• 제목/요약/키워드: Korea's Arbitration Law

검색결과 112건 처리시간 0.025초

한.일 중재법상 중재판정의 비교법적 고찰 (A Comparative Study Arbitral A ward under the Arbitral Laws between Korea and Japan)

  • 최석범;정재우;김태환
    • 한국중재학회지:중재연구
    • /
    • 제16권1호
    • /
    • pp.81-119
    • /
    • 2006
  • The parties in the trade can have full autonomy and can resolve disputes independently, impartially and without delay by selecting arbitration by agreement. Korea and Japan had revised their Arbitration Laws to incorporate as many provisions of the 1985 UNCITRAL Model Law as possible. Japan had amended its century-old arbitration law, becoming the 45th country to adopt the UNCITRAL Model Law on International commercial arbitration. New Arbitration Law was enacted as Law No.138 of 2003 and effective on March 1, 2004, is applicable to both national and international arbitration. Korea had amended its arbitration law on December 31, 1999 and its New Arbitration Law incorporates the most of the 1985 UNCITRAL Model Law as Japan. Arbitration must be popular in resolving international commercial disputes in Northeast Asian bloc in order to increase the volume of intra-trade in the Northeast Asian bloc. But in order for the parties to make use of arbitration in the bloc, the arbitration laws of nations in the bloc must have similarity and unification. As Korea and Japan playes important roles in the bloc, both nations's arbitration laws must be studied in view of similarity and difference to unify both nations' arbitration laws by way of showing an example. Therefore, this paper deals with both nations' arbitration laws in view of comparative law to unify their arbitration laws and Northeast Asian Nations' arbitration laws.

  • PDF

미국 자동차보험에 있어서 무과실보험의 중재에 관한 고찰 - 미국 뉴욕주를 중심으로 - (A Study on No-Fault Arbitration in U.S.'s Automobile Insurance - Focus on the Case of New York State -)

  • 김지호
    • 한국중재학회지:중재연구
    • /
    • 제22권1호
    • /
    • pp.89-110
    • /
    • 2012
  • No-fault automobile insurance system is a statutory scheme to provide automobile accident victims with compensation for certain expenses arising from personal injuries occurring in car accidents. New York State has enacted No-Fault Law to ensure that the injured in automobile accidents be paid rapidly by their own insurance company for medical expenses, lost earnings regardless of fault, replacing common law system of reparation for personal injuries under tort law. Its primary purpose is to facilitate compensation without the need to exhaust time-consuming litigation over establishing the existence of fault and the extent of damages. No-Fault Law allows arbitration as a method for settling the no-fault insurance disputes. No-fault arbitration, however, differs in a significant way from general arbitration system. First, No-Fault Law provides the parties with the option to submit any dispute involving no-fault automobile insurance to arbitration. Second, no-fault arbitration attempts to speed its procedure incorporating various methods. Third, the parties are required to seek review of arbitral awards by master arbitrator prior to seeking court's review. Fourth, the parties have right to bring de novo action in court if master arbitrator's award exceeds $5,000. Given the current state of law in Korea, it may not be easy to introduce no-fault arbitration system into Korea in the context of automobile insurance disputes settlement as its law has a long-established reparation system based on tort liability and no-fault arbitration system has its own features that differ from general arbitration system. Nonetheless, it could be suggested that no-fault arbitration be introduced in other fields which require speedy dispute resolution and a third party's decision to settle the disputes. The optional right of submitting disputes to arbitration as provided by No-Fault Law of New York State may offer a ground to supprot the effectiveness of an optional arbitration agreement.

  • PDF

Interim Measures in Arbitration and Enforcement of Arbitral Awards in Korea and China

  • Jon, Woo-Jung
    • 한국중재학회지:중재연구
    • /
    • 제26권3호
    • /
    • pp.67-91
    • /
    • 2016
  • In an era where the international investment and trade between Korea and China grow daily, the importance of international arbitration cannot be overstated. The Korean Arbitration Law was enacted with reference to the UNCITRAL Model Law. When the Chinese Arbitration Law was being enacted, the UNCITRAL Model Law was also referred to, but there are some discrepancies between the two. This article conducts comparative analysis based on the Korean and the Chinese Arbitration Laws, the Chinese Civil Procedure Law and the KCAB and the CIETAC arbitration rules. In order to adopt the UNCITRAL Model Law amended in 2006, Korea revised its Arbitration Law in 2016. The revised Law includes a more comprehensive legal regime regarding interim measures, emergency arbitrator, etc. In China, the enforcement of foreign-related arbitral awards and foreign arbitral awards is carried out mainly by intermediate people's courts. In China, the report system to the higher people's court for refusing the enforcement of foreign-related arbitral awards and for refusing the recognition or enforcement of foreign arbitral awards has the effect of safeguarding foreign-related arbitral awards and foreign arbitral awards in China. Both Korea and China joined the New York Convention, and domestic courts may refuse the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards according to the New York Convention.

