only be required to submit a dispute to arbitration pursuant to their formal agreement. However, there are several important exceptions to this rule that have developed under common law notions of implied consent. These doctrines may serve either to benefit or to harm a nonsignatory to an arbitral agreement because either (1) the nonsignatory may compel a signatory to the agreement to arbitrate a dispute or (2) the nonsignatory may be compelled to arbitrate a dispute despite never having signed an arbitration agreement. The Court has a long-standing domestic policy of favoring arbitration, and these doctrines reflect that policy. 1. incorporation by reference An arbitration clause may apply to a party who is a nonsignatory to one agreement containing an arbitration clause but who is a signatory to a second agreement that incorporates the terms of the first agreement. 2. assumption An arbitration clause may apply to a nonsignatory who has impliedly agreed to arbitrate. Under this theory, the nonsignatory's conduct is a determinative factor. For example, a nonsignatory who voluntarily begins arbitrating the merits of a dispute before an arbitral tribunal may be bound by the arbitrator's ruling on that dispute even though the nonsignatory was not initially required to arbitrate the dispute. 3. agency A nonsignatory to an arbitration agreement may be bound to arbitrate a dispute stemming from that agreement under the traditional laws of agency. A principal may also be bound to arbitrate a claim based on an agreement containing an arbitration clause signed by the agent. The agent, however, does not generally become individually bound by executing such an agreement on behalf of a disclosed principal unless there is clear evidence that the agent intended to be bound. 4. veil piercing/alter ego In the corporate context, a nonsignatory corporation to an arbitration agreement may be bound by that agreement if the agreement is signed by its parent, subsidiary, or affiliate. 5. estoppel The doctrine of equitable estoppel is usually applied by nonsignatory defendants who wish to compel signatory plaintiffs to arbitrate a dispute. This will generally be permitted when (1) the signatory must rely on the terms of the contract in support of its claims against the nonsignatory, or (2) the signatory alleges that it and the nonsignatory engaged in interdependent misconduct that is intertwined with the obligations imposed by the contract. Therefore, this article analyzed these doctrines centering around case-law in America.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제34권1호
• /
• pp.75-101
• /
• 2024

"ESG management" guides companies to prioritize corporate social responsibility and sustainable development as key management objectives, going beyond mere financial performance pursuits. This approach involves creating a sustainable and robust supply chain by urging companies, acting as 'supply chain managers', to implement ESG management practices alongside their 'supply chain partners'. The domestic business community has been quick to respond to this trend, recognizing that failure to adhere to ESG standards set by organizations such as the EU and SEC could lead to severe repercussions, including exclusion from international trade and reputational damage. POSCO and NAVER, two leading Korean companies, are at the forefront of practicing ESG management effectively. They have both produced and publicly disclosed ESG management reports, showcasing their success in enhancing supply chain ESG management. However, as supply chain managers enforce ESG-related obligations on their suppliers, the likelihood of disputes between the parties may increase. In scenarios where supply chain ESG management leads to conflicts between supply chain managers and suppliers, commercial arbitration emerges as a viable solution for dispute resolution. This method offers several advantages, including the arbitrators' expertise, time and cost efficiency, the binding nature of decisions akin to a court's final judgment, international recognition under the New York Convention, confidentiality, and ample opportunity for parties to be heard. Our analysis focuses on the emerging disputes between supply chain managers and suppliers within the context of supply chain ESG management, particularly examining the cases of POSCO and NAVER. By categorizing the expected types of disputes and assessing the appropriateness of commercial arbitration for their resolution, we highlight the effectiveness of this approach. Furthermore, we propose leveraging the Korean Commercial Arbitration Board's role to enhance the use of arbitration in resolving supply chain ESG disputes, underscoring its potential as a strategic tool for maintaining sustainable and harmonious supply chain relationships.

• 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.

• 통상정보연구
• /
• 제15권4호
• /
• pp.287-311
• /
• 2013

본 연구는 대위중재에서의 당사자적격성과 관련하여 복잡하게 전개될 수 있는 시비를 해결할 수 있는 방향의 설정에 대해 고찰하였다. 결함문제를 해결하기 위해 전례를 분석해 본 결과, 대위중재로 중재판정에 이른 사례는 찾아볼 수 있지만 대위중재 그 자체에 대한 판정이유는 불분명하다. 기존의 법원판례는 대위중재를 허용하는 듯 안 하는 듯 애매모호하고 대위중재의 허용여부에 대한 직접적인 법원의 판례는 찾아보기 힘들다. 또한 어느 한 국가의 판례로는 국제거래에서 발생하는 대위중재에 대해 단정할 수도 없다. 대위중재가 자동으로 허용되는지 아닌지 분명하지 않으면 전략적 차원에서 볼 때 분쟁해결절차의 경우의 수는 너무나 많아 수많은 사회적 비용을 치르게 된다. 따라서 향후 대위중재의 허용여부에 대한 국제적 통일지침의 확정이 긴요한 바, 본고에서는 자동차 대위중재제도, 공백과 상호주의 그리고 코즈정리의 관점에서 고찰한 결과 확정오퍼가설에 입각한 대위중재의 제도정립이 바람직하다는 결론에 이르렀다. 대위중재사건을 맡은 중재인들이나 판사들, 그리고 관련자들이 확정오퍼가설에 입각하여 대위중재에서의 당사자적격성을 판단한다면 본고에서 살펴본 대위중재와 관련한 문제점들을 대부분 해결할 수 있을 것으로 기대된다. 또한 국제적으로도 대위중재에 대한 확정오퍼가설이 확산됨으로써 대위중재의 일관된 해결원리가 확정오퍼가설로 수렴되기를 기대한다.