• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.15 no.3
• /
• pp.55-84
• /
• 2005

The arbitral award is the decision of the arbitrators on the dispute that had been submitted to them by the parties, either under the arbitration clause providing for the determination of future disputes or under submission of an existing controversy. The arbitral award has the same effect between the parties as a final and binding court judgment. The arbitration award shall acquire, as soon as it is given and delivered to each parties, the authority of res judicata in respect of the dispute it settles. The validity of an award is a condition precent for its recognition or enforcement. The validity of an award depends on the provisions of the arbitration agreement including any arbitration rules incorporated in it, and the law which is applicable to the arbitration proceedings. Such provisions usually address both the form and the content of the award. As the 'form', requires article 32 of Arbitration Act of Korea that an arbitral award should, at least, (1) be made in writing and be signed by all arbitrators. (2) state the reasons upon which it is based unless the parties have agreed that it should not, (3) state its date and place of arbitration. There are some further requirement which may have to be observed before an award which has been made by a tribunal can be enforced. (4) The duly authenticated award signed by the arbitrators shall be delivered to each of the parties and the original award shall be sent to and deposited with the competent court, accompanied by a document verifying such delivery. This rule can be interpreted as if the deposit of an arbitral award with the competent court is always required as a condition for its validity or as a preliminary to its enforcement in Korea. However, we must regard this rule which requires the deposit of an arbitral award with court, as rule of order, but not as condition of its validity. Because that the date on which the award is delivered to each party is important as it will generally determine the commencement of time limits for the making of any appeal which may be available. Furthermore, the party applying for recognition or enforcement merely has to supply the appropriate court with the duly authenticated original award or a duly certified copy thereof, not any document which proves that an the arbitral award is sent to and deposited with the competent court. In order to avoid some confusion which can be caused by its interpretation and application, the Article 32 (4) of Arbitration Act of Korea needs to be abolished or at least modified.

• Journal of the Korea Society of Computer and Information
• /
• v.26 no.10
• /
• pp.147-155
• /
• 2021

If one wants to file a lawsuit against the administrative office, he or she should decide whether to file a civil lawsuit or an administrative lawsuit. The type of lawsuit must be determined to determine which court to file the lawsuit with. Korea seems to have a clear distinction between administrative and judicial legal relationships, but it is not easy to distinguish between public and judicial cases unless the public and judicial discrimination are maintained. The practice or precedent of litigation is always difficult to distinguish because the litigation is based on the discrimination of whether the litigation belongs to a legal relationship in public law or judicial law. I believe that if the administrative litigation law establishes a provision related to the designation of a duty and stipulates that "if a litigation case is questioned whether it is an administrative or civil lawsuit, the Supreme Court-related court shall designate the competent court at the request of the parties," the lower court will be guaranteed the right to swift a trial, and the legal representatives will be freed from the exhaustive agony.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.27 no.1
• /
• pp.37-57
• /
• 2017

An arbitrator in Pakistan is required to file an arbitral award in a civil court of competent jurisdiction for its recognition and enforcement if an arbitral award is domestic or before the concerned High Court if the arbitral award is international. The court of law is required to issue a decree upon submitted arbitral award if an interested party do not apply for modification or remission of an arbitral award and do not challenge it for setting it aside or for revocation of its recognition and enforcement within a prescribed time limit. The challenging process of an arbitral award can be started by the aggrieved party of an arbitration agreement at the seat of arbitration or at the place where recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award is sought. The aggrieved party to an arbitration agreement is required to challenge an arbitral award within a prescribed time limit if contracting parties have not excluded the right to challenge an arbitral award. Limitation for challenging an arbitral award in Pakistan is 30 days under article 158 of the Limitation Act 1908, starting from the date of service of notice of filling of an arbitral award before the court of law. Generally, 90 days are given for an appeal against decision of the civil court of law under section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, it is therefore highly recommended that challenging time of an arbitral award should be increased from 30 to 90 days.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.35
• /
• pp.101-124
• /
• 2007

