• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제17권1호
• /
• pp.33-55
• /
• 2007

Parties to national or international disputes use arbitration because they think it is faster than litigation or affords privacy. But it is very important for the parties that the decision of arbitrators is made impartially and independently. For the parties to accept the outcome of an arbitration, it is essential that the final outcome be the result of an impartial process, especially because arbitration is a form of adjudication, albeit a private one. The success of arbitration resides in the conduct of arbitrators. The more independent and impartial arbitrators are, the more trustworthy arbitration will be. Just as court procedures allow for the recusal of judges under certain circumstances, the arbitral process provides means to remove arbitrators from a tribunal if arbitrator can no longer be considered impartial or independent. This is blown as the disqualification or challenge of arbitrators. An arbitrator can also be challenged when he or she does not fulfill the contactually agreed and stipulated qualifications required by the arbitral agreement. An arbitrator's inability to act impartially could give rise to a challenge to the arbitrator, and even to the award. However, deciding whether an interest or relationship could give rise to an apprehension of bias is a difficult issue for every arbitrator. The standard of arbitrator's impartiality and independence is not commensurable to that of judge, because the parties are permitted considerable autonomy in selecting arbitrators. Particularly it may be expected for the party-appointed arbitrator to act as the advocate of the party in the deliberations of the tribunal. Doubts that could give rise to a challenge to the arbitrator should be justifiable. That is the case if a reasonable, informed third party would conclude that the arbitrator's decision making might be influenced by factors other than evidence presented by the parties. Consequently, for example, the mere fact that an arbitrator was to work in the same firm as one of the parties' counsel, this could not automatically be considered as grounds for challenge for lack of impartiality.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제17권1호
• /
• pp.77-95
• /
• 2007

This article focuses on the history and evolution of the US court's attitude towards unilateral arbitration and dispute resolution clauses, but also considers the practical approach of national courts to theses clauses. It goes on to consider some potential pitfalls in the operation of unilateral clauses, which should be borne in mind when developing a strategy for bringing or defending a claim which falls within the scope of a unilateral clause. There can be few objections to the general validity of unilateral arbitration clauses. The principle of party autonomy is the driving force behind international arbitration and, provided it is tolerably clear that the parties intended the arbitration clause to operate unilaterally, courts should be reluctant to interfere with the parties' agreement. There are also no persuasive public policy reasons why such clauses should not be upheld in commercial agreements. In addition to the issue of whether such unilateral clauses are permissible under certain law, it is important to be aware of how they should properly operate in practice, that is, useful guidance on the subject of the proper operation and effect of such clauses where they are intended to be used to enable a party to decide whether, and in what circumstances, a claim should be referred to court or to arbitration.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제11권1호
• /
• pp.121-143
• /
• 2001

Arbitration agreement is an agreement by the parties to submit to arbitration all or certain disputes which have arisen or which may arise between them in respect of defined legal relationship, whether contractual or not. Arbitration has become increasingly popular in settling international and domestic commercial disputes nowadays. The importance of arbitration agreement cannot be overemphasized. It is the most reasonable way to settle commercial disputes. There are two types in arbitration agreement. one is arbitration clause, the other is submission agreement. The arbitration agreement must be made in writing, in addition, other communication instruments shall be considered as effective arbitration agreement if they are properly documented. Over the past few decades, a considerable number of studies have been conducted on the legal property of arbitration agreement in Germany and Japan. Its legal property is aspect of substantial law contract. The basis of arbitration agreement is the principle of party autonomy. The important effect of arbitration agreement is to preclude jurisdiction from national court. The respondent shall raise a plea not later than when submitting his first defense on the merits of the action. As positive effect of arbitration agreement, the court must support the conduct of arbitral proceedings and arbitrator can be appointed upon request of a party.

