• 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.

• 한국지반공학회논문집
• /
• 제25권6호
• /
• pp.47-57
• /
• 2009

본 연구에서는 다층지반에서 수평하중을 받는 말뚝을 대상으로 콘관입치를 이용하여 극한수평지지력을 산정하였으며, 다층지반조건을 고려할 수 있는 토압분포 형태를 제안하고자 한다. 이를 위해 각 층의 상대밀도를 달리한 12개의 다층지반을 조성하여 각 지반에 대해 콘관입시험 및 수평말뚝재하시험을 수행하였으며, 각각의 다층지반조건에 대한 극한수평지지력을 비교, 분석하였다. 극한수평지지력 산정은 Broms(1964), Petrasovits & Award(1972), Prasad & Ch뼈(1999)가 제안한 방법을 기준으로 하였으며, Prasad & Chari(1999)의 방법에 대해서는 다층지반 조건을 고려하기 위한 수정된 토압분포형상을 적용하였다. 본 연구 결과, 다층지반 조건을 고려한 제안 방법이, 기존의 단일지반에 적용했던 토압분포 형상을 이용하는 방법보다 향상된 정밀도를 보여 주였다. 극한수평지지력 분포형상에 있어서도 Broms(1964), Petrasovits & Award(1972)의 방법으로 산정한 극한수평지지력과 유사한 분포를 보였다.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제33권2호
• /
• pp.3-21
• /
• 2023

Chinese law does not directly stipulate the criteria for determining the nationality of arbitral awards, and the Civil Procedure Law stipulates that arbitral awards are divided into domestic arbitral awards and foreign arbitral awards based on the location of the arbitration institution managing the arbitration cases. This indirectly classifies the nationality of the arbitral award based on the location of the arbitral institution. However, with regard to the nationality of eight arbitral awards in this paper made in China by the foreign arbitration institutions, the Chinese courts determined the nationality by arbitrarily selecting the criteria for the location of the arbitration institution and the criteria for the place of arbitration, except for arbitral awards made in Hong Kong. China's unclear attitude toward the criteria for determining the nationality of arbitral award has resulted not only obscures the country that can exercise the right to revoke arbitral award, but also obscures the laws and regulations applied to the approval and execution of arbitral awards. In other words, since the right to revoke the arbitral awards resides with the country of nationality of the awards, such an ambiguous attitude in China prevents the parties from responding to the cancellation lawsuit by predicting the nationality of the arbitral awards in advance. Furthermore, since China made a declaration of reciprocity reservations while joining the New York Convention, in cases where the criteria for location of the arbitral institution is applied, if the arbitration institution belongs to a contracting state, the it must apply the New York Convention to approve and execute arbitration decisions, but if it is not a contracting state, it must be approved and executed by mutual arbitration agreements or reciprocity principles. These results can lead to different results in approval and execution of the same arbitral awards depending on how the nationality is determined.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제17권3호
• /
• 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.

• Asia Marketing Journal
• /
• 제10권1호
• /
• pp.25-64
• /
• 2008

요즘 신문 광고를 보면 자주 볼 수 있는 광고 형식이 있다. 그것은 00 마케팅 대상, 00 신문 선정 올해의 최고 히트 제품, 스포츠 신문 선정 올해의 10대 제품, 00 협회 컨설팅 선정 고객 만족도 최우수 제품, 00부 선정 올해의 벤처 기업 등 정부나 언론 기관, 그리고 비영리 성격의 제 3 기관에서의 수상 사실을 광고 소재로 활용하는 수상(award winning) 광고이다. 그 동안 선행 연구에서는 브랜드, 가격, 제품 외관, 제조회사 정보, 보증 등을 품질을 나타내는 단서로서 주목해 왔으나 제 3 기관의 추천의 효과에 대해서는 연구가 비교적 적은 편이다. 이번 연구는 기존 연구에서 다루지 않았던 제 3 기관의 추천을 수상 맥락(award context)에서 확인해 봄으로써 제 3 기관 추천과 관련된 연구 범위를 다양화했다는데 의의를 둘 수 있다. 지금까지 소비자 관점에서 제 3 기관의 추천 효과를 조절하는 변수들에 대한 연구들은 진행되었으나 기업 관점에서 마케팅 변수들의 조절 효과를 검토한 연구는 없다고 판단하였다. 따라서 본 연구는 제 3 기관의 수상 정보가 주는 효과를 이론적 범주에서 설명하고, 실험을 통해 이러한 과정에서 마케팅 변수들의 조절 효과를 확인하였다. 연구 결과 제 3 기관의 수상 정보는 소비자들의 제품 구입 의도를 높이는데 긍정적인 역할을 하는 것으로 나타났고 제품 타입, 판매 채널과 같은 마케팅 변수들이 이 과정을 조절하고 있는 것으로 나타났다. 그리고 외재적 단서 중 하나인 지각된 가격은 제품 타입에 따라 역할이 상이했는데 경험재의 경우에는 제 3 기관의 수상 정보와 독립적으로 구매 의도에 영향을 주었고 탐색재의 경우에는 소비자 구매 의도에 큰 영향을 주지 않은 것으로 나타났다. 이번 연구 결과로부터 마케팅 실무에 활용할 수 있는 몇 가지 시사점들을 추론해 보면 가격이 비교적 고가이고 고객과의 직접 접촉을 통해 판매가 가능하며 소비자들이 내재적 단서를 통해 품질을 평가하기 어려운 경험재의 경우 제 3 기관의 수상 형태의 추천 효과가 극대화될 수 있는 조건이라고 말할 수 있다.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제14권2호
• /
• pp.107-133
• /
• 2004

