• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제69권
• /
• pp.543-566
• /
• 2016

This article examines the Annulment Procedure of ICSID Arbitration Award. Although the ICSID annulment procedure is not substantially different from arbitration procedure, it does have certain unique features. Article 52 of the Convention provides that the application for annulment must be made within 120days after the date on which the award was rendered. ICSID Arbitration Rule 50, in turn, stipulates that a request for annulment of a award must: i)be addressed in writing to the Secretary-General; ii)identify the award to which it relates; iii)indicated the date of the application; and iv)state in detail the grounds for annulment on which it is based. The grounds for annulment are limited to those in Article 52(1) of the Convention. With respect to the possibility of waiving the right to annulment in advance, commentators are divided. Some authors admit the possibility of agreements eliminating the right to request annulment. Other authors, instead, have taken the position that parties cannot waive their right to annulment in advanced because no provision in the Convention allows the parties to do so, and thus the right to request annulment is inalienable. In accordance with Article 52(4), annulment decisions must comply with the requirements for awards stipulated in Article 48. Therefore; i)the committee decide questions by majority; ii)the decision must be in writing and must be signed by the members of the committee who voted for it; iii)any member of the committee may attach his individual opinion to the award; and iv)ICSID must not publish the decision without the consent of the parties. Finally, under Article 52(4), parties are not allowed to request the interpretation, revision, or annulment of a decision on annulment. Even if the committee allegedly manifestly exceeded its powers or engaged in any conduct sanctioned by Article 52(1), the parties cannot request the annulment of the decision on annulment.

• 의료법학
• /
• 제10권2호
• /
• pp.343-405
• /
• 2009

This paper is to discuss essential business of hospital business. While the labor world and ILO made continuous recommendation for improvements towards the compulsory arbitration system along with the controversy over unconstitutionality of the system, the Constitutional Court ruled that the system is constitutional on December 23, 1996(90hunba19) and on May 15, 2003 (2001hunga31). Despite this decision from the Constitutional Court, there has been much controversy over whether the compulsory arbitration system infringes the rights of collective action against the principle of trade union & labor relations adjustment which allows Commissioner of the Labor Relations Commission to decide on submission of arbitration by virtue of his/her authority in case where industrial disputes take place in the essential public-service businesses. The revision on the above provision was closely examined from the year 2003 and an agreement was made on the abolition of the compulsory arbitration system and the introduction of essential business with a grand compromise among labor unions, employers and the government on September 11, 2006 followed by revision(Essential business system enacted on January 1, 2008) of the Trade Union & Labor Relations Adjustment Act on December 30 in the same year. Accordingly, in order to perform the essential business, parties to labor relations must have an agreement or obtain a decision by the Labor Relations Commission before taking industrial actions. This paper firstly examined the concept of essential public-service businesses and essential business, legal meaning of essential business, procedures for making agreement and decision and legal effects. Secondly it intensively explored a theory against the principle of the legality which was raised from some part of society. In other words, it is claimed that a theory against the principle of the legality is not consistent with the rule of legislation and some abstract wording is against void for vagueness doctrine because part of crime constitution requirements is delegated to the Presidential Decree or to consultation among parties to labor relations. But analysis on the rule of legislation and void for vagueness doctrine reflected in the decision by the Constitutional Court led that argument for a theory against the principle of the legality is not reasonable. Close examination was done on a formal act of essential business agreement and necessity of prior agreement before submission of decision to the Labor Relations Commission which might have difficulties in performing work. In addition, an example agreement on hospital essential business is attached to help you understand this paper better.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제13권2호
• /
• pp.459-488
• /
• 2004