• 한국콘텐츠학회논문지
• /
• 제7권11호
• /
• pp.223-231
• /
• 2007

본 논문에서는 송탄이 미래 u-City로서의 모습을 갖추기 위해 현 시점에서 가장 시급히 수행하여야 할 네 가지 비즈니스 모델(u-Tour, u-ITS, u-유통, B2B(business to business))을 제안한다. 이를 위하여 유비쿼터스 도시에서의 주요 비즈니스를 분석하고 송탄에서의 주요 산업인 관광산업, 산업단지 및 재래시장의 비즈니스 현황을 분석하며 문제점을 진단하고 이로부터 관광특구 지역 및 상가/재래시장 활성화, 수입증대, 고부가가치 산업 창출, 자급 자족의 도시 구현 등의 효과를 이룰 수 있는 주요 비즈니스 개발 전략과 함께 송탄 도시 구성원들, 즉 지자체, 시민, 산학연 협의체의 u-City 추진 방안을 제안한다.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제15권2호
• /
• pp.197-224
• /
• 2005

The purpose of this paper is to make research on the party's autonomy principle and the applicable law to the arbitration agreement, the applicable law to the validity of the arbitration agreement, the applicable law to the arbitrability of the arbitration agreement, the applicable law to the contracting ability of the arbitration agreement, and the applicable law to the method of the arbitration agreement. If no choice of law is made by the parties with respect to the arbitration agreement-which is the stand situation-the validity of the agreement may have to decided under its proper law, or under the law of the place of arbitration, or the law of the place of enforcement. If the subject matter is not arbitrable, the arbitration agreement remains without effect. The rules determining arbitrability may differ from one country to another, from one legal system to another. If a party is lacking capacity to enter into an arbitration agreement, the recognition and enforcement of the arbitral award may be refused at the request of the party against whom it is invoked. This principle is laid down in the New Yark Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards. The validity of an arbitration agreement sometimes also depends on the form in which it is made. Article II. 2 of the New York Convention states that the term 'agreement in writing' shall include an arbitral clause in a contract or an arbitration agreement, signed by the parties of contained in exchange of letters or telegrams.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제29권2호
• /
• pp.161-199
• /
• 2019

As international trades between Korea and China increase, the number of civil disputes also increases. The civil dispute settlement system and the court system in China are distinctive from those of Korea. China has its own court systems which are characterized by the Chinese Communist System. Due to the influence of the decentralized local autonomy tradition, the case laws of each Province in China are not unified throughout the China. This is partly because only two instances are provided in China, and the parties cannot appeal to the Supreme People's Court of China unless there is a special reason. In Korea, three instances are provided and parties can appeal to the Supreme Court if a party so chooses. In addition, there are many differences in the judicial environment of China compared to Korea. Therefore, if there is a dispute between a Korean party and a Chinese party, arbitration is recommended rather than court litigation. This article examines the points to be considered for interim measures in China during arbitration. Where the seat of arbitration is Korea, interim measures cannot be taken by the order of the Chinese court in the middle of or before arbitration procedures. On the other hand, it is possible to take interim measures through the Chinese court in the middle of or before the arbitration procedure in China or Hong Kong. It also reviews the points to be noted in case of the enforcement of arbitration awards in China where permission from the upper Court is required to revoke or to deny the recognition or enforcement of a foreign-related or foreign arbitration award.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제24권4호
• /
• pp.49-97
• /
• 2014

