• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제26권4호
• /
• pp.43-62
• /
• 2016

The international arbitration system has been a useful method of settling disputes arising from international transactions. Arbitration provides the opportunity for the parties to choose a fair and neutral forum and to participate in the selection of the decision maker and the rules that will be applied. Because arbitration is a creature of contract, there is no agreement to arbitrate if there is no contract. An arbitration clause should be designed to fit the circumstances of the transaction and the parties' needs. The parties draft an arbitration clause with insufficient attention to the transaction to which it relates. Insufficient attention to arbitration agreement has caused the delay of arbitration procedure or even the inability to arbitrate. Therefore the parties pay sufficient attention to the underlying transaction so that the arbitration clause can be tailored to their particular requirements and to possible disputes that may reasonably be anticipated.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제13권1호
• /
• pp.169-205
• /
• 2003

Arbitration means the procedure that a party inquires a third party arbitrator for a resolution on the dispute on certain matters of interest to follow through with the commitment of the arbitration, and a series of procedures performed by the arbitrator of the Korean Commercial Arbitration Board. Arbitration is implemented in accordance with the procedure determined by the Arbitration Act and Arbitration Regulations. In the event the parties reach to the reconciliation during the process of arbitration, the reconciliation is recorded in the form of arbitration award(decision), and in the event a reconciliation is not made, the arbitrator shall make the decision on the particular case. The arbitration award(decision) for reconciliation during the arbitration procedure (Article 31 of Arbitration Act, hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') or the mediation under the Arbitration Regulation of the Korean Commercial Arbitration Board (Article 18 of the Arbitration Regulations) shall have the same effectiveness with the decision rendered by a court that, in the event a party does not perform the obligation, the enforcement document is rendered under the Rules on Enforcement Document on Mediation Statement of various dispute resolution committees of the Supreme Court to carry out the compulsory enforcement. However, in the event that the party to take on the obligation to perform under the arbitration award (decision) rendered by the arbitrator (Article 32 of the Act) does not perform without due cause, a separate enforcement decision in accordance with the procedure determined under the Civil Enforcement Act shall be obtained since the arbitration award(decision) cannot be the basis of enforcement under the Civil Enforcement Act. And, in order to enforce the judgment compulsorily in accordance with the regulations under the Civil Enforcement Act under the foreign arbitration judgment (Article 39 of the A.1), it shall fulfill the requirement determined under the Civil Litigation Act (article 217 of Civil Litigation Act) and shall obtain a separate enforcement decision in accordance with the procedure determined under the Civil Enforcement Act (Article 26 and Article 27 of Civil Enforcement Act) since the arbitration judgment of foreign country shall not be based on enforcement under the Civil Enforcement Act. It may be the issue of legislation not to recognize the arbitration award(decision) as a source of enforcement right, and provide the compulsive enforcement by recognizing it for enforcement right after obtaining the enforcement document with the decision of a court, however, not recognizing the arbitration award(decision) as the source of enforcement right is against Clause 3 of Article 31 of the Act, provisions of Article 35, Article 38 and Article 39 that recognized the validity of arbitration as equal to the final judgment of a court, and the definition that the enforcement decision of a court shall require the in compulsory enforcement under Clause 1 of Article 37 of the Act which clearly is a conflict of principle as well. Anyhow, in order to enforce the arbitration award(decision) mandatorily, the party shall bring the litigation of enforcement decision claim to the court, and the court shall deliberate with the same procedure with general civil cases under the Civil Litigation Act. During the deliberation, the party obligated under the arbitration award(decision) intended to not to undertake the obligation and delay it raises the claim and suspend the enforcement of cancelling the arbitration award(decision) on the applicable arbitration decision within 3 months from the date of receiving the authentic copy of the arbitration award(decision) or the date of receiving the authentic copy of correction, interpretation or additional decision under the Regulation of Article 34 of the Act (Clause 3 of Article 36 of the Act). This legislation to delay the sentencing of the enforcement and then to sentence the enforcement decision brings the difficulties to a party to litigation costs and time for compulsory enforcement where there is a requirement of an urgency. With the most of cases for arbitration being the special field to make the decision only with the specialized knowledge that the arbitrator shall be the specialists who have appropriate knowledge of the system and render the most reasonable and fair decision for the arbitration. However, going through the second review by a court would be most important, irreparable and serious factor to interfere with the activation of the arbitration system. The only way to activate the arbitration system that failed to secure the practicality due to such a factor, is to revise the Arbitration Act and Arbitration Regulations so that the arbitration decision shall have the right to enforce under the Rules on Enforcement Document on Mediation Statement of various dispute resolution committees of the Supreme Court.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제8권1호
• /
• pp.3-33
• /
• 1998

