• Journal of the Korean Institute of Landscape Architecture
• /
• v.39 no.5
• /
• pp.91-100
• /
• 2011

This study aimed at the identity of the landscape architectural award, which is the highest authority award system in landscape architecture; the establishment of cooperation between the landscape architecture and urban public sector, which deals with infrastructure is significantly requested nowadays. The identity characteristic of a detailed concept which configures the sameness in the shape of inner self-cognition and individuality as external and correlative cognition are utilized as the research methodology, and the findings are summarized as follows. The Korean Landscape Architectural Award holds an internal value as the only award in landscape architecture that is granted municipalities and public agencies. However, when it is compared with several correlated award systems, the vulnerable sides such as short origin and partly limping in terms of sustainability, the possibilities of losing the interest in the public sector due to management's reform program and insufficient participants and responses regarding social authority have been found. In addition, according to the today's paradigm tha taims for green cities, the aspect that shares the large portion with the values set by detailed categories of city planning that enforces metropolis awards is also in the spotlight. Hence, the landscape architectural award should construct specialization and development strategies by strengthening the superiority compared with the city award in the field of city planning. In other words, the Ministry of Land, not limited to the systematic cooperation with various administrative areas will be strengthened and it will communicate with the aspect that reinforces characters as an academic and practical area that covers various districts and disciplines. Thus, the identity is directly connected to the landscape architectural award's competitive reinforcement as a detailed characteristic variously combined, and it requires huge interest and discussions regarding internal and external landscape architecture areas and the democratic public discussion process.

• Journal of Korean Society for Quality Management
• /
• v.44 no.3
• /
• pp.617-638
• /
• 2016

Purpose: The purpose of this study is to propose useful suggestions by analyzing difference of financial performance between "Excellent Quality Competitiveness Enterprise(EQCE)" awarding companies and all the manufacturing companies during the period 2003-2014 and by testing the moderating effects of performance year. Methods: This paper perform the longitudinal study during the period 2003-2014. The collected data through list of National Quality Award and financial report of CRETOP were analyzed using independent-sample t-test, paired-sample t-test, one way ANOVA and empirical analysis. Results: The results of this study are as follows; EQCE showed higher growth rate than all the companies until 2008, but profitability, stability, and activity are not significantly different between the both. Therefore EQCE have partial influences on growth rate among several financial performance measures until 2008. Since 2009 there are no differences. The effects of EQCE on financial performance are different by the year. Conclusion: EQCE award system was a meaningful promotion method to enhance good financial performance through encouraging quality management for the manufacturing companies until 2008, But since 2009 it is expected to lose its role as a promoting tool for quality management and performance excellence. Therefore new way of thinking for EQCE, as a national quality award system, is necessary; changing awarding system, award criteria, or etc.

• Proceedings of the Korean Institute Of Construction Engineering and Management
• /
• 2006.11a
• /
• pp.367-372
• /
• 2006

Government is not only the biggest owner in public sector, but also the leader responsible for improving and fostering construction industry. Delivery systems and award methods are enacted as laws via government's strong will for construction innovation. In addition to establishing relationships between government and contractor, delivery systems and award methods affect every aspect of industry. Therefore, the government should keep trying to remove inefficiency and achieve Best Value. This paper analyzes the delivery systems and award methods of advanced countries to extract lessons for Korean industry focusing on leading parties, direction, and change in owner's awareness of their respective innovative movements for construction. The prerequisites for improvement in delivery systems and award methods are suggested as partnership between public and private sectors, consistent innovation, enhancement in efficiency, and reinforcement of owner's capability.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.31 no.1
• /
• pp.107-127
• /
• 2021

