• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제16권2호
• /
• pp.89-120
• /
• 2006

If the existence and effect of the arbitration agreement becomes an issue in international business transactions, it is the key point how we shall determine the applicable law by national rules for the conflict of laws, or by other methods. The argument in determination of the applicable law to the existence and effect of the arbitration agreement is related to regal nature of the arbitration agreement. As there are foreign factors in international arbitration, therefore we must consider such an aspect. Besides, we have to examine whether the general theory of contract is universally applicable to the arbitration agreement. Currently, it is the general trend that the party's autonomy principle is applicable in determining the applicable law for the arbitration agreement. However, it is a difficult problem to recognize the applicable law chosen by the parties, whether it is based on any regal standard(for example New York Convention or the private international law or the essential quality of the arbitration agreement). In the light of the actual transactions, when the parties don't make a choice of the applicable law expressly, it will finally come down to presuming the party's implied intent. Nevertheless, finding the implied intent is a difficult problem. Some argue that we shall presume the choice of applicable law by an objective standard such as a place of arbitration, to prevent too much expansion of the scope of the recognition. But we need to review that this interpretation harmonizes with the principle of party autonomy. Especially, if we desire to detect the vital point where it is most closely linked to the arbitration agreement, we have to inquire how we will decide such a relation by means of any standard. However, as the existing Arbitration Act doesn't offer the solution to these issues, therefore we have to settle these problems through the development of adjudications and theories.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제19권3호
• /
• pp.25-42
• /
• 2009

That occur in international trade disputes between the parties without resorting to a court trial on the basis of principle of government by the parties to resolve the dispute resolution in general (Alternative Disputes Resolution: ADR) agreed to, reconciliation, coordination, mediation and other methods are. Here, unlike arbitration and other dispute resolution arbitrator, the court confirmed the arbitration award came from the judge and the same shall become effective in doing international commerce dispute resolution methods are widely used. Arbitration Agreement is a contractual dispute, regardless of whether a certain law there arise about the relationship between the parties, Currently exists, future conflicts can arise in whole or in part by the arbitration agreement is to be resolved. Arbitration agreement include: the effects of out of contract arbitration proceedings, the court does not want the progress of the dispute referred to arbitration proceedings to the effect, and the presence of the parties to the arbitration agreement does not claim to knowing the defense plea that Appeals ticket of destruction that have the effect of demurrer, that the arbitration agreement are rebuttal to the rebuttal of prozesshindernde Einrede and the mediation of a plea on the merits when the first defense must be submitted to the arbitration proceedings in which the applicant until the arbitration award determined that the property dispute to court for water conservation measures to dispose of the watch was in effect for arbitration in the contract. In addition, the arbitration agreement and the court sentenced the same kinds of effects that resolved the final effect, especially at the same time the effect of foreign recognition and enforcement of the decision regarding the New York Convention arbitration award based on the recognition and enforcement of domestic and international effects are being recognized. Consequently, the arbitration agreement to take effect a valid arbitration agreement exists is determined by whether or not staying. Therefore, agreements between individual university entrance exams based on the company signed a contract regarding the effect of arbitration first, associated with individual university entrance exams, and the leading research and analysis, review, and examine the general concept of the arbitration agreement after the arbitration agreement between the parties focuses on information about the effects of study to contribute to the activation of the arbitration system is aimed at the individual university entrance exams.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제17권
• /
• pp.7-35
• /
• 2002

In many international financing transactions Korean companies are required to issue a guarantee. Thus far, however, legal issues on international guarantees have not been fully discussed in Korea. This is partly because most of the international guarantees are governed by a foreign law such as English law or the laws of the State of New York. In this articles the author examines major concepts or terms and conditions of a typical international guarantee, e.g., language on consideration, primary obligor, joint and several guarantee, unconditional and irrevocable guarantee, continuing guarantee, right of subrogation, representations and warranties, covenant or undertaking, currency indemnity, assignment, participation, governing law and jurisdiction clause, etc. For reference, standard forms of a guarantee and a standby letter of credit are attached to the article. In examining the terms and conditions, the author compares them with similar or equivalent concepts under Korean law. The author further discusses some Korean law issues that may arise under international guarantees governed by a foreign law. These issues include the application of the ultra vires doctrine under Article 34 of the Civil Code of Korea, the validity of an international guarantee which a Korean company has issued in violation of the guarantee ceiling set under Article 10 of the Law on Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade of Korea and the validity of an international guarantee which a Korean party has issued in violation of the Foreign Exchange Transaction Law. In addition, the author discusses some issues under a so-called independent guarantee and a standby letter of credit. In this regard, reference is made to the Uniform Rules for Demand Guarantee (URDG), International Standby Practices (ISP98) and the Convention on Independent Guarantees and Stand-by Letters of Credit adopted by the United Nations in 1995. Finally, the author examines major terms and conditions of typical comfort letters and discusses some legal issues, such as the binding force of the comfort letter. In dealing with the issues the author underscores that to the extent the issues are not properly dealt with by an international norm such as Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credits or ISP 98, the issues must be analyzed by reference to the governing law of the relevant instrument.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제18권1호
• /
• pp.185-207
• /
• 2008

