• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제29권1호
• /
• pp.71-89
• /
• 2019

When the host states do not comply with the investor-state arbitral awards voluntarily, it is difficult for the successful claimants to seek the enforcement of arbitral awards against the host state because of the doctrine of state immunity. This raises a question whether the investors might be able to seize the assets of the state-owned enterprises, as well as those of the host states. The investors might consider the properties held by state-owned enterprises as an attractive target especially when it has been established that the host state is responsible for the act of its state-owned enterprise. In such case, the investor might argue that the close relationship between the state-owned enterprise and the host state has already been recognized so that the commercial assets of the state-owned enterprise could be subject to attachment. On the other hand, the host state might argue that the state-owned entity exists separately from the state, and thus its assets cannot be equated with those of the host state. Moreover, even if this argument is not accepted and, as a result, the properties of the state-owned entity is equated with those of the host state, the host state might still be able to argue that non-commercial assets of the state-owned enterprise are immune from execution.

• 식품과학과 산업
• /
• 제53권1호
• /
• pp.101-115
• /
• 2020

Korea has been managed HACCP with food and livestock products separately, but it was incorporated into food and livestock product safety management certification standard in 2015. Currently, the notification is unified, but food sanitation act and the livestock products sanitary control act are not unified. These differences are leading to complaints from food and livestock corporation. In this review, the food sanitation act, enforcement regulations of the food sanitation act, the livestock products sanitary control act and enforcement regulations of the livestock products sanitary control act were compared and analyzed to identify the part which requires unification. As a result of the survey, the thirteen clauses were proposed to unify in the food sanitation act and the livestock products sanitary control act. The nineteen clauses were proposed to unify in enforcement regulations of the food sanitation act and enforcement regulations of the livestock products sanitary control act.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제32권3호
• /
• pp.47-70
• /
• 2022

This paper studies legal regulation of the public policy exception in the Russian Federation and domestic judicial practice on the issue. It reviews current legislation and analyzes a number of recent court cases where an arbitral award rendered by a foreign arbitration body was refused recognition and enforcement based on public policy violation. By doing so, it contributes to the knowledge on the concept of public policy in the Russian legal system and how public policy can affect the process of recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards on its territory. The review of court cases demonstrates different aspects of how the public policy exception can be applied by Russian arbitrazh courts. Such decisions can provide a clearer picture of the kinds of situation that can lead to invoking the public policy clause by the court. Also, it is of practical value as persons preparing to file a claim or to be a defendant in a Russian court can be required to present existing court decisions in support of their claim or defence.

• 한국ITS학회 논문지
• /
• 제12권6호
• /
• pp.68-77
• /
• 2013

본 연구에서는 끼어들기 위반단속시스템 개발을 위한 교통정체판정방법에 대한 실험적 연구결과를 제시하였다. 해당 정체판정 방법은 정체를 검지하여 끼어들기 위반단속시스템의 최적 구동기준을 결정하는데 목적이 있다. ITS 분야에서 일반적으로 정체판정은 구간통행속도를 기준으로 한다. 그러나 영상검지 방식적용 시 속도오차 등으로 인해 정체판정의 오류가 높게 나타날 수 있으며, 본 연구에서는 현장실험을 통해 속도와 점유율을 종합적으로 고려한 방식을 제시하였다. 현장실험 결과 영상검지체계 기반의 끼어들기위반 단속시스템에서 정체판정 기준으로 속도의 경우 20km/h, 점유율의 경우 60% 이상의 조건을 적용할 경우 실제 정체상황과 같은 결과를 얻을 수 있었고, 정확도를 높일 수 있었다.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제16권2호
• /
• pp.51-88
• /
• 2006

The obligation on a national court to recognize and enforce arbitral awards as provided in Article III New York Convention, which both Korea and China have ratified, is subject to limited exceptions. Recognition and enforcement will be refused only if the party against whom enforcement is sought can show that one of the exclusive grounds for refusal enumerated in Article V(1) New York Convention has occurred. The court may also refuse enforcement ex officio if the award violates that state's public policy. This article explores the circumstances where arbitral awards may be refused enforcement under the Korean and Chinese arbitration laws. It first analyzes the relevant statutory provisions. In Korea and China, which have adopted the UNCITRAL Model law, the grounds of challenge are exhaustively defined within their respective arbitration laws. According to their arbitration laws, an arbitral award may be set aside if a party making the application proves that (i) a party to the arbitration agreement was under some incapacity or the agreement is not valid under the applicable law, (ii) the party making the application was not given proper notice of the appointment of an arbitrator or of the arbitral proceedings or was otherwise unable to present his case, (iii) 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, or (iv) the composition of the arbitral tribunal or the arbitral procedure was not in accordance with the agreement of the parties. An arbitral award may also be set aside ex officio by the court if the court finds that (i) the subject-matter of the dispute is not capable of settlement by arbitration under the applicable law or (ii) the award is in conflict with the public policy. This article then reviews relevant judicial decisions rendered in Korea and China to see how the courts in these countries have been interpreting the provisions specifying the grounds for challenging arbitral awards. It concludes that the courts in Korea and China rarely accept challenges to arbitral awards, thereby respecting the mandate of the New York Convention.