상사중재 활성화를 위한 중재판정부의 임시적 처분 제도의 개선 - 2016년 개정 중재법을 중심으로- (Recommendations for Revising the Arbitration Act of Korea regarding Interim Measures by the Arbitral Tribunal to Promote Commercial Arbitration in South Korea)

  • 박준선
    • 한국중재학회지:중재연구
    • /
    • 제26권2호
    • /
    • pp.115-134
    • /
    • 2016
  • Arbitration is a consensual process in which a dispute is resolved by an impartial arbitrator outside the courts. Arbitration is flexible, neutral, time- and cost-efficient, and confidential. In 1985, the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law(UNCITRAL) enacted the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration to help countries reform and modernize their arbitration laws. In 1999, South Korea adopted the model law. Later in 2006, UNCITRAL amended the model law to promote international arbitration. The amended model law includes, among other things, specific provisions regarding interim measures. In 2016, in order to adopt the newly amended version of the model law, South Korea revised its Arbitration Act. The revised act includes a more comprehensive legal regime regarding interim measures, including definitions, types, processes, requirements, the court's recognition and enforcement, and liability. This paper examines the revision of the Arbitration Act of Korea and its legislative intent, presents the problems, and offers recommendations for resolving the problems.

소비자중재합의의 미국계약법상 항변 (The U.S. Contract Law Defenses in Consumer Arbitration Agreement)

  • 하충룡
    • 한국중재학회지:중재연구
    • /
    • 제20권2호
    • /
    • pp.151-171
    • /
    • 2010
  • This paper investigates the consumer arbitration practices In the U.S. The key issue in consumer arbitration is how to protect the individual consumers from the loss of their legal rights stemming from the arbitration agreement with the business. In the U.S., the major legal doctrines to protect individual consumer include the voluntary-knowing-intelligent doctrine, unconscionability doctrine, and void contract. Even though the US courts are favorable to the enforceability of arbitration agreement, they strictly apply the contract law theories in deciding the existence of arbitration agreement, providing a strong common law protection for the consumers in arbitration. However, the practices for protection of consumers in arbitration in Korea are not mature yet. If consumer arbitration is widely adopted into B to C contracts, a protective measure for individual consumer can be found in the Act of Clause Regulation providing that the business has duty to explain the relevant clause in the adhesive contracts.

  • PDF

국제상사중재에서 중재합의의 준거법 결정기준 - 영국 대법원의 2021년 Kabab-Ji SAL v Kout Food Group 판결을 중심으로 - (The Governing Law of Arbitration Agreements Issues in International Commercial Arbitration : A Case Comment on Kabab-Ji Sal (Lebanon) v Kout Food Group (Kuwait) [2021] UKSC 48)

  • 김영주
    • 한국중재학회지:중재연구
    • /
    • 제32권2호
    • /
    • pp.3-30
    • /
    • 2022
  • On 27 October the Supreme Court of UK handed down its much anticipated decision in Kabab-Ji SAL (Lebanon) v Kout Food Group (Kuwait) [2021] UKSC 48. The issues for the Supreme Court to decide were as follows: (1) which law governed the validity of the arbitration agreement; (2) if English law applied, whether, as a matter of English law, there was any real prospect that a court might find that KFG became a party to the arbitration agreement, and (3) whether, procedurally, the Court of Appeal was correct in giving summary judgment refusing recognition and enforcement the award, or whether there should have been a full rehearing of whether there was a valid and binding arbitration agreement for the purposes of the New York Convention and the AA 1996 (the 'procedural' issue) The decision in Kabab-Ji provides further reassuring clarity on how the governing law of the arbitration agreement is to be determined under English law where the governing law is not expressly stated in the arbitration agreement itself. The Supreme Court's reasoning is consistent with its earlier decision on the same issue, albeit in the context of enforcement pursuant to the New York Convention, rather than considering the arbitration agreement before an award is rendered. This paper presents some implications of Kabab-Ji case. Also, it seeks to provide a meaningful discussion and theories on the arbitration system in Korea.

가맹계약분쟁과 중재에 관한 법적 문제 (Legal Issues on the Franchise Disputes and their Settlement by Arbitration)