This paper purposes to examine the setting aside and the refusal of enforcement of arbitral awards and their implications for practitioners. The aim of challenging an award before a national court at the seat, or place, of arbitration is to have it modified in some way by the relevant court, or more usually, to have that court declare that the award is to be disregarded (i.e. "annulled" or "set aside") in whole or in part. If an award is set aside or annulled by the relevant court, it will usually be treated as invalid and accordingly unenforceable, not only by the courts of the seat of arbitration but also by national courts elsewhere. This is because, under both the 1958 New York Convention and the UNCITRAL Model Law, the competent court may refuse to grant recognition and enforcement of an award that has been "set aside" by a court of the seat of arbitration. The New York Convention set out various grounds for refusal of recognition and enforcement of an arbitration award. The provisions of the Model Law governing recognition, enforcement or setting-aside of awards are almost identical to those set out in the Convention. Especially, the New York Convention and the Model Law state that an arbitral award may be refused and set aside if a national court of the place of arbitration finds that the award is in conflict with the public policy of its own country. Each state has its own concept of what is required by its "public policy". It is possible to envisage, for example, a dispute over the division of gaming profits from a casino. In many states, the underlying transaction that led to the award would be regarded as a normal commercial transaction and the award would be regarded as valid. Indeed, it is a consistent theme to be found in the legislation and judical decision of many countries. If a workable definition of "international public policy" could be found, it would provide an effective way of preventing an award in an international arbitration from being set aside and refusal for purely domestic policy consideration.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.13
• /
• pp.69-81
• /
• 2000

Under the co-sponsorship of UNIDROIT and I.C.A.O., a preliminary draft Convention on International Interests in Mobile Equipment and a preliminary draft Protocol on Matters Specific to Aircraft Equipment has been prepared. The purpose of the Convention is to provide for the creation and effect of a new international interest in mobile equipment. The Convention's approach is quite novel in that it purports to create an international interest based upon the convention itself. The Convention is intended to be supplemented by Protocols, each of is intended to provide equipment-specific rules necessary to adapt the rules of the Convention to fit the special pattern of financing for different categories of equipment. To date, two sessions of governmental experts were held in Rome and Montreal. Korean delegations attended the two sessions. One of the members of the Korean delegation published a report on the first session. He expressed his objection to the so called self-help remedy contemplated by the current preliminary draft of the Convention which enables the holder of a security interest to repossess and dispose of the subject of the security interest by private sale rather than public auction on the occurrence of an event of default of the debtor. His view is based upon his understanding that under Korean law, the only remedy available to the holder of a security interest in mobile equipment, such as an airplane, is to apply to the competent court for a public auction. In my view, his understanding is not quite correct and is inconsistent with the current practice in Korea. Under Korean law, the parties' agreement for private sale is in principle valid unless there is an interested party who has acquired a security interest after the creation of the prior security interest or a creditor who has caused the subject of the security interest to be attached by a competent court. In this article, I discuss the current Korean law and practice relating to the enforcement of security interests by private sale in more detail.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.20 no.1
• /
• pp.133-167
• /
• 2010

