• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제27권3호
• /
• pp.77-94
• /
• 2017

The United States has used legal theoretical constructions such as equitable estoppel and the third party beneficiary under which non-signatories of an arbitration agreement can be bound to the arbitration agreement of others. The third party beneficiary theory has been used when a signatory defendant argues that a non-signatory plaintiff is bound by an arbitration agreement, or a non-signatory defendant argues that a signatory plaintiff is required to arbitrate the plaintiff's claims against the non-signatory. On the other hand, equitable estoppel has developed as two distinct theories. According to the first theory, if a non-signatory party knowingly accepted the benefits of an agreement, it can be estopped from denying its obligation to arbitrate. The second theory compels a signatory to arbitrate because of the close relationship between the entities involved and the fact that the claims were intimately founded in and intertwined with the underlying contract obligations.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제18권1호
• /
• pp.71-96
• /
• 2008

Arbitration is fundamentally a matter of contract, whereby contractual parties may only be required to submit a dispute to arbitration pursuant to their formal agreement. However, there are several important exceptions to this rule that have developed under common law notions of implied consent. These doctrines may serve either to benefit or to harm a nonsignatory to an arbitral agreement because either (1) the nonsignatory may compel a signatory to the agreement to arbitrate a dispute or (2) the nonsignatory may be compelled to arbitrate a dispute despite never having signed an arbitration agreement. The Court has a long-standing domestic policy of favoring arbitration, and these doctrines reflect that policy. 1. incorporation by reference An arbitration clause may apply to a party who is a nonsignatory to one agreement containing an arbitration clause but who is a signatory to a second agreement that incorporates the terms of the first agreement. 2. assumption An arbitration clause may apply to a nonsignatory who has impliedly agreed to arbitrate. Under this theory, the nonsignatory's conduct is a determinative factor. For example, a nonsignatory who voluntarily begins arbitrating the merits of a dispute before an arbitral tribunal may be bound by the arbitrator's ruling on that dispute even though the nonsignatory was not initially required to arbitrate the dispute. 3. agency A nonsignatory to an arbitration agreement may be bound to arbitrate a dispute stemming from that agreement under the traditional laws of agency. A principal may also be bound to arbitrate a claim based on an agreement containing an arbitration clause signed by the agent. The agent, however, does not generally become individually bound by executing such an agreement on behalf of a disclosed principal unless there is clear evidence that the agent intended to be bound. 4. veil piercing/alter ego In the corporate context, a nonsignatory corporation to an arbitration agreement may be bound by that agreement if the agreement is signed by its parent, subsidiary, or affiliate. 5. estoppel The doctrine of equitable estoppel is usually applied by nonsignatory defendants who wish to compel signatory plaintiffs to arbitrate a dispute. This will generally be permitted when (1) the signatory must rely on the terms of the contract in support of its claims against the nonsignatory, or (2) the signatory alleges that it and the nonsignatory engaged in interdependent misconduct that is intertwined with the obligations imposed by the contract. Therefore, this article analyzed these doctrines centering around case-law in America.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제17권3호
• /
• pp.101-119
• /
• 2007

Arbitration is contractual by nature. One cannot be required to submit to arbitration any dispute which he has not agreed to so submit. As commercial transactions become increasingly complex, involving multiple parties and numerous contracts for a single transaction, however, limiting the parties who are subject to arbitration to only those who have signed a contract containing an arbitration clause would frustrate the purpose of such arbitration clause and might lead to injustice among the relevant parties. Therefore, U.S. courts have recognized a number of theories under which non-signatories may be bound to the arbitration agreement of others: (1) incorporation by reference; (2) assumption; (3) agency; (4) veil-piercing/alter ego; and (5) estoppel. Incorporation by reference and veil-piercing theories have already been recognized by Korean courts. Agency theory and estoppel theory are not recognizable under Korean law. However, the same or similar result may be achieved by applying the third party beneficiary theory or assumption by third party theory. Although a couple of Supreme Court cases appear to be at odds with the assumption theory, on the basis of the recent amendments to the Arbitration Act, such court precedents can be and should be reversed.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제24권3호
• /
• pp.1-31
• /
• 2014