Since the Start of WTO in 1995, world trade volume was substantially increased as much as over $250 billion by lifting the trade barriors This effect brought new problem of increasing disputes. Significantly an ever increasing atention is paid to the Question of means and procedures of settling such disputes by arbtration. The problem of arbitration has indeed become most popular with all those who take interest in legal aspects of international cooperation in various spheres. In practice arbitration seems to renovate its function to take over new disputes arising from electronic transaction such as internet trade. Looking at the actual use of arbitration, its merits than litigation should cover new aspect concerning new kind of claims caused by new type of transaction. The efficient procedure for dispute will help every country save loss of profit by the delay of settlment. This thesis aims to facilitate the appearence of more efficient arbitration procedure for dispute settlment system.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제26권4호
• /
• pp.3-41
• /
• 2016

This paper reviews the problems on the arbitral awards enforcement in the 2016 Korean Arbitration Act. In order to get easy and rapid enforcement of the arbitral awards, the new arbitration act changed the enforcement procedure from an enforcement judgement procedure to an enforcement decision procedure. However, like the old arbitration act, the new act is still not arbitration friendly. First of all, there are various problems in the new act because it does not approve that an arbitral award can be a schuldtitel (title of enforcement) of which the arbitral award can be enforced. In this paper, several problems of the new act are discussed: effect of arbitral award, approval to res judicata of enforcement decision, different trial process and result for same ground, possibility of abuse of litigation for setting aside arbitral awards and delay of enforcement caused by setting aside, infringement of arbitration customer's right to be informed, and non-internationality of enforcement of interim measures of protection, inter alia. The new arbitration act added a proviso on article 35 (Effect of Arbitral Awards). According to article 35 of the old arbitration act, arbitral awards shall have the same effect on the parties as the final and conclusive judgement of the court. The proviso of article 35 in the new act can be interpret two ways: if arbitral awards have any ground of refusal of recognition or enforcement according to article 38, the arbitral awards do not have the same effect on the parties as the final and conclusive judgement of the court; if arbitral awards have not recognised or been enforced according to article 38, the arbitral awards do not have the same effect on the parties as the final and conclusive judgement of the court. In the case of the former, the parties cannot file action for setting aside arbitral awards in article 36 to the court, and this is one of the important problems of the new act. In the new act, same ground of setting aside arbitral awards can be tried in different trial process with or without plead according to article 35 and 37. Therefore, progress of enforcement decision of arbitral awards can be blocked by the action of setting aside arbitral awards. If so, parties have to spend their time and money to go on unexpected litigation. In order to simplify enforcement procedure of arbitral awards, the new act changed enforcement judgement procedure to enforcement decision procedure. However, there is still room for the court to hear a case in the same way of enforcement judgement procedure. Although the new act simplifies enforcement procedure by changing enforcement judgement procedure to enforcement decision procedure, there still remains action of setting aside arbitral awards, so that enforcement of arbitral awards still can be delayed by it. Moreover, another problem exists in that the parties could have to wait until a seventh trial (maximum) for a final decision. This result in not good for the arbitration system itself in the respect of confidence as well as cost. If the arbitration institution promotes to use arbitration by emphasizing single-trial system of arbitration without enough improvement of enforcement procedure in the arbitration system, it would infringe the arbitration customer's right to be informed, and further raise a problem of legal responsibility of arbitration institution. With reference to enforcement procedure of interim measures of protection, the new act did not provide preliminary orders, and moreover limit the court not to recognize interim measures of protection done in a foreign country. These have a bad effect on the internationalization of the Korean arbitration system.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제36권
• /
• pp.111-140
• /
• 2007