In these days, arbitration helps alleviate some of the burden of a heavy caseload from the judiciary and is a viable method to resolve disputes in a relatively quick and efficient manner. An award of punitive damages is often the most significant and detrimental part of an award arising from a judicial or arbitral proceeding. In 1995, the United States Supreme Court resolved a circuit split. upholding an arbitral panel's authority to award punitive damages under a securities arbitration agreement. This decision was monumental in establishing arbitral power. However, it left several questions unanswered. For example, which, if any, standards should be applied to such awards？ The decision in Sawtelle, adopting a separate ground for review of punitive damages awards, is one that signals a significant change in the field of arbitration. This article addresses the reviewability of punitive damages awards arising out of a securities arbitration hearing. It would be necessary to introduce securities arbitration system to our disputes resolution system. Compared to American practices, there could be many differences in recognition on arbitration and legal structure in our country. Thus it will be a future assignment to consider seriously and carefully what kind of securities arbitration system will be proper for us. This article analyzed predispute arbitration agreements and agreements to arbitrate after a dispute has already arisen.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제9권1호
• /
• pp.115-137
• /
• 1999

The UNCITRAL, during its thirty-two session in 1999 discussed certain issues and problems identified in interactional commercial arbitration practice. The issues discussed include certain aspects if conciliation proceedings ; the legislative requirement of a written form for the arbitration agreement ; arbitability ; soverign immunity ; consolidation of more than one case into one arbitral proceedings ; confidentiality of information in arbitral proceedings ; rasing claims in arbitral proceedings for the purpose of set-off ; decisions by "turncated" arbitral tribunals liability of arbitrators ; power by the arbitral tribunal to award interest ; costs of arbitral proceedings ; enforceability of interim measures of protection ; and discretion to enforce an award that has been set aside in the state of origin. Among those issues discussed, most of States agreed that the issues relating to certain aspects of conciliation proceedings ; the legislative requirement of a written form for the arbitration agreement ; enforceability of interim measures of protection ; and discretion to enforce an award that has been set aside in the State of origin should have priority over other issues. The UNCITRAL may wish to consider the desirability of preparing uniform provisions on any of those issues, possibly indicating whether further work should be towards a legislative text (such as a model legislative provision or a treaty) or a non-legislative text (such as a model contractual rule).

• 품질경영학회지
• /
• 제37권1호
• /
• pp.10-19
• /
• 2009

The objective of this study is to analyze the causal relationship among Non-profit Criteria of the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award(MBNQA) and to compare the casuality among company, hospital and non-profit organization field. The survey instrument consists of 94 questions from the seven categories of the MBNQA. Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) is used to analyze the empirical data and estimates the path coefficients among the MBNQA categories. The result of our research is as follows, First, the Leadership effects on as a driver of all factors. Secondly, the positive effect of the Foundation on the Direction and the System categories, Finally, the positive influence of the Direction on the System categories of the MBNQA model. In this study, most hypothesis are statistically significant.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제16권2호
• /
• pp.121-150
• /
• 2006

Under the New York Convention, parties can petition the courts of the United States to confirm foreign arbitral awards. Although there is no definition in the Convention for 'non-domestic' awards, in the United States, federal and state courts read the Convention broadly and interpret this as permitting the enforcing authority to supply its own definition of 'non-domestic' in conformity with its own domestic law. There are a number of federal cases on this point. The court preferred this broad construction of 'non-domestic' awards because it comported with the intended purpose of the Convention, which was entered into to encourage the recognition and enforcement of international arbitral awards. This means that in applying the New York Convention, U.S. courts have responded to the underlying spirit rather than the technical letter of the Convention. In brief, the New York Convention has much broader application in the United States. It is applicable not only to awards rendered outside of the United States, but also to non-domestic awards rendered within United States. As this article suggests, the general attitude towards foreign awards is more pro-enforcement in the United States, whether the award is rendered in favor of the American party or in favor of the foreign party.

• 한국초등과학교육학회지:초등과학교육
• /
• 제29권1호
• /
• pp.69-85
• /
• 2010

The purpose of this study was to develop criteria for evaluating final reports of free inquiry activity and to apply developed evaluation criteria to free inquiry activity reports. 323 inquiry reports submitted to internal contests in the elementary schools as well as 189 award-winning ones from the inquiry competition for students in Seoul were collected. Nine categories and 18 sub-categories of evaluation criteria were derived by collecting reports analysis, literature reviews and interviews with 15 elementary school teachers. Criteria for each sub-category were organized into three steps and 12 elementary school teachers assigned scores for each sub-category, which were averaged. 132 including both award-winning and general reports were evaluated based on the developed evaluation criteria. The content validity and the reliability across scorers were significant. Furthermore, award-winning and general reports were significantly distinguished by the developed criteria in terms of all sub-category scores. The developed evaluation criteria will be an effective tool to asses student's free inquiry activity.