• 항공우주정책ㆍ법학회지
• /
• 제27권2호
• /
• pp.3-27
• /
• 2012

국제항공운송에 관한 규칙의 통일을 위한 바르샤바 협약이 1929년에 채택되었다. 1999년에 국제민간항공기구(ICAO)는 항공사법의 통일을 광범위하게 현대화하는 국제항공운송을 위한 규칙의 통일을 위한 몬트리올 협약을 채택하였다. 몬트리올 협약은 바르샤바 체제 조약 문서를 대체하였으며, 2003년 11월 4일 발효되었다. 몬트리올 협약은 다만 국제협약일 뿐만 아니라, 또한 국내입법에 상당한 영향을 주었다. 한국은 2011년 4월 29일 상법 제6편 항공운송편의 국내 입법을 하였으며, 2011년 11월 24일 발효되었다. 한국 상법 제6편 항공운송편의 국내 입법은 여객에게 생긴 손해에 대한 책임, 수하물에 생긴 손해에 대한 책임, 화물에 생긴 손해에 대한 책임에 관한 규정들을 두고 있다. 몬트리올 협약상 항공운송인의 책임제도의 주요특징은 100,000 특별인출권(SDR)까지 절대책임을 지는 여객의 사망 또는 상해에 대한 2단계 책임제도이며, 그 절대책임액 이상은 아무런 제한없이 반대의 입증부담을 지는 추정적 책임이다. 한국 상법 제6편 항공운송편의 국내 입법은 몬트리올 협약상 항공운송인의 주요책임원칙을 수용하고 있다. 결론적으로, 한국 정부에 의한 항공운송인의 책임에 관한 국내입법은 여객, 수하물 및 화물의 항공운송에 대한 운송인의 책임에 관한 분쟁을 효과적으로 해결하고, 동법이 규정하는 방어와 책임제한에 따라 손해를 입은 여객 또는 송하인에게 적절한 보상을 제공하는데 기여할 것이다.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제20권3호
• /
• pp.47-69
• /
• 2010

From the review of Korean arbitration systems with the comparison of those of other countries, we can summarize some issues to be tackled as follows: First, Korean arbitration system started with the purpose of export promotion. This may be the main reason that various domestic disputes have not been resolved by arbitration. Second, the Korean Arbitration Law applies to private disputes. The Law's arbitration scope is wider than that of China and France, but narrower than that of the U.S.A. that encompasses a variety of disputes in the filed of consumer, labor, medical services, patents, etc. Third, active judges or public officials in Korea can not be arbitrator and there is no arbitration court. However, if chief judge allows the necessity, court's judges in the UK can be arbitrator with the mutual agreement of the parties and also arbitration system is operated in the court. Fourth, the Korean Commercial Arbitration Board(KCAB), the only representative institution for arbitration in Korea, is under the Ministry of Knowledge Economy(MKE). This makes it difficult for the KCAB to handle other disputes related to the Ministry of Health and Welfare, the Ministry of Strategy and Finance, the Ministry for Food, Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, the Ministry of Employment and Labor, etc. Fifth, as mentioned, the KCAB is the unique institution for arbitration by the Law in Korea, while other countries allow have a diversity of arbitration agencies such as maritime arbitration organization, consumer arbitration institution, arbitration court, etc. Therefore, we suggest some ideas to expand the arbitration's area of coverage in Korea as follows: First, there should be more active policies that promote various domestic disputes to be settled by the arbitration system. Second, it is quite needed to expand the scope of arbitration to cover many disputes in the fields of consumer, labor, medical service, advertising, fair trade, etc. Third, there should be discussions to allow court judges as arbitrator and to introduce the arbitration court. Fourth, the KCAB should strengthen its status and roles as general arbitration organization to overcome the limited scope of commercial disputes. For this, there should be the strong support and coordination among the MKE and other government agencies. Fifth, to reduce the burden of the court's complicated and expensive procedures, more efficient disputes resolution systems should be established on the basis of the parties' free will. Each central government agency should streamline the legal barriers to allow industrial organizations under its control to establish their own or joint arbitration system with the KCAB.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제22권3호
• /
• pp.141-163
• /
• 2012