This paper intends to review the qualifications of arbitrator, the disclosure of disqualifications by arbitrator, the challenge grounds of arbitrator, and the challenge procedure of arbitrator under the arbitration laws and rules. There are no provisions for the qualification of arbitrator in the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration. Under the UNCITRAL Model Law on person shall be precluded by reason of his nationality from acting as an arbitrators. Under the UNCITRAL Model Law when a person is approached in connection with his possible appointment as an arbitrator, he shall disclose any circumstances likely to give rise to justifiable doubts as to his impartiality or independence. An arbitrator, from the time of his appointment and throughout the arbitral proceedings, shall without delay disclose any such circumstances to the parties. Under the UNCITRAL Model Law an arbitrator may be challenged only if circumstances exist that give rise to justifiable doubts as to his impartiality or independence, or if he does not possess qualifications agreed to by the parties. Under the UNCITRAL Model Law the parties are free to agree on a procedure for challenge an arbitrator. Failing such agreement, a party who intends to challenge an arbitrator shall send a written statement of the reasons for the challenge to the arbitral tribunal within 15 days after becoming aware of the constitution of the arbitral tribunal or any circumstance that give rise to justifiable doubts as to his impartiality or independence. Unless the challenged arbitrator withdraws from his office or the other party agrees to the challenge, the arbitral tribunal shall decide on the challenge. In conclusion, an arbitrator has a responsibility not only to the parties but also to the process of arbitration, and must observe high standards of conduct so that the integrity and must observe high standards of conduct so that the integrity and fairness of the process will be preserved.

• 항공우주정책ㆍ법학회지
• /
• 제33권2호
• /
• pp.225-266
• /
• 2018

2017년 한국소비자원에 접수된 항공여객운송서비스 관련 피해구제 접수건수는 1,252건으로 2016년 1,262건 대비 0.8% 감소하여 2013년 이후 처음으로 감소세를 나타냈다. 그리고 2017년 한국소비자원에 접수된 항공여객운송서비스 분야의 피해구제 접수건 가운데 444건(35.4%)이 합의가 성립되었으며, 합의가 성립되지 않은 건 중에서 정보제공 상담 기타로 종결된 경우가 588건(47.0%)으로 가장 많았고, 소비자분쟁조정위원회에 조정 신청된 경우가 186건(14.9%)이었다. 항공서비스 소비자 피해구제와 분쟁해결을 위한 규정을 두고 있는 주요입법으로는 항공사업법, 소비자기본법 등이 있는데, 항공사업법에서 항공교통사업자의 피해구제절차와 처리계획의 수립 및 이행 그리고 피해구제 신청 접수 및 처리, 항공교통이용자 보호기준의 고시 등에 관하여 규정하고 있으며, 소비자기본법에서 소비자상담기구의 실치 운영, 한국소비자원의 피해구제, 소비자분쟁의 조정, 소비자분쟁해결기준의 제정 등에 관하여 규정하고 있다. 항공서비스 소비자 피해구제 절차로는 항공교통사업자의 피해구제 접수 처리, 소비자상담센터의 상담 및 피해구제 접수 처리, 한국소비자원의 합의권고, 소비자분쟁조정위원회의 분쟁조정제도 등이 있다. 현행 항공서비스 소비자 피해구제 및 분쟁조정 제도에는 항공사업법 상 항공교통사업자의 피해구제계획 수립 및 이행 의무의 면제, 항공부문 소비자분쟁해결기준 상 운송 불이행 및 지연의 경우 면책 등에 대하여 문제점이 있고, 그리고 소비자기본법상 소비자분쟁조정의 절차진행 및 조정성립에 대하여 한계점이 있다. 따라서 항공서비스 소비자에 대한 적절한 피해구제와 원활한 분쟁조정을 위하여 관련 제도의 개선방안을 제시하면 다음과 같다. 첫째 항공서비스 소비자 피해구제 관련 법규의 정비이다. 항공사업법 상 항공교통사업자의 피해구제계획 수립과 이행 의무의 면제규정이 수정되어야 할 것이다. 또한 항공서비스 소비자 보호와 피해구제에 관한 법 규정의 체계화와 전문성 제고를 위해 미국연방규칙 14 CFR 및 EU의 EC 261/2004 규칙과 유사한 별도 입법을 마련할 필요가 있을 것이다. 둘째 항공서비스 소비자 분쟁해결기준의 개선이다. 항공부문 소비자분쟁해결기준 상 항공사업자의 운송 불이행 및 운송지연의 경우 면책사유의 발생 원인이 불가항력이었는지를 규명하여 면책여부를 판별하여야 하고, 상법 항공운송편 및 1999년 몬트리올 협약에 규정된 면책사유와 같이 수정되어야 하며, 대체편이 제공된 운송 불이행의 경우와 운송지연에 대하여 배상기준을 통일하는 것이 필요할 것이다. 셋째 항공서비스 소비자 피해구제를 위한 정보제공의 강화이다. 항공관련 정부기관 및 유관기관들은 항공사 및 공항과 협력하여 항공서비스 소비자 피해구제를 위한 법규와 정책 등 다양한 정보를 항공교통이용자에게 보다 신속 명확하게 제공해야 할 것이다. 넷째 소비자분쟁조정의 효력 등에 관한 보완이다. 분쟁조정에 대한 수락 의사표시가 없을 경우 수락한 것으로 보는 것은 부당하므로 이의신청제도를 추가할 필요가 있을 것이다. 또한 소비자분쟁조정위원회 이외 다른 분쟁조정기구에 중복으로 분쟁해결을 신청한 경우 피해구제 대상에서 제외하고 있으나 당사자가 조정기관을 선택할 수 있도록 해야 할 것이다. 그리고 소비자분쟁이 조정을 통하여 효율적으로 해결될 수 있도록 조정성립률을 높일 수 있는 제도적 방안을 강구할 필요가 있을 것이다. 다섯째 항공서비스 소비자 중재제도의 도입이다. 소비자분쟁 조정제도의 한계점을 보완할 수 있는 방안으로 소비자 중재제도를 도입하되, 소비자기본법 상 중재 도입안과 중재법 상 소비자중재 도입안이 있는데, 후자의 방안이 적합할 것으로 생각된다. 결론적으로, 정책과제로서 항공서비스 소비자의 피해 예방 및 구제를 강화하는 법 제도를 마련하고, 항공서비스 선진화를 위한 소비자 중심의 정책을 수립 추진해야 할 것이다.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제17권2호
• /
• pp.167-187
• /
• 2007