• 해양환경안전학회지
• /
• 제20권1호
• /
• pp.49-58
• /
• 2014

우리 배타적 경제수역에서는 불법조업과 폭력행위 등을 반복하는 중국어선을 단속하기 위한 우리 정부의 계속적인 노력에도 불구하고 배타적 경제수역에서의 불법조업행위는 멈추지 않고 오히려 단속 해양경찰의 피해가 속출하고 있다. 한편, 범정부적인 노력에도 불구하고 해양경찰의 불법외국조업선에 대한 단속 과정에서 여러 문제점이 노출되고 있다. 해양에서 외국선박에 대한 단속은 한편으로는 정당한 사법절차의 진행으로 당연한 국가의 권한이지만, 이러한 집행이 적절하지 못하게 이루어질 경우 국제적 분쟁이 발생할 가능성도 존재한다. 따라서 본 논문은 관련 자료, 전문가의 견해 및 최근 사건 등을 바탕으로 우리나라 관할수역에서 발생하는 불법조업 중국어선에 대한 검문 검색이나 사법절차의 진행 등 단속과정 진행 중 제기되는 문제점을 분석하고 이에 대한 해결방안을 제시하고자 한다.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제35권
• /
• 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.

• 한국멀티미디어학회논문지
• /
• 제11권4호
• /
• pp.516-524
• /
• 2008

본 논문은 기존에 연구되지 않았던 옷의 독특한 특징들을 묵시적 제한방법을 사용하여 강력한 제한력으로 구현하는 새로운 모델링 방법을 제안한다. 기존의 명시적 제한방법인 Baumgarte 안정화 방법은 해에 빠르게 수렴하도록 하기 위해 사용자가 시뮬레이션에 따라서 값이 달라지는 안정화 변수 값을 선택해야 하고, 시뮬레이션의 시간 간격 사용에 있어서 안정화에 한계가 있는 단점들이 있다. 본 논문은 큰 시간 간격에도 안정적이고, 안정화 변수 값을 요구하지 않고, 물리적으로도 적합한 물체의 움직임을 보장하는 묵시적 제한방법을 사용한다. 또한 묵시적 제한 방법의 계산 복잡도는 Baumgarte 안정화 방법과 같다. 본 논문은 묵시적 제한방법의 수식과 제한의 오차 분석을 설명하였고 옷의 솔기, 단추, 옷 주름, 옷의 구김, 과잉 늘어짐 방지 등의 복잡한 옷의 요소들에 대한 모델링 방법을 제시하였다. 본 논문에서 제안된 방법은 외부 상황에 의해 각종 제한들이 자동적으로 설정되고 제거되어 계산 비용을 절약함과 동시에 옷의 독특한 특징들의 구현을 통해 현실감 있는 옷 시뮬레이션의 결과들을 얻었다.

• 한국ITS학회 논문지
• /
• 제11권6호
• /
• pp.23-30
• /
• 2012

본 연구에서는 수도권을 중심으로 구축 운영 중에 있는 ITS 무선통신 인프라인 UTIS 서비스 지역을 확대하는 방안으로 전국에 약 5,000여대가 설치되어 있는 무인단속장비와 UTIS 기지국을 통합하는 방안을 제시하였다. 기존의 UTIS는 25m 높이에 기지국이 설치되고 광통신망을 통해 센터와 통신하는 반면, 무인단속장비는 6.6m 높이에 설치되어 임대 통신망을 통해 센터와 통신하는 등의 차이가 있다. 무인단속장비와 UTIS 기지국의 효율적인 통합방안을 제시하기 위해서 현황분석을 통해 1,628개소의 통합설치 개소를 선정하였고, 현장시험을 통해서 6.6m의 높이에서도 UTIS 요구성능을 만족하는 것을 확인하였다. 또한 통합에 적합한 통신망 및 시스템 구성방안을 제시하였으며, 통합 설치 시 비용 절감효과를 분석하여 현장시스템 구축 비용이 UTIS 기지국 단독 설치 시에 비해 약 1/5 수준으로 절감됨을 확인하였다.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제28권4호
• /
• pp.131-152
• /
• 2018

On October 31, 2013, the Singapore Court of Appeals handed down a landmark decision in the case of PT First Media TBK v Astro Nusantara International and Others [2013] SGCA 57. The case arose out of an arbitration in Singapore involving the Malaysian conglomerate Astro and the Indonesian conglomerate Lippo, which culminated in a USD 250 million award in favor of Astro. The final award was given to three Astro subsidiaries who were not parties to the arbitration agreement, but who were joined in the arbitration pursuant to an application by Astro. Lippo then applied to the Singapore High Court to set aside the enforcement orders. The Court of Appeals, however, reversed the High Court's decision, and found that Astro was only entitled to enforce the awards. Also, the Court of Appeals undertook a detailed analysis of the use of active and passive remedies to defeat an arbitral award at the seat and the place of enforcement, respectively. It also touches on the innovation of forced joinders of third parties in arbitrations, which have garnered significant interest in the arbitration community. This decision is therefore expected to have a significant impact on the practice of international arbitration, including in relation to how awards can be enforced or defeated, as the case may be.