• 무역학회지
• /
• 제43권6호
• /
• pp.139-160
• /
• 2018

본 연구는 중재판정부의 임시적 처분에 대하여 중국 정부가 어떤 기준에 근거하여 판단하고 있는지 관련 사례분석을 통해 규명하고자 하였다. 먼저 대부분의 국가에서 중재판정부 에 의한 임시적 처분을 인정하고 있는 반면, 중국은 여전히 법원 고유의 권한으로 인정하고 있다. 이는 국제적 추세와 불일치하는 판단이기도 하다. 특히 주요법률 규정인 중재법과 민사소송법이 2017년에 개정되었음에도 임시적 처분에 대한 규정은 변화가 없고 여전히 중재규칙간의 불일치로 인한 문제가 남아 있다. 따라서 중재절차상 임시적 처분이 어떻게 적용하고 집행하는지 중국의 입장과 태도에 대해서 주의를 기울일 필요가 있다.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제34권1호
• /
• pp.27-50
• /
• 2024

This paper examines issues concerning conflicts between arbitral awards and public interests, particularly with respect to economic sanctions. Sanctions have been widely used by political entities, such as States and organizations, as means to promote public interests and to resolve cross-border disputes. In particular, economic sanctions have been increasingly more visible in recent years due to the accelerating fragmentation of the international communities, and their magnitude and range of the impacts have grown accordingly. For example, the U.S. and the EU have imposed economic sanctions on Russia and related persons in response to Russia's invasion of Ukraine. The U.S. recently re-introduced a comprehensive economic sanction on Iran. One of the notable impacts of the sanctions, particularly economic sanctions, is that on international arbitration. Sanctions are essentially built on the notion of the protection of public interests, and public interests are some of the few grounds upon which recognition and enforceability or arbitral awards may be rejected. However, jurisprudence on such conflict between sanctions and arbitral awards have not been sufficiently addressed in Korea because court case and administrative decision records on this conflict have not been sufficiently accumulated. In this regard, this paper begins with offering a survey of the concept of public interests, economic and trade sanctions, arbitral awards and their enforceability, and the relationships between them. It then examines the mechanism upon which public interests, trade and economic sanctions may lead certain arbitral awards unenforceable. Next, the paper suggests judiciaries' balanced approach toward the public interests protected by trade and economic sanctions and the predictability and fairness in the enforcement of arbitral awards. Finally, this paper concludes with the methods of the implementation of such balanced approach.

• 통상정보연구
• /
• 제15권1호
• /
• pp.259-283
• /
• 2013

수출신용보증은 수출계약과 관련하여 외국환은행이 중소기업자인 수출업자에게 수출신용보증서를 담보로 대출함에 따라 발생하는 수출자의 상환채무에 대하여 한국무역보험공사가 그 지급을 연대보증하는 것으로 외국환은행은 안심하고 수출금융을 취급할 수 있다. 또한 중소기업 수출자도 별도의 담보를 제공하지 않아 현재 중소기업은 전용보증제도인 수출보험제도를 가장 선호하고 있다. 하지만 한국무역보험공사가 지원하는 수출신용보증의 경우 최근 5년간 인수실적이 공사 전체 인수실적(보험 및 보증인수 총액, 총 604조여 원)의 2.64%(16조여 원)에 불과한데도 5,262억 원의 보험수지 적자가 발생하는 등 무역기금손실의 주요 요인으로 작용하고 있다. 따라서 본고에서는 중소기업의 건전한 수출지원 정책으로서 안정적인 무역금융지원기반을 마련하고 기금운용의 건전성 확보와 절감 방안을 검토하기 위해 2011년 11월 감사원의 무역보험실태 보고서를 토대로 수출신용보증제도의 사례분석을 통해 문제점을 고찰하고 무역보험운용상의 개선방안을 도출하고자 한다.