As Korea has reached a free trade agreement with the United States of America, it is required to provide an appropriate procedure to ".kr" domain name disputes based on the principles established in the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy(UDRP). Currently, Internet address Dispute Resolution Committee(IDRC) established under Article 16 of the Act on Internet Address Resources provides the dispute resolution proceedings to resolve ".kr" domain name disputes. While the IDRC's proceeding is similar to the UDRP administrative proceeding in procedural aspects, the Domain Name Dispute Mediation Policy that is established by the IDRC and that applies to disputes involving ".kr" domain names is very different from the UDRP for generic Top Level Domain (gTLD) in substantial aspects. Under the Korea-U.S. Free Trade Agreement(KORUS FTA), it is expected that either the Domain Name Dispute Mediation Policy to be amended to adopt the UDRP or the IDRC to examine the Domain Name Dispute Mediation Policy in order to harmonize it with the principles established in the UDRP. It is a common practice of cybersquatters to warehouse a number of domain names without any active use of these domain names after their registration. The Domain Name Dispute Mediation Policy provides that the complainant may request to transfer or delete the registration of the disputed domain name if the registrant registered, holds or uses the disputed domain name in bad faith. This provision lifts the complainant's burden of proof to show the respondent's bad faith because the complainant is only required to prove one of the three bad faiths which are registration in bad faith, holding in bad faith, or use in bad faith. The aforementioned resolution procedure is different from the UDRP regime which requires the complainant, in compliance with paragraph 4(b) of the UDRP, to prove that the disputed domain name has been registered in bad faith and is being used in bad faith. Therefore, the complainant carries heavy burden of proof under the UDRP. The IDRC should deny the complaint if the respondent has legitimate rights or interests in the domain names. Under the UDRP, the complainant must show that the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The UDRP sets out three illustrative circumstances, any one of which if proved by the respondent, shall be evidence of the respondent's rights to or legitimate interests in the domain name. As the Domain Name Dispute Mediation Policy provides only a general provision regarding the respondent's legitimate rights or interests, the respondent can be placed in a very week foundation to be protected under the Policy. It is therefore recommended for the IDRC to adopt the three UDRP circumstances to guide how the respondent can demonstrate his/her legitimate rights or interests in the disputed domain name. In accordance with the KORUS FTA, the Korean Government is required to provide online publication to a reliable and accurate database of contact information concerning domain name registrants. Cybersquatters often provide inaccurate contact information or willfully conceal their identity to avoid objection by trademark owners. It may cause unnecessary and unwarranted delay of the administrative proceedings. The respondent may loss the opportunity to assert his/her rights or legitimate interests in the domain name due to inability to submit the response effectively and timely. The respondent could breach a registration agreement with a registrar which requires the registrant to submit and update accurate contact information. The respondent who is reluctant to disclose his/her contact information on the Internet citing for privacy rights and protection. This is however debatable as the respondent may use the proxy registration service provided by the registrar to protect the respondent's privacy.