Vietnam is an important country with many trade transactions with the Republic of Korea. Arbitration is a method of resolving disputes that can arise with the increase in trade transactions. It is essential to study the legal system and precedents of Vietnam on the approval and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards. Such is the case because the law in Vietnam and the court's position on the approval and enforcement of foreign arbitration awards issued by the courts depend on the possibility of realizing the parties' rights concerning their disputes. Therefore, it is of great value both theoretically and practically to analyze the exact differences between approval and the denial of approval. Vietnam has enacted the Commercial Arbitration Act, which replaces the previous Commercial Arbitration Decree and creates an arbitration-friendly environment that meets international arbitration standards. Regarding the approval and execution of foreign arbitration awards, the Commercial Arbitration Act, the Civil Procedure Act, the Civil Execution Act, and the Vietnam Foreign Arbitration Awards Approval and Enforcement Ordinance are regulated. Following these laws and regulations, the reasons for the approval, enforcement, and rejection of the arbitral award are specified. In accordance with these laws and inappropriate arbitration agreements, an arbitral award beyond the scope of its right of disposition, an arbitral tribunal, or the concerned parties could not be involved in a proceeding or an arbitral award if the involved party does not have an opportunity to exercise its rights lawfully. If the state agency in the forum does not recognize the arbitral award, the dispute is not subject to arbitration under Vietnamese law, or the arbitral award does not conform to the basic principles of Vietnamese law, the parties are not bound, and the foreign arbitration award is rejected for approval and execution.

• Korean Journal of Labor Studies
• /
• v.24 no.3
• /
• pp.109-142
• /
• 2018

This paper aims to analyze the Award wage system in Australia for construction workers. Considering low wages and precarious employment situation of construction workers in general, it is of advantage especially for them in Australia. Furthermore, it seems to be instructive for Korean construction workers, who stand in more precarious and unstable situation and furthermore are lack of fair wage and social safety. After strong and longstanding labour struggle in the late 19th century in Australia, it has been established a tripartite institution called as 'tribunal' between trade unions, employers, and the government. Under the highly institutionalized form of industrial relations, it functions as an arbitration and conciliation system between labour and management. The Award wage system stands in the middle point. This Award wage system including various welfare provisions is settled by the tribunal, today renamed as Fair Work Commission. In this wage system should be defined level of minimum wages according to the various skill levels, which are in turn connected with compulsory superannuation and Medicare as well as vocational education and training. Furthermore, it provides especially for the construction workers, who suffer from job instability, so-called 'portable benefits', which relate to long service leave and redundancy pay. Considering general conditions of precarious construction workers in Korea, In that respect, the Australian Award wage system would be very instructive for our social wage and safety system for construction workers.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.30 no.2
• /
• pp.43-68
• /
• 2020

The "arbitration" system resolves disputes through judgments on rights relations or claims between disputed parties by judging by private trial, but it does not have organizational and material bases to execute the contents of these judgments. Therefore, unless the parties succeed in voluntarily surrendering to the results of the arbitration award, the implementation of the award will be accomplished by the enforcement of the assistance of the National Court. However, unlike the court's ruling, the arbitration tribunal does not generate enforcement power from the judgment itself, and it must be filed with the court for execution. In this regard, Germany provides for arbitration proceedings in the Civil Procedure Act Volume 10. In particular, Article 1060 governs the approval and enforcement of domestic arbitral awards. Accordingly, the procedure for declaring the feasibility of domestic arbitration proceedings and the execution of forced execution are commenced. Regarding the enforceable declaration of a domestic arbitral award, it differs from the simpler process requirements compared to the procedure in a foreign arbitral award, and usually has the same effect as a final judgment between the parties without a separate approval procedure. However, the arbitration award does not constitute an enforceable power that can be implemented, but is enforced through the national court's declaration procedure. However, if there is a ground for cancellation as provided for in Article 1059 (2) of the German Civil Procedure Act, the arbitral award is canceled and the application for enforcement is dismissed.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.31 no.1
• /
• pp.3-22
• /
• 2021