한국 기업과 프랑스 기업 간에 한국기업이 프랑스기업으로부터 의약품의 임상자료 등에 관한 비밀정보 (Confidential information)를 받아서 한국식품의약품안전청에 의약품 제조허 가를 받기 위해 활용하는 과정에서 체결한 비밀유지 계약 (Secrecy Agreement)의 위반행위 여부의 분쟁이 발생하였다. 이 분쟁은 비밀유지계약 내의 중재조항에 의거하여 프랑스기업에 의해 프랑스 파리 소재 국제중재 판정부 (ICC Court Arbitral Tribunal) 에 회부되었고 한국기업이 응소하여 중재판정부에서 분쟁 사실들에 관한 양 당사자 회사들의 전문가들의 증언, 준비 서면들을 검토하여 비밀유지계약 각각의 조문의 해석을 통해 중재판정이 내려졌다. 이 중재판정은 ‘외국중재판정의 승인 및 집행에 관한 뉴욕협약’에 의거하여 중재판정 집행지국인 우리나라의 법원에서 집행판결을 거치게 되었다. 이때 한국법원에서는 뉴욕협약상의 집행거부 사유들에 관한 판단을 한 후 프랑스기업의 일부 승소의 집행판결을 내렸다. 본 사례연구의 시사점을 보면, 중재조항에 의거한 ICC 중재판정부의 심사절차는 각 나라 고유의 판례나 규정보다는, 중재인들의 건전한 상식에 근거하여 중재판정이 내려졌다는 것이다. 우리나라 법원 역시 중재인의 건전한 상식에 근거를 둔 중재판정의 세부적 내용에 대하여 중재권한, 국제적 공공질서 상의 심각한 문제점이 존재하지 않은 점을 고려하여 일부분을 제외하고는 외국중재판정을 그대로 집행함을 인용하는 판결을 내렸다는 점이다. 따라서, 한국기업들이 국제분쟁에 대비하기 위해서는 중재판정이 내려진 후 집행단계에서 중재판정 내용을 바꾸려는 노력을 하기보다는, 중재 절차 진행단계에서 한국 기업에게 객관적으로 입증할 수 있는 유리한 증거들을 중점적으로 적극 활용하여 중재인들의 건전한 상식에 바탕을 둔 중재판정을 유리한 방향으로 내리도록 유도하는 것이 더욱 바람직한 것이다.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제34권1호
• /
• pp.75-101
• /
• 2024

"ESG management" guides companies to prioritize corporate social responsibility and sustainable development as key management objectives, going beyond mere financial performance pursuits. This approach involves creating a sustainable and robust supply chain by urging companies, acting as 'supply chain managers', to implement ESG management practices alongside their 'supply chain partners'. The domestic business community has been quick to respond to this trend, recognizing that failure to adhere to ESG standards set by organizations such as the EU and SEC could lead to severe repercussions, including exclusion from international trade and reputational damage. POSCO and NAVER, two leading Korean companies, are at the forefront of practicing ESG management effectively. They have both produced and publicly disclosed ESG management reports, showcasing their success in enhancing supply chain ESG management. However, as supply chain managers enforce ESG-related obligations on their suppliers, the likelihood of disputes between the parties may increase. In scenarios where supply chain ESG management leads to conflicts between supply chain managers and suppliers, commercial arbitration emerges as a viable solution for dispute resolution. This method offers several advantages, including the arbitrators' expertise, time and cost efficiency, the binding nature of decisions akin to a court's final judgment, international recognition under the New York Convention, confidentiality, and ample opportunity for parties to be heard. Our analysis focuses on the emerging disputes between supply chain managers and suppliers within the context of supply chain ESG management, particularly examining the cases of POSCO and NAVER. By categorizing the expected types of disputes and assessing the appropriateness of commercial arbitration for their resolution, we highlight the effectiveness of this approach. Furthermore, we propose leveraging the Korean Commercial Arbitration Board's role to enhance the use of arbitration in resolving supply chain ESG disputes, underscoring its potential as a strategic tool for maintaining sustainable and harmonious supply chain relationships.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제10권1호
• /
• pp.3-25
• /
• 2000