General interest in the out-of-court dispute resolution system are mounting in Korea, and the spread of ADR(alternative dispute resolution) is the worldwide trend. In addition, it was confirmed that the resolution of disputes by ADR such as the decision based on arbitration made by the Prime Ministerial Administrative Decision Committee is no longer in exclusive possession of the civil case. The activation of ADR could lead to the smooth agreement between parties by getting away from the once-for-all mode of decision such as the dismissal of the application or the cancellation of disposal and the like in relation to administrative cases for the years. In consequence, it is anticipated that the administrative litigation that applicants have filed by not responding to the administrative decision would greatly reduce in the future. But, it would be urgent to provide for the legal ground of the ADR system through the revision of related laws to take root in our society because ADR has no legal binding power relating to the administrative case due to the absence of its legal grounds. The fundamental reason for having hesitated to introduce ADR in relation to the administrative case for the years is the protective interest of the third party as well as the public interest that would follow in case the agreement on the dispute resolution between parties brings the dispute to a termination in the domain of the public law. The disputes related to the contract based on the public law and the like that take on a judicial character as the administrative act have been settled within the province of ADR by applying the current laws such as the Civil Arbitration Law, Mediation Law, but their application to the administrative act of the administrative agency that takes on a character of the public law has been hesitated. But as discussed earlier, there are laws and regulations that has the obscure distinction between public and private laws. But there is no significant advantage in relation to the distinction between public and private laws. To supplement and cure these defects it is necessary to include the institutional arrangement for protection of the rights and benefits of the third party, for example the provision of the imposition of the binding power on the result of ADR between parties, in enacting its related law. It can be said that the right reorganization of the out-of-court dispute resolution system in relation to the administrative case corresponds with the ideology of public administration for cooperaton in the Administrative Law. It is high time to discuss within what realm the out-of-court dispute resolution system, alternative dispute resolution system, can be accepted and what binding power is imposed on its result, not whether it is entirely introduced into the administrative case. It is thought that the current Civil Mediation Law or Arbitration Law provides the possibility of applying arbitration or mediation only to the civil case, thereby opening the possibility of arbitration in the field of the intellectual property right law. For instance, the act of the state is not required in establishing the rights related to the secret of business or copyrights. Nevertheless, the disputes arising from or in connection with the intellectual property rights law is seen as the administrative case, and they are excluded from the object of arbitration or mediation, which is thought to be improper. This is not an argument for unconditionally importing ADR into the resolution of administrative cases. Most of the Korean people are aware that the administrative litigation system is of paramount importance as the legal relief for administrative cases. Seeing that there is an independent administrative decision system based on the Administrative Decision Law other than administrative litigation in relation to administrative cases, the first and foremost task is the necessity for the shift in thinking of people, followed by consideration of the plan for relief of the rights through the improvement of the administrative decision system. Then, it is necessary to formulate the plan for the formal introduction and activation of ADR. In this process, energetic efforts should be devoted to introducing diverse forms of ADR procedures such as settlement conference, case evaluation, mini-trial, summary jury trial, early neutral evaluation adopted in the US as the method of dispute resolution other than compromise, conciliation, arbitration and mediation

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제32권4호
• /
• pp.53-85
• /
• 2022

Small and medium-sized enterprises ("SMEs") are vulnerable to trade secret misappropriation. Korea's legislation for the protection of SMEs' trade secrets and provision of civil, criminal, and administrative remedies includes the SME Technology Protection Act, the Unfair Competition Prevention Act, the Industrial Technology Protection Act, the Mutually Beneficial Cooperation Act, and the Subcontracting Act. Among these acts, the revised SME Technology Protection Act of 2018 introduced the "administrative technology misappropriation investigation system" to facilitate a rapid resolution of SMEs' technology misappropriation disputes. On September 27, 2021, Korea's Ministry of SMEs announced that it had reached an agreement to resolve the dispute between Hyundai Heavy Industries and Samyeong Machinery through the administrative technology misappropriation investigation system. However, not until 3 years and a few months passed since the introduction of the system could it be used to resolve an SME's technology misappropriation dispute with a large corporation. So there arose a question on the usefulness of the system. Therefore, we conducted a comparative legal analysis of Korea's laws enacted to protect trade secrets of SMEs and to address technology misappropriation, focusing on their legislative purpose, protected subject matter, types of misappropriation, and legal remedies. Then we analyzed the administrative technology misappropriation investigation system and the cases where this system was applied. We developed a proposal to enhance the usefulness of the system. The expert interviews of 4 attorneys who are experienced in the management of the system to check the practical value of the proposal. Our analysis shows that the lack of compulsory investigation and criminal sanctions is the fundamental limitation of the system. We propose revising the SME Technology Protection Act to provide correction orders, criminal sanctions, and compulsory investigation. We also propose training professional workforces to conduct digital forensics, enabling terminated SMEs to utilize the system, and assuring independence and fairness of the mediation and arbitration of the technology misappropriation disputes.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제25권4호
• /
• pp.77-95
• /
• 2015