This study is about the availability of Chinese internal arbitration institutions by Korean invested companies. Generally, Chinese internal arbitration institutions lack independence from government. However, because parties seeking an arbitration award have ways to get neutrality from internal arbitration institutions that guarantee party autonomy, these Korean companies can use Chinese internal arbitration institutions to resolve disputes in China. Special attention should be given to the following. First, because Korean companies invested in China are legally in the same position as Chinese companies, unless foreign-related factors intervene, when disputes occur with Chinese companies or individuals, the disputes correspond to internal dispute, and when it comes to choosing the arbitration institution, these Korean companies must choose either a Chinese internal arbitration institution or foreign-related arbitration institution. Second, most Chinese internal arbitration institutions still lack independence from government, which can influence the fairness of arbitration in the future. Therefore, Korean companies invested in China should think about alternative ways to get a minimum impartiality in arbitration cases. Third, the parties are allowed to choose arbitration rules freely in Beijing, Xian, Chongqing, Guangzhou, and Hangzhou arbitration commissions. Therefore, in arbitration cases, the parties can get impartiality by choosing arbitrators according to the arbitration rules which they agree on, or by choosing partially modified arbitration rules of those arbitration commissions. Fourth, in order to get an impartial arbitration award from Chinese internal arbitration institutions in China, it is important for Korean lawyers or arbitration experts -- fluent in Chinese -- to be registered in the List of Arbitrators of Chinese internal arbitration institution by way of signing a MOU between the Korean Commercial Arbitration Board, or the Korean Association of Arbitration Studies and arbitration commissions such as those of Beijing, Xian, Chongqing, Guangzhou, and Hangzhou which comparatively do guarantee party autonomy. Fifth, because application of the preservation of property before application of arbitration is not approved in China, in practice, in order to preserve property before application of arbitration, it is best to file another suit in China based on other legal issue (e.g., tort) independent from the contract which an arbitration agreement is applied to. Sixth, in arbitration commissions which allow different agreement regarding arbitration procedures or arbitration rules, it is possible to choose a neutral arbitrator from a third country as a presiding arbitrator via UNCITRAL arbitration rules or ICC arbitration rules. Seventh, in the case of Chinese internal arbitral award, because the court reviews the substantive matters to decide the refusal of compulsory execution, the execution rate could be relatively lower than that of foreign-related cases. Therefore, when Korean companies invested in China use Chinese internal arbitration institution, they should endure low rate of execution. Eighth, considering the operational experiences of public policy on foreign-related arbitration awards so far, in cases of Chinese internal arbitration award, the possibility of cancellation of arbitral award or the possibility to refuse to execute the award due to public policy is thought to be higher than that of foreign arbitral awards. Ninth, even though a treaty on judicial assistance in civil and commercial matters has been signed between Korea and China, and it includes a provision on acknowledgement and enforcement of arbitral award, when trying to resolve disputes through Chinese internal arbitration institution, the treaty would not be a big help to resolve the disputes, because the disputes between Korean companies invested in China and the party in China are not subject to the treaty. Tenth, considering recent tendency of conciliation by the arbitral tribunal in China and the voluntary execution rate of the parties, the system of conciliation by the arbitral tribunal is expected to affect as a positive factor the Korean companies that use Chinese internal arbitration institution. Finally, when using online arbitration, arbitration fees can be reduced, and if the arbitration commissions guaranteeing party autonomy have online arbitration system, the possibility of getting impartial arbitration award through them is higher. Therefore, the use of online arbitration system is recommended.

• KDI Journal of Economic Policy
• /
• 제31권1호
• /
• pp.27-69
• /
• 2009

본 연구는 지방교부세제도에서는 어떤 자치단체장이라도 지방교부금의 상한까지 사용하려 하고 재원이 다른 용도로 사용될 가능성이 상대적으로 높다는 측면에서 지방세를 통한 지방재원 조달의 경우보다 비효율적이라는 것을 이론적으로 보이고 있다. 특히, 지방교부세제도의 경우에는 지방정부의 재정한계를 감소시키더라도 이러한 재정낭비의 가능성은 감소하지 않는다는 문제가 있다. 보다 효율적인 지방자치를 위해서는 국세의 지방세로의 전환을 통하여 지방재원이 지역주민으로부터 나오는 지방세를 강화할 필요성이 있다. 더 나아가 현행 지방교부세제도와 지방세 및 국세 체계를 개편하여 지방에서 사용하는 재원은 기본적으로 지방이 부담한다는 원칙을 확립할 필요성이 있다. 다시 말하면, 자치단체의 권한과 책무를 엄격하게 규정하고 그에 대응하는 재정권한 또한 부여되었을 때에만 재정의 낭비적 요소를 막을 수 있을 것이다. 이와 함께 상향식 공천제도인 경선제도를 통하여 지역정치인으로서 능력이 검증된 인물들이 중앙정치로 나아갈 수 있는 경로를 열어주고, 이를 통하여 현직 지역구의원과의 경쟁을 통하여 현직 지역구의원들의 지역발전을 위한 더 많은 노력을 유도할 수 있다는 점에서 중앙정치의 발전뿐만 아니라 지역발전에 보다 효율적인 제도라는 것을 보이고 있다. 다른 한편, 이러한 경선제도는 중앙정치로의 유인제공을 통하여 지방정치인의 지대추구행위를 감소시키는 효과도 있다. 더욱이 경선제도는 중앙정치에 참여하고자 하는 많은 능력 있는 인물들을 지방정치로 유도함으로써 지방발전을 도모할 수 있는 부수적인 효과도 얻을 수 있다. 이러한 중앙정치와 지방정치의 선순환적인 구조를 통하여 중앙정치와 지방분권 및 지역발전을 도모할 수 있다는 측면에서 경선제도의 도입이 긴요하다고 판단된다.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제12권
• /
• pp.461-494
• /
• 1999

