• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제55권
• /
• pp.63-93
• /
• 2012

The purpose of this paper is to examine the consideration factors, from both parties' perspective, to select the most appropriate arbitral institution when they inset an arbitration clause in their contract. Accordingly, the author analyzed the advantages of institutional arbitration compared to non-institutional arbitration. The typical advantages of institutional arbitration would include: $\bullet$ Benefits of using an established set of rules $\bullet$ Services provided by the institution $\bullet$ Low risks of obstruction $\bullet$ Enhancement of the possibilities of enforcement $\bullet$ Forecast of the estimated cost $\bullet$ Specially useful for existing disputes Next, this author examined the consideration factors when selecting the institution in respect of the following factors: $\bullet$ Institution's arbitration rules $\bullet$ Institution's rule regarding the appointment of arbitrators $\bullet$ Ability of administrators of each institution $\bullet$ Reputation of the arbitral institution and the likability of enforceability of its award $\bullet$ Cost $\bullet$ Choice of the arbitral institution in relation to the choice of place of arbitration Finally, this author reviewed Model Arbitration Clause of major international or local Institutions, including ICC, AAA, LCIA, KCAB, CIETAC, ICSID and WIPO. Further examination was given to the selection of the numbers of the arbitral tribunal, the seat of arbitration and the language of arbitration, according to the designated articles in each institution's arbitration rules.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제7권1호
• /
• pp.411-446
• /
• 1997

This paper reports the results of an experimental companson of the winning rates in arbitral awards between the Korean Commercial Arbitration Board and the Japan Commercial Arbitration Association, and analyzed the comparative advantages of KCAB in international arbitration compared with ICC. There are so many factors to analyze the level of internationalizaton and competitiveness in the arbitration. From the recent lituratures, arbitration experts reported and debated tremendous elements which is vital to have a competition in the international arbitration market. Arbitration factors such as fairness, reliability, awareness, extension, enforcement, inexpensiveness, closed and expedited proceedings, arbitrators, expert knowledge, service, arbitral award, etc. are very important to appraise the level of the globalization and competitiveness of arbitration organizations Using these factors, I appraised current level of the globalization and competitiveness of the Korean Commercial Arbitration Board, unique arbitration organization in South Korea. Next, we are able to compare the level of fairness using the concept of 'winning rate' All over the world, only several arbitration organizations published and opened their own arbitral awards even In anonymity. The Japanese arbitration institutions published it regularly as well as the Korean When compared with these two institutions' "winning rates". there is similiar tendency in favor of domestic corporations That is to say, the winning rates in domestic arbitration cases are greater than those in international arbitration cases. This embarks an implication of unequality, a part of unfairness, in these two countries' arbitration. Finally, an analysis was conducted between the statistics of KCAB and ICC, especially to the focus on the number of arbitration cases, arbitration tribunals, arbitration places, parties' nationalities. the types of contents, the amount of arbitration, arbitration costs. There are two meanings to keep in mind for advancement of Korean arbitration. One is to establish new strategy specializing in small amount arbitration less than US$200,000. The other is to rearrange the panel of arbitration, especially in increasing field of arbitration cases such as the disputes of license, technology transfer, patent, etc.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제23권4호
• /
• pp.55-76
• /
• 2013

This study aims to analyze the main features of Mongolian arbitration system compared with Korean Arbitration Law which was revised under the UNCITRAL Arbitration Model Law. On the basis of this comparative study, certain differences are suggested: First, the environment of Mongolian arbitration is still insufficient in terms of its operation and usage at the international level. Second, the Mongol National Arbitration Court has established Ad-hoc Arbitration Rules and has promoted Ad-hoc Arbitration although it is an institutional arbitration organization. Third, the arbitration objects are defined as the types of tangible and intangible assets in Mongolia which are different from those of the Korean Arbitration Law. Accordingly, court and officer disputes, family disputes, labor-management relations, and criminal matters are covered by the arbitration objects. Fourth, Mongol Arbitration Law specifies the following persons disqualified for arbitrator appointment: the member of the Constitutional Court, judge, procurator, inquiry officer, investigator, court decision enforcement officer, attorney, or notary who has previously rendered legal service to any party of the disputes, and any officials who are prohibited by laws to be engaged in positions above the scope of their duties. Fifth, the arbitrator selection and appointment criteria should be documented, and the arbitrator should have the ability to resolve the disputes independently and fairly and achieve concord from both parties. Sixth, if there is no agreement between the parties, the arbitration language should be Mongolian, and the arbitral tribunal has no power to decide on it. Seventh, despite the agreement for a documentary hearing between the parties, there should be provided opportunities for an oral hearing if either of the parties requires it. Eighth, if the parties do not understand the language of the arbitration, the parties can directly ask the translation service. They should also keep secrets in the process of arbitration. Ninth, the cancellation of arbitral award is allowed by the application of the parties, not by the authority of the court. Except for the nine differences above, the Mongolian arbitration system is similar to that of the Korean Arbitration Law. This paper serves to contribute to the furtherance in trade relationship between Mongolia and Korea after the rapid and efficient resolution of disputes.