CISG provides a uniform framework for contracts of sale of goods between parties whose places of business are in different States. In 2004 South Korea became the 63th State around world to adopt CISG. Starting next year CISG goes into effect as the law that governs the contracts for international sale of goods, in respect of which CISG displaces the existing domestic civil and commercial codes of Korea. By its provision Article 1(a), CISG applies directly between Contracting States without reference to private international law. As South Korea's biggest trade partners including China, the U.S. and Japan are also parties to CISG, the number of such direct applications continuously increases. Now it is estimated, though roughly, that CISG governs about two-thirds of Korea's import and export trade of goods. The private survey of the author shows that up to now in South Korea there are 39 court cases decided by the first instance courts, 29 cases by the appellate court and six cases by the Supreme Court of South Korea. In nearly all these cases, CISG applied directly. Furthermore, currently CISG is, in several respects, influencing upon the revision of Korean civil code which is designed to modernize it: The revised draft published in 2013 adopts the rules on the revocation of offers provided in articles 15 and 16, the rule on the termination of offers provided in article 17 and the rule on the time that an acceptance takes its effect provided in article 18 of CISG. More importantly, in accordance with the rules taken by CISG, the revision draft no longer requires the existence of fault or negligence on behalf of the breaching party in order for the aggrieved party to void the contract, and the revised draft denies the right of avoidance for trivial, not fundamental, breaches of contract.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제8권1호
• /
• pp.323-352
• /
• 1998

Documentary letters of credit including standby letters of credit are governed by the independence or abstraction rule and the doctrine of strict compliance. Since the former rule requires the issuing bank to honor the drafts regardless of the defective performance of the underlying contract, the applicant(the customer) will be without a remedy if he is unable to make himself whole by litigation on the underlying contract. Therefore, the applicant is exposed to a risk much higher than in the commercial letters of credit. The Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credit(UCP) has no provisions allowing legal relief for the applicant on the abuse of L/C by unscrupulous beneficiary, but UCC ${\S}5-114$ has provision allowing injunctive relief for the applicant. In this paper, I attempted to clarify certain standards of injunctive relief available for the customer in the credit. When there is fraud in the L/C transaction by any of the parties concerned, we must weigh the principle of independence or abstraction and the fraud rules. According to banking practice and judicial precedence, we need not keep the principle of independence and abstaction even in fraudulent transaction and the bona fide sufferer must be protected. The purpose of this paper is to review the studies of Fraud rule and the Injunction and to suggest the applicable standards for the Injunction therory under letters of credit. Specially this paper analysed the following ; (1) the guideline for the fraud (exception) rule to the autonomy principle, (2) the appilcable standards of the Injunction, and (3) the implications on parties concerned in letters of credit transaction. Conclusively, the Injunction should be granted if (1) there is clear proof of fraud (2) the fraud constitutes fraudulent abuse if the independent purpose of L/C (3) irreparble injury might follow if injunction is not granted or the recovery of damages would be seriously endangered.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제19권1호
• /
• pp.121-145
• /
• 2009

South Korea has investment agreements such as FTAs, BITs with several countries. Up to now, no single case has been registered against the Korean government on breach of investment agreements, but it is likely that the number of such cases would increase. Therefore, an investor-state dispute settlement system, an arbitral procedure by which a foreign investor may seek compensation of damage against the host country, is gaining its importance. The provision of the ISDS has been one of the hottest issues in Korea while the Kor-US FTA was being signed. In this respect, with the growing number of regional agreements such as BITs and FTAs, a careful scrutiny on the ISDS is necessary for Korea. I have therefore studied theoretically subjects including the National Treatment(NT), the Most-Favored Nation(MFN), Fair and Equitable Treatment and Expropriation - those that have been the objects of protection on investors. And I have analyzed ICSID arbitral awards and provided implications. In the ICSID arbitral awards, the Fair and Equitable Treatment turned out to be the most recognized violation on investors by the host State in terms of investor protection. On the other hand, Indirect Expropriation - a matter of which public anxiety was shown led by civic groups - was not generally recognized in arbitral awards. This study is written for sake of governments, local autonomous entities and public enterprises that are in charge of FTAs and BITs.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제44권
• /
• pp.57-84
• /
• 2009