In Korea, although nearly all maritime arbitration cases are dealt with by the Korean Commercial Arbitration Board (KCAB), the total number of cases that are referred to the KCAB is relatively small compared with the total number of maritime cases that occur in Korea. There may be reasons why maritime arbitration is not utilized more in Korea. However, of the above reasons, the superseding one may be that there is still a lack of confidence in the credibility and foreseeability of maritime arbitration in Korea. To expand the use of maritime arbitration in Korea, it is essential that the base surrounding maritime arbitration be expanded. In addition, it is also necessary that specialists receivetraining in maritime law. In this context, it is strongly recommended that maritime and admiralty law be taught in law schools and be included as a regular subject on the Korean bar exam. Additionally, to promote maritime arbitration, a rule should be introduced allowing for shortened arbitration proceedings in Korea. Although Chapter 8 of the KCAB Arbitration Rules provide for "Expedited Procedure," this process alone is not because the rules for Expedited Procedure generally apply in arbitration cases where both parties have agreed in a separate agreement to follow the procedures provided or in any domestic arbitration valued atless than 100,000,000 Korean won. Therefore, the KCAB Arbitration Rules for Expedited Procedure must be reformed to encompass international arbitrations. Additionally, experts who are experienced in the maritime sector should be elected as arbitrators. Given the factthat a fair number of arbitration cases can be characterized as international, it is important that businesspersons who are very fluent in English be appointed as arbitrators in order to increase the reliability of maritime arbitration in Korea and save costs. Meanwhile, because lawyers and scholars constitute a considerable portion of KCAB arbitrators, commercial persons from relevant industries should be enlisted as arbitrators. Even though there are arguments for the establishment of an independent maritime arbitration board in Korea, establishment of a separate maritime arbitration board will not directly guarantee the prosperity of maritime arbitration in Korea. Instead of instituting a new maritime arbitration board, it is better that a reorganized KCAB modify existing arbitration proceedings to make them faster and more economical if maritime arbitration is to prosper. In this regard, ad-hoc arbitration would be an option for speedy and thrifty maritime arbitration. Finally, to gain the confidence of domestic and foreign parties, we cannot ignore the importance of advertising the specialties and qualifications of the KCAB and its personnel among business entities.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제49권
• /
• pp.61-86
• /
• 2011

Korea Supreme Court has given thirty-nine time's judgments on enforcement of Arbitral awards for thirty-six arbitration cases and made four time's decision on the arbitration cases since Korea arbitration act was enacted in 1966. Most of the arbitration cases appealed to the Supreme Court was to obtain the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards or to set aside the arbitral awards according to the Korea arbitration Act article 36 and article 37, by reason of (a) a party to the arbitration agreement was under some incapacity under the law applicable to him or the said agreement is not valid under the law to which the parties have subjected it, or failing any indication thereon, (b) a party making the application was not given proper notice of the appointment of the arbitrator or arbitrators or of the arbitral proceedings or was otherwise unable to present his case (c) the award deals with a dispute not contemplated by or not falling within the terms of the submission to arbitration, or contains decisions on matters beyond the scope of the submission to arbitration. However, 5 cases of these arbitral awards were refused to obtain the enforcement of Arbitral awards and have been cancelled finally by the Supreme Court only by the New York Convention of 1958.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제30권
• /
• pp.27-58
• /
• 2006

