• 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.

• 의료법학
• /
• 제16권2호
• /
• pp.27-53
• /
• 2015

최근, 서울의 성형수술 병원에서 중국 여성 환자가 사망한 원인이 대리 의사의 무단 유령수술 때문이 아니냐는 의혹이 제기되었다. 사고가 발생한 후, 소비자시민모임과 한국환자단체연합회는 지난 3월 유령수술감시운동본부를 발족시켰다. 환자가 알지 못하는 상태에서 환자의 동의 없이 담당 의사를 교체하는 것은 사기행위이자 기본적인 윤리를 저해하는 행위이다. 환자는 1명의 인간으로서 자신을 치료할 의사를 선택할 권리가 있으며, 대리의사를 용인하거나 거부할 수 있는 권한도 환자에게 부여되어야 한다. 환자가 수술을 허락한 사람은 집도의라는 점을 유의해야 한다. 환자는 자신이 계약한 의사로부터 치료를 받을 권리가 있다. 환자를 치료하는 의사는 환자-의사 관계를 창출하는 계약이 허용하는 범위 내에서 자신의 능력껏 수술을 시행할 의무가 있다. 그는 환자로부터 부여 받은 수술 권한을 다른 사람에게 위임할 수 없다. '유령수술은 형법 제257조(상해, 존속상해)가 적용된다. 환자가 알지 못하는 상태에서 환자의 동의 없이 집도의를 교체하는 것은 상해행위이다. 이 부분이 쟁점인데, '유령 수술이 형법 제347조(사기)와도 연관이 있기 때문이다. 환자가 알지 못하는 상태에서 환자의 동의 없이 다른 의사가 수술을 대신하는 것이 사기 행위에 해당하는지 하는 문제도 쟁점이 될 수 있다. 뿐만 아니라, 유령 수술은 의료법 제27조(무면허 의료행위 등 금지), 제22조(진료기록부 등), 제33조(개설 등)와도 관련이 있다. 환자에 대한 의사의 의무는 (1) 수술 동의를 통해 자신에게 주어진 권한의 범위 내에서; (2) 계약 조건에 따라; (3) 수술의 필요성/진행과 관련된 모든 사실을 완전하게 공개하고, (4) 자신의 모든 역량을 발휘하면서 수술에 임하는 것이다.