The enforcement of commercial arbitration awards in the People's Republic of China is one the controversial obstacles faced by foreign investors in China. The foreign investor will fail to enforce the arbitration award, if the Chinese court refuses the enforcement in China, even if the arbitration tribunal rules the award in favor of foreign investor who is in dispute with Chinese partners. In Korea, we have not many researches in the enforcement of foreign related awards and awards ruled by other jurisdiction. In recent times, Professor Kyung-Ja Cha(2005) and Professor Sun-Jeong Kim(2008) analyzed the enforcement of arbitration awards in China. Professor Kyung-Ja Cha(2005) reports the details of the enforcement statistics of CIETAC during 1990s. Professor Sun-Jeong Kim(2008) analyzed the obstacles of the enforcement of foreign related awards in China. This paper extends their researches in the field of the enforcement of arbitration awards in China. First, this paper extends Professor Kyung-Ja Cha(2005)'s study by introducing the Chinese enforcement situation during the period of 2000-2007. Second, this paper extends Professor Sunjung Kim(2008) emphasizes the local protectionism and the weakness of judiciary as key factors of obstacles to enforce the foreign related awards in People's Republic of China. This paper, additionally, highlights the role of the Guanxi and the antagonism of court toward arbitration institution to enforce the foreign related awards in People's Republic of China. Third, this study provides the recent developments of Supreme People's Court(SPC)'s rules to narrow down the gap between the practices of international arbitration and those of People's Republic of China. The Implications of this study are as follows. First, it is desirable for foreign investors to appoint the CIETAC or BAC as the arbitration commission in China. Second, the local competent attorney is the best choice to solve the respondent's insolvency in China. Third, foreign investors is required to monitor the provisions on the electronic instruments such as EDI and Email in Chinese law.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.13
• /
• pp.131-149
• /
• 2000

In connection with international commercial arbitration the need to seek interim relief is generally recognized. Interim reliefs address the requirements of a party for immediate and temporary protection of rights or property pending a decision on the merits by the arbitral tribunal. The most common forms of interim relief are attachments and injunctions. If the arbitral tribunal has not yet been appointed, an application for interim relief must usually be addressed to the local courts at the place of commercial arbitration. If the arbitral tribunal has been appointed, the application for interim relief is first made to the arbitral tribunal. Interim relief by the arbitral tribunal is in the form of a direction to the parties. Since the arbitral tribunal has no enforcement power, it may be necessary to have a arbitral tribunal's direction confirmed by a local court which can enforce its order. The New York Convention does not provide for interim reliefs. The question is whether Article II(3) of the New York Convention that the court "shall, at the request of one of the parties, refer the parties to arbitration" denies jurisdiction to courts to grant interim reliefs in international commercial arbitration. Some cases have indicated that the U. S. court have no power to grant interim relief. Other cases have indicated that the U. S. courts do have the power to grant interim relief. It is unlikely that a U. S. court will order interim relief in relation to an commercial arbitration in a foreign country. Article 26 of the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules provides with respect to interim measures of protection. Section 1 of Article 26 of UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules provides that the arbitral tribunal may take any interim measures it deems necessary in respect of the subject matter of the dispute, including measures for the conservation of the goods forming the subject matter in dispute. This article gives the arbitral tribunal the broadest authority, not limited to safeguarding property. Article 17 of the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration provides that the arbitral tribunal may order any party to take such interim measure of protection as the arbitral tribunal may consider necessary in respect of the subject matter of the dispute. It may be noted that the article does not deal with enforcement of such measures. The International Chamber of Commerce Rules of Conciliation and Arbitration do not expressly empower the arbitral tribunal to grant interim reliefs. However, Article 8.5 of the ICC Rules of Conciliation and Arbitration provides that the parties shall be at liberty to apply to any competent judicial authority for interim measures. In conclusion, the power of the arbitral tribunal to provide interim reliefs is generally recognized in the arbitration rules of arbitral institutions. However, the arbitral tribunal's authority is limited by its lack of enforcement mechanisms. It is generally recognized that the local courts have power to grant interim reliefs in aid of an commercial arbitration. However, local courts are reluctant to grant interim reliefs if that decision requires an adjudication of issues within the special competence of the arbitral tribunal.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.47
• /
• pp.129-156
• /
• 2010

