• Title/Summary/Keyword: The Procedure for Decision of Enforcement

검색결과 13건 처리시간 0.02초

중재판정에 의한 집행판결의 절차와 그 문제점 (The Procedure for Decision of Enforcement by the Arbitration Award and Its Problems)

  • 김봉석
    • 한국중재학회지:중재연구
    • /
    • 제13권1호
    • /
    • pp.169-205
    • /
    • 2003
  • Arbitration means the procedure that a party inquires a third party arbitrator for a resolution on the dispute on certain matters of interest to follow through with the commitment of the arbitration, and a series of procedures performed by the arbitrator of the Korean Commercial Arbitration Board. Arbitration is implemented in accordance with the procedure determined by the Arbitration Act and Arbitration Regulations. In the event the parties reach to the reconciliation during the process of arbitration, the reconciliation is recorded in the form of arbitration award(decision), and in the event a reconciliation is not made, the arbitrator shall make the decision on the particular case. The arbitration award(decision) for reconciliation during the arbitration procedure (Article 31 of Arbitration Act, hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') or the mediation under the Arbitration Regulation of the Korean Commercial Arbitration Board (Article 18 of the Arbitration Regulations) shall have the same effectiveness with the decision rendered by a court that, in the event a party does not perform the obligation, the enforcement document is rendered under the Rules on Enforcement Document on Mediation Statement of various dispute resolution committees of the Supreme Court to carry out the compulsory enforcement. However, in the event that the party to take on the obligation to perform under the arbitration award (decision) rendered by the arbitrator (Article 32 of the Act) does not perform without due cause, a separate enforcement decision in accordance with the procedure determined under the Civil Enforcement Act shall be obtained since the arbitration award(decision) cannot be the basis of enforcement under the Civil Enforcement Act. And, in order to enforce the judgment compulsorily in accordance with the regulations under the Civil Enforcement Act under the foreign arbitration judgment (Article 39 of the A.1), it shall fulfill the requirement determined under the Civil Litigation Act (article 217 of Civil Litigation Act) and shall obtain a separate enforcement decision in accordance with the procedure determined under the Civil Enforcement Act (Article 26 and Article 27 of Civil Enforcement Act) since the arbitration judgment of foreign country shall not be based on enforcement under the Civil Enforcement Act. It may be the issue of legislation not to recognize the arbitration award(decision) as a source of enforcement right, and provide the compulsive enforcement by recognizing it for enforcement right after obtaining the enforcement document with the decision of a court, however, not recognizing the arbitration award(decision) as the source of enforcement right is against Clause 3 of Article 31 of the Act, provisions of Article 35, Article 38 and Article 39 that recognized the validity of arbitration as equal to the final judgment of a court, and the definition that the enforcement decision of a court shall require the in compulsory enforcement under Clause 1 of Article 37 of the Act which clearly is a conflict of principle as well. Anyhow, in order to enforce the arbitration award(decision) mandatorily, the party shall bring the litigation of enforcement decision claim to the court, and the court shall deliberate with the same procedure with general civil cases under the Civil Litigation Act. During the deliberation, the party obligated under the arbitration award(decision) intended to not to undertake the obligation and delay it raises the claim and suspend the enforcement of cancelling the arbitration award(decision) on the applicable arbitration decision within 3 months from the date of receiving the authentic copy of the arbitration award(decision) or the date of receiving the authentic copy of correction, interpretation or additional decision under the Regulation of Article 34 of the Act (Clause 3 of Article 36 of the Act). This legislation to delay the sentencing of the enforcement and then to sentence the enforcement decision brings the difficulties to a party to litigation costs and time for compulsory enforcement where there is a requirement of an urgency. With the most of cases for arbitration being the special field to make the decision only with the specialized knowledge that the arbitrator shall be the specialists who have appropriate knowledge of the system and render the most reasonable and fair decision for the arbitration. However, going through the second review by a court would be most important, irreparable and serious factor to interfere with the activation of the arbitration system. The only way to activate the arbitration system that failed to secure the practicality due to such a factor, is to revise the Arbitration Act and Arbitration Regulations so that the arbitration decision shall have the right to enforce under the Rules on Enforcement Document on Mediation Statement of various dispute resolution committees of the Supreme Court.