• 무역학회지
• /
• 제44권6호
• /
• pp.1-21
• /
• 2019

In the case of a sea transport contract, the decision of the governing law, together with the choice of lex fori, shall be a legal issue in all legal disputes involving damage to the goods. In sea transport contracts, a paramount clause is often established in conjunction with the governing law clause, which can lead to conflict between these two clauses. Most B/L's back clauses contain a paramount clause that provides that the Hague Rules, Hague-Visby Rules, or foreign laws that prevail over other provisions of the terms. The Hague Rules and the Hague-Visby Rules, however, set different standards regarding the extent of the sea carrier's liability. Therefore, in the interpretation of ground conditions, it is an important question whether the Hague Rules or the Hague-Visby Rules are applied or whether each rule is applied as a law. For example, the paramount clause in the Superior Pescadores case was problematic in the interpretation of the term 'Hague Rules.' In this case, the English Court held that the expression 'Hague Rules' could be used to mean the Hague-Visby Rules, and not exclusively the Hague Rules. Therefore, the Hague-Visby Rules were applied in the judgment of this case, which suggests that this case can be a valuable precedent in future legal matters.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제18권2호
• /
• pp.129-148
• /
• 2008

국제거래에서 분쟁이 소송으로 발전될 경우 당해 사안에 적용될 준거법의 결정문제와 어느 나라의 법원에서 재판을 받을 것인가에 대한 국제재판관할권의 문제가 빈번히 대두되고 있다. 소송을 제기하는 당사자들로서는 자신에게 유리한 재판결과를 얻을 수 있는 법이 준거법으로 선택될 가능성이 있는 국가의 법원에 소송을 제기하는 소위 '포럼 쇼핑 (forum shopping)' 전략을 세우기도 한다. 이러한 포럼 쇼핑에 대응하기 위해 영미 판례법인 common law에서는 오래 전부터 forum non conveniens를 확립하였다. 본 논문에서는 forum non conveniens를 심리한 미국 대법원의 판단기준을 살펴보면 먼저, 적절한 대체관할지의 존재여부이며, 둘째 사적이익 부분에서 자국민이 현저하기 불리한 위치에 처하는지를 확인하고, 셋째 공적이익 부분에서 미국의 이익이 심각하게 침해되지는 않는지를 검토하여 판단하게 된다. 이러한 법리적 판단근거를 제시하고 이에 대한 적용사례를 분석하여 향후 무역거래를 포함한 일련의 국제계약에 있어 분쟁시 국내기업들이 미국법정에 재판받지 않고 국내법원으로 재판관할지를 선택할 수 있는 전략을 제시함으로써 패소가능성 등의 계약위험을 줄일 수 있을 것으로 판단된다.

• 무역학회지
• /
• 제48권3호
• /
• pp.23-41
• /
• 2023

무역계약의 이행기일은 매도인의 물품인도 기일과 매수인의 대금지급 기일이다. 신용장거래에서 무역계약의 이행기일은 신용장에서 명시된 선적기일과 서류매입기일로 본다. 매도인은 매수인으로부터 신용장을 받고나서 5 은행영업일 이내에 신용장의 승낙 여부를 결정하여야 하며 이 기간이 경과하면 매도인은 신용장을 거절할 수 없다. 그러나 매수인의 귀책 사유로 인하여 5 은행영업일 이내에 신용장의 승낙 여부를 결정하지 못하는 경우에는 신용장에 명시된 선적기일까지 연장된다. 매도인이 신용장 변경을 요청한 경우에 매수인은 반드시 이를 수락하여 매도인이 원하는 신용장을 변경하여 매도인에게 개설하여야 한다. 매수인이 매도인의 신용장 변경 요청을 거절하면 A사는 B사가 요청한 대로 신용장 내용을 변경하여 다시 개설할 의무가 있고 A사가 단순히 신용장의 변경을 지체한 것이 아니라 B사의 신용장 요청을 거절한 경우에는 B사가 견적서에 합의하여 기대할 수 있는 바를 실질적으로 박탈하는 것으로 국제물품매매계약에 관한 국제연합협약 제25조가 규정한 본질적인 계약위반에 해당되어 B사는 무역계약을 해제할 수 있고 A사에게 손해배상을 청구할 수 있다. A사의 무역계약 위반으로 인한 손해배상액은 이익의 상실을 포함하여 그 위반의 결과 B사가 입은 손실과 동등한 금액으로 하여야 한다.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제29권3호
• /
• pp.75-97
• /
• 2019