At its thirty-second session in 1999, the UNCITRAL had before it the requested note entitled "Possible future work in the area of international commercial arbitration." After concluding the discussion on its future work in the area of international commercial arbitration, it was agreed that the priority items for the working group should be conciliation, requirement of written form for the arbitration and enforceability of interim measures of protection. the Commission entrusted the work to the Working Group on Arbitration which held its thirty-second session at Vienna from 20 to 31 March 2000. The Working Group discussed agenda item 3 on the basis of the report of Secretary General entitled "Possible uniform rules on certain issues concerning settlement of commercial disputes : conciliation, interim measures of protection, written form for arbitration agreement." At its thirty-three session in 2000, the UNCITRAL had before it the report of Secretary General on agenda item 3 discussed by the Working Group. The Working Group discussed the issues relating to certain aspects of conciliation proceedings ; (1) Admissibility of certain evidence in subsequent judicial or arbitral proceedings ; (2) Role of conciliatior in arbitration or court proceedings ; (3) Enforceability of settlement agreements reached in conciliation proceedings ; (4) Other possible items for harmonized treatment : a) Admissibility or desirability of conciliation by arbitrators b) Effect of an agreement to conciliate on judicial or arbitral proceedings c) Effect of conciliation on the running of limitation period d) Communication between the conciliator and parties ; disclosure of information e) Role of conciliator. It was generally considered that decisions as to the form of the text to be prepared should be made at a later stage when the substance of prepared solutions would become clearer. However, it was noted that model legislative provisions seemed to be appropriate form for a number of matters proposed to be discussed in the area conciliation. There was general support in the Working Group for the proposition to perpare a legislative regime governing the enforcement of interim measures of protection ordered by arbitral tribunals. It was generally considered that legislative regime should apply to enforcement of interim measures issued in arbitration taking place in State where enforcement was sought as well as outside that State. It was generally observed that there was a need for provisions which conformed to current practice in international trade with regard to requirements of written form for arbitration agreement. The view was adopted by the Working Group that the objective of ensuring a uniform interpretation of the form requirement that responded to the needs of international trade could be achieved by : preparing a model legislative provision clarifying, for avoidance of doubt, the scope of article 7(2) of the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration : and adopting a declaration, resolution or statement addressing the interpretation of the New York Convention that would reflect a broad understanding of the form requirement. There was general agreement in the Working Group that, in order to promote the use of electronic commerce for international trade and leave the parties free to agree to the use of arbitration in the electronic commerce sphere, article II(2) of the New York Convention should be interpreted to cover the use of electronic means of communication as defined un article 2 of the Model Law on Electronic Commerce and that it required no amendment to do that. The UNCITRAL may wish to consider to the desirability of preparing uniform provisions on any of those issues concerning conciliation and arbitration proceedings, possibly indicating whether future work should be towards a legislative text or non-legislative text.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제30권2호
• /
• pp.91-120
• /
• 2020