Since the 1970s, international construction employers have commonly requested first demand guarantees upon their contractors as a form of security for due performance of their works. Contractors prefer the greater protection offered by more traditional forms of security requiring presentation of an arbitral award or other evidence of the caller's entitlement to compensation. Many contractors nonetheless feel that they have no alternative but to provide these unconditional guarantees in order to compete. However, these unconditional first demand guarantees are controversial and have given rise to numerous disputes both in arbitration and litigation. Disputes arising from first demand guarantees can be broken down into a) applications to prevent a perceived fraudulent or otherwise unfair or improper calling of a guarantee, b) claims arising from such abusive calls and c) claims relating to the consequences of such calls even if the call itself may not be abusive as such. The contractors should carefully assess the risk of an abusive call being made bearing in mind the difficulties he may face in seeking to prevent such a call. He should also bear in mind the difficulties, delays and cost he is likely to encounter in seeking to recover any monies wrongfully called. One option would be to provide that the call can only be made once and to the extent that the employer's damages have been assessed or even incurred or even for the default to have been established by an arbitral tribunal or court. Another option would be to provide that any call be accompanied by a decision of a competent and impartial third party stating that the contractor is in breach. For example, such a requirement could be incorporated into a construction contract based on the FIDIC Conditions by submitting this decision to a Dispute Adjudication Board. Another option would be to provide for the "ICC Counter-Guarantee Scheme". In sum, there would appear to be room for compromise between the employer and the contractor in respect of first demand guarantees by conditioning the entitlement to call such guarantees to the determination of a competent and impartial third party.

• Journal of Information Technology Services
• /
• v.19 no.3
• /
• pp.57-73
• /
• 2020

The proportion of digital evidence in criminal cases has increased, while at the same time, the spread of the Internet has made it easy to delete information that is stored in another place and thus, the Internet is being used to delete online criminal evidence. To respond quickly and effectively to cybercrime, 29 countries signed the Convention on Cybercrime in 2001 through the Council of Europe. Article 16 of the Convention relates to the expedited preservation of stored computer data and requires signatories to adopt legislative measures to enable its competent authorities to order expeditious preservation of specified computer data where there are grounds to believe that the data is particularly vulnerable to loss or modification. More than 60 countries have joined the Convention since 2001 and have made efforts to improve their legal system in line with it. The United States legislated 18 U.S.C. § 2703(f) to preserve electronic evidence pending the issuance of a court order. The German Code of Criminal Procedure §§ 94~95 allows prosecution authorities to seize evidence or issue production orders without court control in urgent circumstances. A custodian shall be obliged to surrender evidence upon a request that evidence be preserved, and non-compliance results in punishment. Japan legislated the Criminal Procedure Act § 197(3) and (4) to establish a legal base for requesting that electronic records that are stored by an ISP not be deleted. The Korean Criminal Procedure Act § 184 outlines procedures for the preservation of evidence but does not adequately address the expeditious preservation of digital evidence that may be vulnerable to deletion. This paper analyzes nine considerations, including request subjects, requirements, and cost reimbursement to establish directions to improve the legal system for the expedited preservation of digital evidence. A new method to preserve online digital evidence in urgent cases is necessary.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.14 no.1
• /
• pp.29-60
• /
• 2004

Recently stand-by credits are using as surety devices in various global business transactions including sale of goods. Stand-by credits have lots of merits but simultaneously have high possibility of improper demand by the beneficiary due to the characteristics of the documents required. So so-called fraud rule has developed as a solution to the improper demand in letter of credit transactions. And the actual way of the fraud rule is the injunction by the competent court. The purpose of this article is to examine the applicability of the injunction in stand-by credit transactions by means of case studies. For this purpose, the author examined the concept of the injunction, necessity of the injunction in stand-by credit transactions and the cases of injunction granted and injunction denied. Firstly, the courts have legal standard of the application of injunction due to the legislation of the relative articles in the United Nations Convention on Independent Guarantees and Stand-by Letters of Credit and the Uniform Commercial Code. Secondly, the courts have taken a negative attitude granting injunction in order to observe the independence principle. Thirdly, the courts have a tendency to grant injunction when the demand has no conceivable basis and the applicant will suffer irreparable injury without injunction. Finally, like the saying 'prevention is the best cure', the applicant always pays attention with reasonable care before improper demand by the beneficiary.