The foundation of the arbitration jurisdiction is the arbitration agreement entered into by the parties to a contract. Usually, only the signatory parties to a contract and the disputes arising from a contract that includes an arbitration clause or to which the arbitration clause relates are the ones that can be submitted to arbitration. This article discusses some of the arguments for extending the arbitration clause in complex arbitrations, that is, in those cases where there are more than two parties, more than two contracts or more than two parties and contracts. Particularly, this paper addresses multiple contract arbitration when the contracts are related. One of the arguments used by the arbitral tribunal for the extension of jurisdiction is the existence of a link between the contracts. Additional arguments include implied consent, participation in the negotiation and performance of a contract and good faith. The article also discusses some of the typical cases of linked contracts in many civil law countries, such as subcontracts, third party beneficiaries and standard terms of contracts, from which arbitral jurisdictions problems may arise. Finally, special attention is given to Article 14 of the 2008 Peruvian Arbitration Law as the first provision in an arbitration law in Latin America that extends the arbitration agreement to non-signatory parties using for this a mixed approach.

• 무역학회지
• /
• 제43권3호
• /
• pp.75-100
• /
• 2018

본 연구는 국제수출통제규범을 고찰하고 국내 수출통제 법제를 분석하여 문제점을 도출하고 발전방안을 제시함으로써 우리나라 수출통제제도의 발전을 도모하는데 목적이 있다. 2005년 이후 본격 시행된 국내 수출통제 제도는 법체계와 목적, 상황허가 요건, 수출통제 대상 '물품등' 등의 용어에 대한 정의와 범위, 중개허가의 실효성 및 미국 재수출통제 대응 등의 측면에서 중대한 문제를 내포하고 있다. 그 발전방안으로 현행 대외무역법령에서 수출통제 부분을 분리하여 가칭 '수출통제법'으로 입법화, 수출통제 대상을 '전략품목'으로 통일, 상황허가 요건의 명료화, 중개허가 실효성 제고를 위한 등록제 도입 및 수출통제 관련 각종 용어에 대한 정비 등을 제안한다.

• 항공우주정책ㆍ법학회지
• /
• 제21권1호
• /
• pp.135-167
• /
• 2006

유럽연합의 통합과정에서 대두되는 EU와 제3국과의 항공교섭 상에서 기존의 EU회원국가들이 체결하고 있는 제3국과의 양국간 항공협정의 처리에 관한 문제가 대두하고 있다. 2004년 4월 29일의 유럽재판소의 판결기준에 대한 국제항공 공법적 차원에서 기존의 국제항공질서의 변화를 모색할 필요성이 강력하게 등장하게 된다. 이러한 점에서 특히 미국과의 기존의 양자관계를 다자관계로 변경하여야 하는 문제가 중요하다. 한국과도 향후 협상에 중요한 참고사항이 될 것이다. 이러한 점에서 특히 유럽연합과 미국의 기존의 양자관계에서 다자간 관계로 변형시켜 나가는 문제가 향후 국제항공질서에 커다란 영향을 미칠 것으로 보인다. 이러한 관점에서 새로운 방향전환을 위한 국제항공질서를 재정립할 대안모색을 해 본다. 결론적으로 대안모색으로서는 첫째, 기존의 시카고 협약에서 설정된 하늘에 대한 자유에 추가적인 질서형성을 위해 양국간 협정의 표본인 Bermuda I, II에 대체할 수 있는 어떤 다자간 제3의 Bermuda III와 같은 국제항공질서를 설정해야 한다. 둘째, 새로운 다자간 협정에 적용되어야 할 하늘의 자유는 양측의 자유만을 최대한 보장하는 형태가 아닌 양측의 주장을 조절하는 구체적인 것이 되어야 한다. 셋째, 또한 새로운 다자간 국제항공질서는 단순한 지역적 경계를 넘어서 전 지구적 문제로 접근한다는 점에서 최근 사회과학 연구에서 등장하는 복잡계이론을 도입할 필요가 있다. 이와 같은 대안모색에서 필요한 사항들을 점검하고 입장차를 줄여 나가는 방향으로 정리되어야 할 것으로 본다.