• Convergence Security Journal
• /
• v.15 no.6_2
• /
• pp.55-63
• /
• 2015

Like a violence occurred by security guardians in the Yoosung or SJM Enterprise, a series of security company in Korea has repeated illegal conduct. So human rights violations are getting to be very heavy. The National Police Agency, the controller of the Security Services Industry Act, requires stricter regulations for the defense industry direction. here followed the research about some provisions in the Security Services Industry Act relating to 'the collective civil appeals spot' examining the contents of the Problems and discussed about it.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.29 no.2
• /
• 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.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.33 no.2
• /
• pp.115-168
• /
• 2018

An amendment to Japanese Civil Aeronautics Act came into effect December 10, 2015. The Act prohibits flying drones over residential areas or areas surrounding an airport without permission from the Minister of Land, Infrastructure and Transportation. Flying drones during night time and during an event is also prohibited. The term "UAV" or "UA" means any aeroplane, rotorcraft, glider or airship which cannot accommodate any person on board and can be remotely or automatically piloted (Excluding those lighter than a certain weight (200 grams). Any person who intends to operate a UAV is required to follow the operational conditions listed below, unless approved by the Minister of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism; (i) Operation of UAVs in the daytime, (ii) Operation of UAVs within Visual Line of Sight (VLOS), (iii) Maintenance of a certain operating distance between UAVs and persons or properties on the ground/water surface, (iv) Do not operate UAVs over event sites where many people gather, (v) Do not transport hazardous materials such as explosives by UAV, (vi) Do not drop any objects from UAVs. Requirements stated in "Airspace in which Flights are Prohibited" and "Operational Limitations" are not applied to flights for search and rescue operations by public organizations in case of accidents and disasters. This paper analyzes some issues as to regulations of UAVs in Korean Aviation Safety Act by comparing the regulations of UAVs in Japanese Civil Aeronautics Act. This paper, also, offers some implications and suggestions for regulations of UAVs under Korean Aviation Safety Act.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.15 no.2
• /
• pp.31-60
• /
• 2014

In this paper the good Samaritan civil liability is argued. In many cases some damage could be caused by an emergency medical service. In such situations the degree of duty of care taken by the service provider would be alleviated depending upon the degree of emergency. Then the service provided by anyone not carrying any duty to do so could be generally ruled by the 'Korean Civil Act' Article 735. This article is related to the management of affairs in urgency. The application of this article means the mitigation of civil liability of the service provider. If the service provider not carrying any duty to provide it "has managed the affairs" of the service "in order to protect the" victim "against an imminent danger to the latter's life", the provider "shall not be liable for any damages caused thereby, unless he acted intentionally or with gross negligence". Korea has another rule applied in such a situation, that is the Korean 'Emergency Medical Service Act' Article 5-2. This article is established for the exemption from responsibility for well-intentioned emergency medical service. It could be referred to as the Good Samaritan law. It provides: "In cases where no intention or gross negligence is committed on the property damage and death or injury caused by giving any emergency medical service or first-aid treatment falling under any of the following subparagraphs to an emergency patient whose life is in jeopardy, the relevant actor shall not take the civil liability ${\cdots}$" In this paper the two articles is compared in the viewpoints of the requirements for and effects of the application of them respectively. The 'Korean Civil Act' Article 735 is relatively general rule against the the Korean 'Emergency Medical Service Act' Article 5-2 in the same circumstance. Therefore the former could be resorted to only if any situation could not satisfy the requisites for the application of the latter. In this paper it has suggested that the former article be more specific for the accuracy of making decision to apply it; and that the latter be revise in some requirements including the victim, the service provider, and the service.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.17 no.3
• /
• pp.57-79
• /
• 2007