  • 최영홍
    • 한국중재학회지:중재연구
    • /
    • 제17권1호
    • /
    • pp.57-75
    • /
    • 2007
  • Ever since franchising emerged in the industry of distribution, it has been growing explosively in the U.S.A. and all other countries as well. It is a method of expanding a business by licensing independent businessman to sell the franchiser's products and/or services or to follow a format and trade style created by the franchiser using the franchiser's trade marks and trade names. Franchising is a form of business that touches upon many different areas of law including, but not limited to, general contract law, general principles of commercial law, law of intellectual property, competition law, fair trade practices law and other industry specific laws e.g., the Fair Practices in Franchising Act in Korea. Arbitration is a long established, legally recognized procedure for submitting disputes to an outside person(s), mutually selected by the parties, for a final and binding decision. Despite its merits as an alternative dispute resolution, it has been criticized, on the other hand, particularly by franchisees' attorneys on the ground that even though it is required to protect the franchisees against the enforcement of pre-dispute arbitration agreements because of the franchisees' paucity of bargaining power vis-a-vis the franchiser, arbitration cannot afford it. Until recently, however, little has been written about the legal issues pertaining to franchise agreement and arbitration clause contained therein in Korea. This treatise reviews the cases and arguments in relation to the subject especially of the U.S.A., which have been accumulated for decades. The issues addressed herein are the pre-emption by the FAA, the disputes to be arbitrated, the selection and qualification of arbitrators, the place of arbitration hearings and the evidentiary rules applicable, the expenses of arbitration, theory of fiduciary duty and the like, all of which are relevant to franchise agreement.

  • PDF

중재판정의 승인과 집행사례연구 - 우리나라 대법원판례(大法院判例)를 중심(中心)으로 - (A Case Study on the Recognition and Enforcement of Korean Commercial Arbitration Awards (Laying stress on the precedent of Korean supreme court))

  • 신한동
    • 무역상무연구
    • /
    • 제49권
    • /
    • pp.61-86
    • /
    • 2011
  • Korea Supreme Court has given thirty-nine time's judgments on enforcement of Arbitral awards for thirty-six arbitration cases and made four time's decision on the arbitration cases since Korea arbitration act was enacted in 1966. Most of the arbitration cases appealed to the Supreme Court was to obtain the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards or to set aside the arbitral awards according to the Korea arbitration Act article 36 and article 37, by reason of (a) a party to the arbitration agreement was under some incapacity under the law applicable to him or the said agreement is not valid under the law to which the parties have subjected it, or failing any indication thereon, (b) a party making the application was not given proper notice of the appointment of the arbitrator or arbitrators or of the arbitral proceedings or was otherwise unable to present his case (c) 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. However, 5 cases of these arbitral awards were refused to obtain the enforcement of Arbitral awards and have been cancelled finally by the Supreme Court only by the New York Convention of 1958.

  • PDF

Analysis, Recognition and Enforcement Procedures of Foreign Arbitral Awards in the United States

  • Chang, Byung Youn;Welch, David L.;Kim, Yong Kil
    • 한국중재학회지:중재연구
    • /
    • 제27권3호
    • /
    • pp.53-76
    • /
    • 2017
  • Korean businesses, and their legal representatives, have observed the improvements of enforcement of commercial judgments through arbitration over traditional collections litigation in U.S. Courts-due to quicker proceedings, exceptional cost savings and more predictable outcomes-in attaching assets within U.S. jurisdictions. But how are the 2016 interim measures implemented by the Arbitration Act of Korea utilized to avoid jurisdictional and procedure pitfalls of enforcement proceedings in the Federal Courts of the United States? Authors examine the necessary prerequisites of the U.S. Federal Arbitration Act as adopted through the New York Convention, to which Korea and the U.S. are signatories, as distinguished from the Panama Convention. Five common U.S. arbitration institutions address U.S. "domestic" disputes, preempting U.S. state law arbitrations, while this article focuses on U.S. enforcement of "international" arbitration awards. Seeking U.S. recognition and enforcement of Korean arbitral awards necessitates avoiding common defenses involving due process, public policy or documentary formality challenges. Provisional and conservatory injunctive relief measures are explored. A variety of U.S. cases involving Korean litigants are examined to illustrate the legal challenges involving non?domestic arbitral awards, foreign arbitral awards and injunctive relief. Suggestions aimed toward further research are focused on typical Korean business needs such as motions to confirm foreign arbitration awards, enforce such awards or motions to compel arbitration.

Recent changes to the Korean Arbitration Act and its Comparison with Singapore: Korea's Potential to Become an Arbitration Hub

  • Kim, Jae-Hyun;Hopkins, Bryan E.
    • 한국중재학회지:중재연구
    • /
    • 제26권3호
    • /
    • pp.27-50
    • /
    • 2016
  • International arbitration as a dispute resolution mechanism in Asia is growing in popularity. Singapore has long been acknowledged as a regional arbitration center but Korea is now facing an increased demand as an arbitration center as well. As Singapore competes with Hong Kong and other international arbitration centers, and as Korea tries to become an alternative to Singapore, both Singapore and Korea have updated their arbitral laws and arbitration rules to reflect the current international arbitration trends. This paper examines the recent changes in the arbitration laws of Singapore and Korea, with an emphasis on recent changes in Korean arbitration laws that are designed to increase Korea's popularity as a regional arbitration center. Though Korea's reputation as an arbitration center is increasing, it is still not viewed as a major arbitration service provider. It is against this backdrop that Korea's international arbitration laws and rules will be viewed, with suggested changes to increase Korea's reputation as not only a regional hub but a center of international arbitration.