The Scope of Application of North Korea's Foreign Economic Arbitration Act and Foreign Investment Act This article examines whether the Foreign Economic Arbitration Act and the Foreign Investment Act of North Korea apply to South Korean parties or companies. This article analyzes laws and agreements related to economic cooperation between South Korea and North Korea. Furthermore, this article compares and evaluates laws related to foreign investment and enacted in North Korea. Now, North Korea's door is closed due to economic sanctions against it, but it will be opened soon. Thus, this article prepares for the future opening of North Korea's markets. Is there a rule of laws in North Korea or just a ruler? Are there laws in North Korea? North Korea has enacted a number of legislation to attract foreign investors, referring to those Chinese laws. For example, North Korea enacted the Foreigner Investment Act, the Foreigner Company Act, the Foreign Investment Bank Act, the Foreign Economic Arbitration Act, the Foreign Economic Contract Act, the International Trade Act, and the Free Economy and Trade Zone Act, among others. Article 2 (2) of the Foreign Investment Law of North Korea states, "Foreign investors are corporations and individuals from other countries investing in our country." It is interpreted that South Korea is not included in the "other countries" of this definition. According to many mutual agreements signed by South Korea and North Korea, the relationship between the two Koreas is a special relation inside the Korean ethnic group. An arbitration between a South Korean party and a North Korean party has the characteristics of both domestic arbitrations and international arbitrations. If the South Korea and North Korea Commercial Arbitration Commission or the Kaesong Industrial Complex Arbitration Commission is not established, the possibility of arbitration by the Chosun International Trade Arbitration Commission, established under North Korea's Foreign Economic Arbitration Act, should be examined. There have been no cases where the Foreign Economic Arbitration Act is applied to disputes between parties of South Korea and North Korea. It might be possible to apply the Foreign Economic Arbitration Act by recognizing the "foreign factor" of a dispute between the South Korean party and North Korean party. It is necessary to raise legislative clarifications by revising the North Korea's Foreign Economic Arbitration Act as to whether Korean parties or companies are included in the scope of this Act's application. Even if it is interpreted that South Korean parties or companies are not included in the scope of North Korea's Foreign Economic Arbitration Act, disputes between South Korean companies and North Korean companies can be resolved by foreign arbitration institutes such as CIETAC in China, HKIAC in Hong Kong, or SIAC in Singapore. Such arbitration awards could be enforced in North Korea pursuant to Article 64 of North Korea's Foreign Economic Arbitration Act. This is because the arbitration awards of foreign arbitration institutes are included in the scope of North Korea's Foreign Economic Arbitration Act. The matter is how to enforce the North Korean laws when a North Korean party or North Korean government does not abide by the laws or their contracts. It is essential for North Korea to join the New York Convention (Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards) and the ICSID Convention (Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes Between States and Nationals of Other States).

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제21권3호
• /
• pp.115-136
• /
• 2011

In the past, Chinese arbitral system and Chinese arbitral associations were avoided by international society due to the cases which Chinese court rejected the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards based on rural protection. Especially Chinese court adjudicated to reject the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards by interpreting public policy broadly. The abuse of public policy by court threats the existence of commercial arbitration system. Under this awareness, the author figured out Chinese court shows what kind of attitude about public policy of Chinese court in the present through analyzing the cases about rejection of enforcement in Chinese arbitral awards in order to analyze whether Chinese court still maintain the negative attitude like past or there exist changes with public policy which is one of the rejection reasons of recognition and enforcement in foreign arbitral awards as the central figure. Chinese court behaved in an uncooperative attitude about arbitral awards like that it reached a verdict to reject the enforcement of arbitral awards by reason of violation in public policy about several foreign arbitral awards at the beginning stage of establishing arbitration law. However, the situation of abuse in public policy was improved a lot by Chinese prime court which enforces pre-inspection system about judgment of rejection of enforcement in arbitral awards. So, there is no case about rejecting the approval and enforcement of arbitral awards by reason of violation in public policy by Chinese court except Yongning Co. case. Moreover, Chinese court got the trust and support from other countries through reinforcement of applied standard. However, Chinese court had been expressed concern from international society because they highly applied public policy and rejected to enforce arbitral awards in the recent case of Yongning Co.. Therefore, this study examined whether it is appropriate to apply public policy of Chinese court in the case of Yongning Co., and then I concluded that. Although Yongning Co. case is the first case which Chinese prime court agrees with public policy by reason of rejection of approval and enforcement in foreign arbitral awards, in my opinion, it doesn't mean that Chinese court has fundamental change in basic attitude and position about the approval and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards. Chinese court keeps the cautious uses of public policy in legal judgment of foreign arbitral awards and it looks like implementing the obligation in regulation of New York Convention sincerely.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제21권2호
• /
• pp.27-46
• /
• 2011