This Study attempts to compare and analyze on Principle of Change Circumstances under th CISG, PICC and PECL which are covered international commercial contract. In many international commercial contract, time is very important because delays in performance are sanctioned heavily by substantial penalty clauses. When change in circumstances affects contract performance, the contract will often not be suspended or terminated. Therefore, principle of change circumstances is being prepared of fluidity of contract environment and its effect in general. Taking into consideration the problems relating to the renegotiation or adaptation in the cases of radical change of circumstances where the CISG applies, it is suggested that the contracting parties should make clear their intentions, that is, whether they will provide for the possibility of renegotiation where the price of goods has been altered by inserting a hardship clause or for the possibility of mutual discharge from liability in the cases of economic impossibility or hardship by inserting a force majeure clause. Such provision will be desirable especially in situations where there is a long term contract, the price of goods sold tends to fluctuate in the international commerce, or where especially in contracts subjected to arbitration, the parties subject their contract to legal sources or principles of supranational character. Therefore, this study has shown that the hardship provisions in the CISG, PICC and PECL has similarities to each a validity defense and an excuse defense. it was provisions that CISG governs this issue in Article 79, PICC Article 6.2.1, 6.2.2, 6.2.3 and PECL Article 6.111.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제54권
• /
• pp.145-166
• /
• 2012

This article examines the limitations of the choice of law caused by Internationally Mandatory Rules in Entering into the Turn-Key Contracts. In June 2007, Clough Engineering, a corporation based in Western Australia, approached the Federal Court of Australia seeking injunctive relief and leave to commence proceedings against an entity located outside Australia, the Oil & Natural Gas Corp of India (ONGC). Clough had contracted with ONGC to provide a range of services in relation to the construction of gas and oil wells off the coast of India. The contract was governed by Indian law, and included a clause by which the parties agreed to submit their disputes to arbitration. Yet the Federal Court assumed jurisdiction over the dispute, principally because Clough had framed its claim as a plea for relief for contraventions of Australia's Trade Practices Act 1974. The result of this cases that it is possible for an arbitral tribunal to hear a claim made under the Trade Practices Act even if that claim arises "in connection with"a contract the proper law of which is not the law of Australia. However, in Transfield Philippines Inc v Pacific Hydro Ltd, the turnkey contract included a choice of law provision, selecting the law of the Philippines, and a clause providing that all disputes arising out of or in connection with the agreement were to be arbitrated under the ICC Rules, with the seat in Singapore. Hearings were in fact conducted in Melbourne, Australia, although all awards were published in Singapore. The result of this cases that it would not be appropriate for an Australian court to adjudicate claims for misrepresentation under Australian statutes dealing with misleading and deceptive conduct, once the arbitral tribunal had determined, applying appropriate choice of law rules, that such claims are governed by the law of the Philippines. To do so would lead to a multiplicity of proceedings, usurp the jurisdiction of the tribunal and deny the intention of the parties as expressed by them in the arbitration agreement. In short, the Internationally Mandatory Rules as an active part of public order create limitation of party autonomy in choice of law rules in a different way. The court is fully entitled to refuse to use those rules of law applicable on the contract which are in the contradiction to the internationally mandatory rules of law of the forum. And the court may give an effect to those Internationally Mandatory Rules that form a part of a law of foreign country when deciding about applicability of certain rules of applicable law.