The purpose of this study is to identify key obstacles to the adoption of electronic bill of lading and to suggest an effective way to promote the utilization of electronic bill of lading in international trade field. This study finds that all the respondants have not used 'true' electronic bill of lading that is issued and distributed electronically, and most of them agreed the needs of e-B/L adoption, but their intentions to adopt e-B/L remain very low in the present situation. Five obstacles to the adoption of e-B/L were derived from an explanatory factor analysis: 'integration' factor, 'law institution' factor, 'usability' factor, 'economic efficiency' factor, and 'security' factor. Solutions to promote the utilization of e-B/L in international trade field are as follows; Firstly, to endow e-B/L with the legal force through amending relevant laws including the commercial law. Secondly, to conclude the relevant international agreement, and to carry out joint projects between nations are needed. Thirdly, to conduct publicity campaigns is required to increase the understanding of the concepts and benefits of e-B/L to all concerned parties. Fourthly, stable and reliable system must be constructed with high level security. Fifthly, to readjust the service fee of e-B/L system to a realistic level is to be needed in order for user companies to use e-B/L service.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제43권
• /
• pp.3-23
• /
• 2009

The meaning of Good faith is honest intent to act without taking an unfair advantage over another person or to fulfill a promise to act, even when some legal technicality is not fulfilled. The term is applied to all kinds of transactions. According to the CISG only regulated Art. 7. that is in the interpretation of this Convention, regard is to be had to its international character and to the need to promote uniformity in its application and the observance of good faith in international trade (1) and questions concerning matters governed by this Convention which are not expressly settled in it are to be settled in conformity with the general principles on which it is based or, in the absence of such principles, in conformity with the law applicable by virtue of the rules of private international law (2). In the other hand PICC is related to the good faith and fair dealing, each party must act in accordance with good faith and fair dealing in international trade (1) and the parties may not exclude or limit this duty (2). Good faith of PECL is these principles should be interpreted and developed in accordance with their purposes. In particular, regard should be had to the need to promote good faith and fair dealing, certainty in contractual relationships and uniformity of application. Further more regarding to the good faith and fair dealing, same to the PICC regulations.

• 통상정보연구
• /
• 제11권2호
• /
• pp.233-257
• /
• 2009

The 21st century is witnessing the explosive increase in the usage of internet and international electronic transactions. Due to the unique characteristics of the electronic information, substantial part of such transaction can and do take the form of cross-border transactions. However, there have not been settled appropriate set of rules applicable to the international electronic transactions. Currently, in respect to e-L/C transactions in international trade, there are laws such as Electronic Transaction Basic Act in our country, E-Trade Promotion Act, E-Signature Law, Act on Promotion of Information and Communication Network Utilization and Information Protection and Marine Charter 5 in the Commercial Law. Nevertheless, a complete legislation, that is a uniform rule for e L/C which could support e L/C transactions fully hasn't been established yet. Accordingly, those laws concerned need to improve to regulate e-L/C transactions. The purpose of this paper is to look into the national status for law readjustment to prepare for a new electronic environment and to use appropriately the e-L/C issued by electronic means, and to conduct a comparative analysis on the related regulations to introduce a pertinent laws and propose related regulations to contribute to the making of effective laws to regulate e-L/C.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제30권1호
• /
• pp.3-37
• /
• 2020

The Korean Arbitration Act (KAA) enacted in 1966 was entirely revised in 1999, adopting the 1985 UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration. Korea is trying to be an international arbitration hub in the region, taking advantage of its geographical location in Asia and its highly open economy. KAA was revised in 2016 again in order to reflect the criticisms against the previous KAA, changes in the arbitration environment, and the 2006 amendment to the UNCITRAL Model Law. The basic direction of the revision was to maintain the UNCITRAL Model Law system and to deal with the national arbitration and international arbitration in the same framework. The scope of revision covers all fields of arbitration, including arbitration agreements, arbitrators, arbitral proceedings, interim measures of the arbitral tribunals, recognition/enforcement of arbitral awards, and their annulment. This paper aims to introduce the important issues of the 2016 revision of KAA, to offer important information discussed in the process of revision, and thus to help those concerned in the interpretation and implementation of KAA. The 2016 revision of KAA is expected to help greatly in promoting not only the national arbitration, but also the international arbitration in Korea.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제25권1호
• /
• 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).

• 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.