This study is to analyse the applicability of governing law in multi-party contractual relationship of letter of credit. And this study is also to suggest the limits of the possibility of applicable law in multi-party contract. The contract of letter of credit constitutes complex relationship, i.e., applicant -beneficiary, applicant-issuing bank, issuing bank-intermediary bank ect. The law applicable to letter of credit should not use a singular governing law in all credit transaction as sales contract. To solve these problems, the author analysed the law applicable to the credit under multi-party contractual relationship as follow : (1) the principle of party autonomy (2) In the absence of express agreement with regard to the law applicable to the contract, lex loci contractus, lex loci solutionis, the law intended by the parties, the law with which contract is most closely connected. Accordingly, when attempting to ascertain the law governing the credit, it should be borne in mind that the credit involves several contractual relationships. I would like to conclude as follows: 1. The contract between the applicant and the Issuing bank is to be governed by the law of the country where the contract is made, and in which the bank carries on business and has issued the credit. 2. When it comes to the beneficiary-Intermediary bank relationship the following rule is given : The liability of an intermediary bank to the seller is governed by the law the country where the intermediary bank is operating if it is acting as principal. If, however, it is acting as agent(advising bank), it will be the law of the country where his principal is situate. 3. The contract between the beneficiary and the Issuing bank is governed by the law of the country where the payment is to be performed. 4. The contract between the Issuing bank and Intermediary bank is governed by 1) the law of the issuing bank is applicable if the intermediary bank only advises the credit, 2) the law of the issuing bank is applicable but if the intermediary bank makes payment, accepts or negotiates drafts against the tender of the documents, i.e., act as the bank dffecting the payment., 3) the law of the confirming bank is applicable if the irrevocable letter of credit is confirmed by the intermediary bank

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제45권
• /
• pp.51-82
• /
• 2010

The "rules of private international law" or "conflict of law rules" work to determine the governing law, the law applicable to international contracts. These rules permit parties' autonomy to choose the law applicable to their contracts in cases of both litigations and arbitrations. In this regards, the present article examines parties' five options for the choice of the law governing their contracts, which the parties should consider when negotiating and drafting an international agreement. This means that parties in international contracting should check the contents of the law that they are to choose as the governing law before doing so. The first option is to submit the contract to its own law, which can be the safest and simplest solution generally. However this option is subject to the consent of the other party, and is not appropriate when the domestic law chosen contains mandatory rules strongly protecting the other party. Secondly, the option of choosing the other party's law is not preferable in general. Even though the other party is strong enough to succeed in insisting on applying its own law, the other party is advised to counter-offer a neutral solution by suggesting the application of a transnational set of rules and principles of international contract, such as Unidroit Principles. The third option to choose the law of a third country should be taken with the caution that it should be harmonized with either, in case of litigations, the international jurisdiction clause which makes the country chosen have the jurisdiction over the dispute arising under the contract, or, in case of arbitrations, the way of selection of the arbitrator who has good knowledge of the law chosen. The fourth option of submitting the contract to the lex mercatoria or the general principles of law including the Unidroit Principles can be a advisable solution when a dispute is designed to be submitted to experienced arbitrators. The final and fifth is to be silent on the choice of the governing law in contracting. This option can be usefully available by experienced negotiators who are well familiar with the conflict of laws rules and enables the parties to avoid the difficulties to agree on the governing law issue and leave it open until a dispute arises.