Laws regarding to Arbitration in North Korea are Arbitration Act, Foreign Economic Arbitration Act, Regulations on the Foreign Trade Arbitration Commission, Regulation for treatment of cases in Arbitration Commission, Rules of Hearing. North Korea has enacted the laws related to Arbitration including Arbitration Act enacted in 1995 and Foreign Economic Arbitration Act enacted in 1999. In the North Korea's planed economy system, as there will be many disputes among organizations, companies, other Institutions Arbitration Act resolves the disputes to compete the economic plan. North Korea's Arbitration Act is different from Normal Arbitration Acts in particular other socialist states in view of arbitration agreement and selection of arbitrator and functions as the tools controlling the members of North Korea and have the characteristics such as national arbitration system and mixture of criminal trial and governmental control and strict legal control system on violent acts in North Korea's plan and plan regulation. And North Korea's Arbitration Act deals with the civil disputes and limits the parties and subject matter of arbitration. The parties in dispute such as organizations, companies, other Institutions could apply for arbitration to Central Arbitration Body and Provincial (City under the direct control of Government) Arbitration Body and Sectional Arbitration Body. The purpose of this paper is to contribute to the enhancement of the understanding arbitration in North Korea by studying the clauses in the Arbitration Act.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.32 no.2
• /
• 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.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.19 no.2
• /
• pp.99-137
• /
• 2018

Under the Korean law, there are two routes of involuntary civil commitment of the mentally-ill: involuntary commitment process under the Mental Health Act (MHA) and the guardian's commitment backed up by family court approval under article 947-2 (2) of the Civil Code. Despite of the recent fundamental revision of MHA in 2016, the Korean involuntary commitment law has still serious flaws, especially the lack of due process like prior notice, hearing, and independent guardian ad litem for the mentally-ill, which has been pointed out also by the Korean Constitutional Court. Thus, a re-revision is inevitable, and this time, we should proceed to rebuild the underlying structure of involuntary commitment. In this regard, it is crucial to eliminate the old-fashioned and unjustifiable burden as well as power of the so-called responsible person to protect the mentally-ill and to readjust the causes and standings to petition of the various types of involuntary commitment process. Also it is necessary to repeal involuntary commitment by guardian under the Civil Code, article 947-2 (2), which can no longer harmonize with modern involuntary commitment system.

• 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.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.25 no.1
• /
• pp.47-64
• /
• 2015

Pursuant to Article 109(1) of the Attorney-at-Law Act of Korea, a person, not an attorney-at-law, who receives or promises to receive money, articles, entertainment or other benefits or who gives or promises to give those things to a third party, in compensation for providing or mediating legal services, such as examination, representation, arbitration(emphasis added), settlement, solicitation, legal consultation, making of legal documents, etc. shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for not more than 7 years or by a fine not exceeding KRW 50 million or may be punished by both and there is no specific provision on qualification of arbitrator except on nationality of an arbitrator in the Arbitration Act of Korea. Then, the question arises, can any non-lawyer arbitrator who receives arbitrator's fees be punished in accordance with the Attorney-at-Law Act in Korea? To search for an answer for this matter, this paper examines the Arbitration Act or the Civil Procedure Code of 33 major countries in the world and explains a research on the participation ratio of non-lawyer arbitrators in all 360 arbitration cases registered in 2012 at the Korean Commercial Arbitration Board (KCAB).

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.24 no.3
• /
• pp.125-169
• /
• 2014

In France, arbitration, both domestic and international, has recently been subjected to a major reform. This article discusses the content of the 2011 reform and its aftermath, while putting into perspective the current arbitration act in South Korea, an arbitration-friendly jurisdiction that contemplates reforming its own law. The two legal systems are characterized by their concern for efficiency and rationalization of the arbitration proceedings, through the codification of essential principles previously established by case law and through the promotion of the independence of this ADR vis-$\grave{a}$-vis state courts. The efficiency consideration is strengthened at every stage of the proceedings: from the arbitration agreement often considered valid and rarely challenged, through the proceedings for annulment, recognition and enforcement of the award, up to the judicial assistance of the French supporting judge towards the actual arbitral proceedings. Finally, new concerns are emerging: the increase of transparency and the arbitrability of disputes in some uncertain fields of law.