In the intellectual based society of the 21th century, intellectual property of nation and enterprise management has been the key element of nation's competitiveness and development. Therefore in countries like Korea, China, and many other countries, intellectual property of advancement strategy are being constructed and intellectual properties are protected at national level. Top priority task of protecting the intellectual property is to efficiently resolute intellectual property right disputes. Considering the nature of intellectual property right and arbitrage system, arbitration to solve intellectual property disputes is realistically the best method. However, not all cases of them are qualified. In order to relieve the intellectual property disputes through arbitration, qualification must be obtained. During the process, generally and globally, intellectual property right dispute is evaluated by three parts, intellectual property right contract dispute, intellectual property right violation dispute, and intellectual property right validity dispute. Based on UN's "Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards Agreement" in 1958, June 10th, in New York, both arbitrage organization and judgment can be approved in both Korea and China countries. However, as of today, there is a big gap of arbitration qualification between two countries, which can be troublesome if intellectual property right disputes arise. For instance, in Korea, intellectual property right contract disputes and intellectual property right violation disputes are both generally accepted as arbitration qualification. However for intellectual property right validity dispute, arbitration qualification is only accepted for non-registered intellectual property as in copyright entity. It does not apply to other registered intellectual property right as in patents. In China, arbitration qualification is accepted for intellectual property right contract dispute, and also accepted for intellectual property right violation dispute to copyrights but restricted to others. As for intellectual property right validity dispute, arbitration qualification is completely denied. Therefore, when there is an intellectual property right dispute between Korea and China, the biggest problem is whether China will accept arbitrage judgments made in Korea. Theoretically, arbitrage judgement made in Korea should be also accepted in China's court. However, considering the criticism of China's passive nature of arbitration qualification for its own local intellectual property right disputes, it's very unlikely they'll actively accept arbitrary judgment made in foreign countries. Korea and China must have a more open minded approach for intellectual property disputes and arbitration qualification. Base on WTO's Intellectual Property Right Agreement, it's being defined as private right. Therefore, sovereign principle should be the basic principle of solving intellectual property right disputes. Currently, arbitration qualification is expanding internationally. So both Korea and China must also follow the trend expand the arbitration qualification with a more open minded and forward looking approach, for the good of intellectual property disputes.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제17권2호
• /
• pp.101-124
• /
• 2007

The legal systems and open-door policies to foreign affairs in North Korea have been followed by those of China. Whereas an arbitration system of South Korea accepted most parts of UNCITRAL Model Law, North Korea has succeeded to an arbitration system of a socialist country. China, under the arbitration system of socialist country, enacted an arbitration act reflected from UNCITRAL Model Law for keeping face with international trends. We have used these three arbitration system as a tool for analyzing an arbitration system in North Korea. With an open-door policy, North Korea and China enacted an arbitration act to provide a legal security. Therefore, the core parts of arbitration system in North Korea and China are based on a socialist system while those of South Korea is on liberalism. So, North Korea and China enacted an arbitration act on the basis of institutional arbitration, on the other side, South Korea is based on ad-hoc arbitration. Because of these characters, in terms of party autonomy, it is recognized with the order as South Korea, China and North Korea. Also North Korea enacted separate 'Foreign Economic Arbitration Act' to resolve disputes arising out of foreign economies including commercial things and investments. There are differences in arbitration procedures and appointment of arbitrators : South Korea recognizes parties' autonomy, however parties should follow the arbitration rules of arbitration institutes in North Korea and China. According to an appointment of arbitrators, if parties fail to appoint co-arbitrators or chief arbitrators by a mutual agreement, the court has the right to appoint them. In case of following KCAB's rules, KCAB secretariats take a scoring system by providing a list of candidates. A party has to appoint arbitrators out of the lists provided by arbitration board(or committee) in North Korea. If a party may fail to appoint a chief arbitrator, President of International Trade Arbitration Board(or Committee) may appoint it. In China, if parties fail to appoint a co-arbitrator or a chief arbitrator by a mutual agreement, Secretary general will decide it. If a arbitral tribunal fails to give a final award by a majority decision, a chief arbitrator has the right for a final decision making. These arbitration systems in North Korea and China are one of concerns that our companies take into account in conducting arbitration procedures inside China. It is only possible for a party to enforce a final arbitral award when he applies an arbitration inside North Korea according to International Trade Arbitration Act because North Korea has not joined the New York Convention. It's doubtful that a party might be treated very fairly in arbitration procedures in North Korea because International Trade Promotion Commission controls(or exercises its rights against) International Trade Arbitration Commission(or Board).