• 한국대기환경학회지
• /
• 제27권2호
• /
• pp.209-213
• /
• 2011

Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on Low Carbon, Green Growth for achieving the country's GHG emission reduction goal of 30% was in effect. The remarkable content of the Act is the managements of targets for GHG reduction. So, the entities that have reduced voluntarily have much interest in the recognition of 'early action'. The recognition of early action is necessary to induce the fair competence of business entities and promote the voluntary GHG reduction. The definite and concrete guidance should be prepared. The important principles for this are the environmental integrity and the additionality. Based on this, the early action activities must be restricted to the voluntary, real, permanent, quantifiable, verifiable reduction. In the early action recognition, its credit should be allocated additionally set aside from the GHG target allocation in the national total allowance. Through this, the reward for the early reduction should be realized on market mechanism. The effective period to award the early action should be addressed. This can be the period after the enactment of framework on GHG reduction in effect and before the beginning year of GHG target control. It should be set with flexibility through the collection and consultation of the sector's opinions. The appropriate allowance reserve of early action was estimated as approximately 1~1.5% by using the data from the 'Pilot GHG Emission Trading Program' operated by Ministry of Environment. Also, the concrete and detail guidance to construct the necessary infra which is used to register the related information of early action activities should be prepared.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제21권2호
• /
• pp.3-25
• /
• 2011

국제상사중재를 다루는 중재판정부의 중재인은 당사자들 간의 유효한 합의를 통하여 구속력 있는 중재판정을 행사할 권한을 가진다. 중재계약에 다른 정함이 없는 한 중재인의 판정권에 대한 결정은 중재인 자신이 내린다. 중재인은 중재합의에 의하여 그 권한이 부여된 사건에 대해서만 권한을 갖게 되나, 명시적으로 그 권한에 따라야 하는 사건 외에 당해 사건을 해결하기 위하여 처리하지 않으면 안 될 모든 문제, 즉 당해 사건과 절단될 수 없는 형태로 연계되어 있는 문제 또는 그 부차적인 조건의 문제를 해결하여야 하는 책임을 지게 된다. 중재판정부는 그 자율적인 권한범위를 규율하는 권한을 가지며, 그 권한 속에는 중재합의의 존부 또는 효력에 관한 것도 포함된다. 중재인의 판정권에 이의가 있는 당사자는 법원에 중재계약의 부존재 무효 확인을 청구할 수 있고, 중재판정이 이미 내려진 경우에는 중재판정취소의 소를 제기하거나, 집행판결에서 이의를 제기할 수 있다. 우리 중재법의 입장에서 국제중재판정의 판정기준에 대해 는 중재판정부는 당사자들이 지정한 법에 따라 중재판정을 내려야 하며, 특정 국가의 법 또는 법체계가 지정된 경우에 달리 명시되지 아니하는 한 그 국가의 국제사법이 아닌 분쟁의 실체법을 지정한 것으로 보고 있다. 국제중재의 법적 안정성, 예측가능성의 관점에서 실정법을 그 판단의 규준으로 삼는다. 한국의 국제중재의 특성은 국제성 중립성, 보편성을 보장받는 점이다. 중재인 구성원은 세계 각국의 국적을 가진 전문 중재인들이 참가하고 있다. 중재절차에 있어서도 중재인은 실체법이나 절차법, 또는 법률의 상충에 관계없이 어느 특정법률을 적용하도록 강요받지 않고 각각의 경우에 가장 적합한 법률에 따르며 중재판정부의 진행절차는 국제중재규칙에 의해 규율된다.

• 에너지공학
• /
• 제21권3호
• /
• pp.265-270
• /
• 2012

에너지절약에 대한 규제가 심하고 국민 다수가 에너지절감에 대한 관심이 높은 상태에서 사업계획승인을 받은 건축물이 건축허가가 지연되어 주변 신규 사업건과 함께 입주된 지역에서 관리비가 20~30% 차이가 발생한다면 심각한 민원이 될 것이다. 따라서 사업계획승인 시점에 에너지절약계획서를 작성하되 주택법 시행령 제18조로 인한 공사착수가 연장이 되어 2년이 경과 되거나 지연 될 때에는 건축허가 시점에서 현 기준에 의한 에너지절약계획서를 적용하는 것이 국가 에너지계획이나 민원에 대한 미연에 방지책이 될 것이라 생각한다. 에너지절약계획서의 목적과 요소의 기술들이 그 기능을 다하지 못하고 단순히 인, 허가 수순에 지나지 않는다면 많은 인력을 투입하여 검토하고 자문하는 것이 무의미한 시간 손실일 것이다. 정부나 건축주가 에너지 save측면을 공감하고 건물에너지효율을 개선하여야 할 것이다.