The growing importance of biological resources as sovereign rights to healthcare, energy, and food has sparked international discussions on Genetic Resources (GRs) and Traditional Knowledge (TK). As the bio-industry continues to grow, research and development utilizing patented biological resources are advocated. Currently, World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) is actively discussing GRs and TK, and an effective response to national interest has been sought. Of late, there have been growing disputes over issues like ownership, control, and access and benefit-sharing between indigenous peoples and users of GRs and TK resources. Resolution of disputes concerning GRs and TK are thus becoming critical not only to stakeholders such as the indigenous peoples and corporations, but also to third-party users. Due to the weakness of the current IP and court system however, such disputes are not addressed adequately. This paper will address the use of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR), which is an out-of-court dispute resolution system, on conflicting issues regarding GRs and TK. It will consider the WIPO as a forum for ADR and ADR for GRs and TK disputes and it will seek both parties in the dispute to benefit from the use of the ADR process.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제31권1호
• /
• 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.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제15권3호
• /
• pp.113-137
• /
• 2005

In the provisions of 'the Arbitration Law of China, there are special provisions for international arbitration. When a court refuses the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards or cancel the domestic awards relating to international arbitration, they have to adopt the provisions of 'Chinese Civil Procedure Law'. These provisions are the same as the provisions of Korean Civil Procedure Law concerning the reasons of renewal. In the Korean Arbitration Act, those provisions disappeared when it was revised on December 31, 1999. Among the characteristics of the Chinese arbitration system, a serious question is that it provides only institutional arbitration and there is no ad-hoc arbitration in the Chinese Arbitration Law. On the other hand, when the parties appoint three arbitrators according to their agreement, the parties appoint the third arbitrator by mutual agreement and when they fail to agree, the Arbitration Committee appoints the third arbitrator. In practice, as the parties hardly agree on the third arbitrator or sole arbitrator, the Committee usually appoints them. And appointing an arbitrator from out of their panel of arbitrators is permitted these days only under examination by the Arbitration Committee in accordance with the arbitration rules of the China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission, Other arbitration committees except the China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission are still prohibited from making appointments from out of their panel of arbitrators. Accordingly, arbitration in China cannot be predicted and poses a question about legal stability as party autonomy is restricted in the appointment of arbitrators and arbitral procedure. Such being the case it is strongly recommended to select Korea as the place of arbitration in transactions with China. However it is better to arbitrate than to file a law suit in China.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제30권1호
• /
• pp.67-86
• /
• 2020

In the case of multiple commerce contracts in commerce, as well as multiple contracts related to it, a solution for the merging of arbitration proceedings is necessary in order to ensure uniformity of dispute resolution. Since the arbitration proceedings are based on the parties' agreement, no merging of two or more arbitration proceedings may transpire unless all parties agree. Claims of merging in arbitration proceedings lead to problems such as lack of party autonomy, resulting from lack of consent of the parties to merging, and how to appoint an arbitrator in a multilateral arbitration proceeding. Many of the major arbitration bodies have recognized the significant benefits of the terms of consolidation, and have recently revised the Arbitration Rules to include or extend existing clauses to reflect the needs of the parties. This study introduces the merging provisions of several selected major arbitration rules, such as the ICC, Switzerland, SCC, LCIA, SIAC, HKIAC, ACICA, and UNCITRAL rules, and looks at the main similarities and differences among the rules.