• 항공우주정책ㆍ법학회지
• /
• 제33권2호
• /
• pp.225-266
• /
• 2018

2017년 한국소비자원에 접수된 항공여객운송서비스 관련 피해구제 접수건수는 1,252건으로 2016년 1,262건 대비 0.8% 감소하여 2013년 이후 처음으로 감소세를 나타냈다. 그리고 2017년 한국소비자원에 접수된 항공여객운송서비스 분야의 피해구제 접수건 가운데 444건(35.4%)이 합의가 성립되었으며, 합의가 성립되지 않은 건 중에서 정보제공 상담 기타로 종결된 경우가 588건(47.0%)으로 가장 많았고, 소비자분쟁조정위원회에 조정 신청된 경우가 186건(14.9%)이었다. 항공서비스 소비자 피해구제와 분쟁해결을 위한 규정을 두고 있는 주요입법으로는 항공사업법, 소비자기본법 등이 있는데, 항공사업법에서 항공교통사업자의 피해구제절차와 처리계획의 수립 및 이행 그리고 피해구제 신청 접수 및 처리, 항공교통이용자 보호기준의 고시 등에 관하여 규정하고 있으며, 소비자기본법에서 소비자상담기구의 실치 운영, 한국소비자원의 피해구제, 소비자분쟁의 조정, 소비자분쟁해결기준의 제정 등에 관하여 규정하고 있다. 항공서비스 소비자 피해구제 절차로는 항공교통사업자의 피해구제 접수 처리, 소비자상담센터의 상담 및 피해구제 접수 처리, 한국소비자원의 합의권고, 소비자분쟁조정위원회의 분쟁조정제도 등이 있다. 현행 항공서비스 소비자 피해구제 및 분쟁조정 제도에는 항공사업법 상 항공교통사업자의 피해구제계획 수립 및 이행 의무의 면제, 항공부문 소비자분쟁해결기준 상 운송 불이행 및 지연의 경우 면책 등에 대하여 문제점이 있고, 그리고 소비자기본법상 소비자분쟁조정의 절차진행 및 조정성립에 대하여 한계점이 있다. 따라서 항공서비스 소비자에 대한 적절한 피해구제와 원활한 분쟁조정을 위하여 관련 제도의 개선방안을 제시하면 다음과 같다. 첫째 항공서비스 소비자 피해구제 관련 법규의 정비이다. 항공사업법 상 항공교통사업자의 피해구제계획 수립과 이행 의무의 면제규정이 수정되어야 할 것이다. 또한 항공서비스 소비자 보호와 피해구제에 관한 법 규정의 체계화와 전문성 제고를 위해 미국연방규칙 14 CFR 및 EU의 EC 261/2004 규칙과 유사한 별도 입법을 마련할 필요가 있을 것이다. 둘째 항공서비스 소비자 분쟁해결기준의 개선이다. 항공부문 소비자분쟁해결기준 상 항공사업자의 운송 불이행 및 운송지연의 경우 면책사유의 발생 원인이 불가항력이었는지를 규명하여 면책여부를 판별하여야 하고, 상법 항공운송편 및 1999년 몬트리올 협약에 규정된 면책사유와 같이 수정되어야 하며, 대체편이 제공된 운송 불이행의 경우와 운송지연에 대하여 배상기준을 통일하는 것이 필요할 것이다. 셋째 항공서비스 소비자 피해구제를 위한 정보제공의 강화이다. 항공관련 정부기관 및 유관기관들은 항공사 및 공항과 협력하여 항공서비스 소비자 피해구제를 위한 법규와 정책 등 다양한 정보를 항공교통이용자에게 보다 신속 명확하게 제공해야 할 것이다. 넷째 소비자분쟁조정의 효력 등에 관한 보완이다. 분쟁조정에 대한 수락 의사표시가 없을 경우 수락한 것으로 보는 것은 부당하므로 이의신청제도를 추가할 필요가 있을 것이다. 또한 소비자분쟁조정위원회 이외 다른 분쟁조정기구에 중복으로 분쟁해결을 신청한 경우 피해구제 대상에서 제외하고 있으나 당사자가 조정기관을 선택할 수 있도록 해야 할 것이다. 그리고 소비자분쟁이 조정을 통하여 효율적으로 해결될 수 있도록 조정성립률을 높일 수 있는 제도적 방안을 강구할 필요가 있을 것이다. 다섯째 항공서비스 소비자 중재제도의 도입이다. 소비자분쟁 조정제도의 한계점을 보완할 수 있는 방안으로 소비자 중재제도를 도입하되, 소비자기본법 상 중재 도입안과 중재법 상 소비자중재 도입안이 있는데, 후자의 방안이 적합할 것으로 생각된다. 결론적으로, 정책과제로서 항공서비스 소비자의 피해 예방 및 구제를 강화하는 법 제도를 마련하고, 항공서비스 선진화를 위한 소비자 중심의 정책을 수립 추진해야 할 것이다.