This article examines the Challenge through Annulment of ICSID Arbitral Awards. Either party may request annulment of the award by applying in writing addressed to the ICSID Secretary-General on one or more of the grounds under Article 52 of the ICSID Convention. The annulment proceedings must focus on the award itself. Because committees have no inherent supremacy over the arbitral tribunal, they should not review the tribunal's findings on evidence, damage, interest, and cost findings. Otherwise, the parties would have, in effect, two opportunities, and that will almost certainly weaken the reliability of the entire ICSID system. In short, because of the limited scope of review under ICSID annulment and because annulment is not an opportunity for the parties to re-try the case, committees should not allow new arguments or new evidence. Since an annulment committee is not a court of appeals, it cannot create a new res judicata. Committees can only decide not to annul an award, thus confirming the existing res judicata or annul the award, in which case the affected decision ceases to be res judicata. An obvious annulment decision stipulating which particular findings of the award remain res judicata should prevent any uncertainty in resubmission proceedings.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.13 no.1
• /
• 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.

• Journal of the Korean Institute of Navigation
• /
• v.18 no.2
• /
• pp.129-149
• /
• 1994

Sea casualties may happen in ship, cargo and the others concerned with sea transportation. : the shipo-wer, marine insurer and salvage company have been endeavored to compensate salvage award with some rule and regulation such as Marine Insurance Act, York Antwerp Rules and Average adjustment rules. Once sea casualties happened, the salvage contract is established between the owners, marine insurance and salvage company, the contract are divided into so many kinds of them. In this paper, we have an analysis on the character of the salvage contract whether the characteristic contents of them are in benefit to any party or not. In this connection with these positive or negative character of the contract, it is worthwhile to compare the actual salvage expenses contract with no cure no pay contract. LOF 1990 has been revised recently, which is based on no cure no pay, expecially, the special compensation, safety net clause of LOF 1990 could be understood in the view of the prevention of sea pollution and the preservation of sea circumstances in the world. Salvage has the complicated and quality, because the adjustment of almost salvage charges have been treated through the other sea casualties which is accompanied by and mixed with. Besides of the importance of salvage contracts, we are in need to understand that what the diversified character of salvage charges are. Furthermore the owners should carefully select the insured conditions on Hull Insurance according to the type of his company, operating ocean route, loading cargo and etc. In this paper, we would try to analyze the character of the salvage award such as General Average, Sue and Labour Charges and Particular charges. We would like to propose that the uniformed system of the salvage award. Compensation should be built up for the effective and efficient salvage operation and for reducing the claims and conflicts from the concerned parties. To this end, we could expect that the uniformed system for salvage award compensation will come to be the benefit of all owners, insurers, salvage company.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.31 no.4
• /
• pp.51-70
• /
• 2021

Chinese courts seem to be indifferent or ignorant of truncated arbitration. In other words, the Chinese court canceled the arbitration award made by truncated arbitration except for the Pingdingsan Case among the four arbitration cases related to the domestic arbitration award reviewed in this paper on the ground that it violated the composition of the arbitral tribunal or the arbitration procedure. A Chinese court has canceled the arbitration award by judging only based on the composition of the arbitral tribunal and the legal process of the violation of the arbitration procedure not by determining whether the domestic arbitration award made by the truncated arbitration meets the conditions for the application of truncated arbitration as stipulated in the Arbitration Rules. Moreover, it seems that the Chinese court made a serious error in the application of the relevant regulations in the Pingdingsan Case, which ruled that the truncated arbitration did not violate the legal process. In this case, the Chinese court admitted truncated arbitration under logic process that it was not necessary to wait until the final hearing to apply the truncated arbitraion because one arbitrator was absent before the final hearing, but the truncated arbitrator had already formed his/her opinion before the absence. However, in the case of Marshall Investment Corporation, a case related to foreign arbitration, the Chinese court rejected the approval and execution of the truncated arbitration award by strictly applying the laws and timing of the truncated arbitration. Since only one case has been identified in the main text, it is difficult to make a definitive judgment, but considering these cases, it seems to be that the Chinese courts apply different standards to domestic and foreign arbitration awards to determine the legality of truncated arbitration.