  • PDF

2016년 개정 중재법의 중재판정 집행에 관한 문제점 (Problems on the Arbitral Awards Enforcement in the 2016 Korean Arbitration Act)

  • 윤진기
    • 한국중재학회지:중재연구
    • /
    • 제26권4호
    • /
    • pp.3-41
    • /
    • 2016
  • This paper reviews the problems on the arbitral awards enforcement in the 2016 Korean Arbitration Act. In order to get easy and rapid enforcement of the arbitral awards, the new arbitration act changed the enforcement procedure from an enforcement judgement procedure to an enforcement decision procedure. However, like the old arbitration act, the new act is still not arbitration friendly. First of all, there are various problems in the new act because it does not approve that an arbitral award can be a schuldtitel (title of enforcement) of which the arbitral award can be enforced. In this paper, several problems of the new act are discussed: effect of arbitral award, approval to res judicata of enforcement decision, different trial process and result for same ground, possibility of abuse of litigation for setting aside arbitral awards and delay of enforcement caused by setting aside, infringement of arbitration customer's right to be informed, and non-internationality of enforcement of interim measures of protection, inter alia. The new arbitration act added a proviso on article 35 (Effect of Arbitral Awards). According to article 35 of the old arbitration act, arbitral awards shall have the same effect on the parties as the final and conclusive judgement of the court. The proviso of article 35 in the new act can be interpret two ways: if arbitral awards have any ground of refusal of recognition or enforcement according to article 38, the arbitral awards do not have the same effect on the parties as the final and conclusive judgement of the court; if arbitral awards have not recognised or been enforced according to article 38, the arbitral awards do not have the same effect on the parties as the final and conclusive judgement of the court. In the case of the former, the parties cannot file action for setting aside arbitral awards in article 36 to the court, and this is one of the important problems of the new act. In the new act, same ground of setting aside arbitral awards can be tried in different trial process with or without plead according to article 35 and 37. Therefore, progress of enforcement decision of arbitral awards can be blocked by the action of setting aside arbitral awards. If so, parties have to spend their time and money to go on unexpected litigation. In order to simplify enforcement procedure of arbitral awards, the new act changed enforcement judgement procedure to enforcement decision procedure. However, there is still room for the court to hear a case in the same way of enforcement judgement procedure. Although the new act simplifies enforcement procedure by changing enforcement judgement procedure to enforcement decision procedure, there still remains action of setting aside arbitral awards, so that enforcement of arbitral awards still can be delayed by it. Moreover, another problem exists in that the parties could have to wait until a seventh trial (maximum) for a final decision. This result in not good for the arbitration system itself in the respect of confidence as well as cost. If the arbitration institution promotes to use arbitration by emphasizing single-trial system of arbitration without enough improvement of enforcement procedure in the arbitration system, it would infringe the arbitration customer's right to be informed, and further raise a problem of legal responsibility of arbitration institution. With reference to enforcement procedure of interim measures of protection, the new act did not provide preliminary orders, and moreover limit the court not to recognize interim measures of protection done in a foreign country. These have a bad effect on the internationalization of the Korean arbitration system.

독일민사소송법상 외국중재판정의 승인 및 집행 - 「독일민사소송법」 제1061조를 중심으로 - (Recognition or Enforcement of Arbitral Awards under the German Civil Procedure Act)

  • 성준호
    • 한국중재학회지:중재연구
    • /
    • 제29권2호
    • /
    • pp.107-132
    • /
    • 2019
  • The arbitration procedure, which is a private trial, does not have a separate enforcement agency. Therefore, unless a party consents to the arbitration award and voluntarily fulfills the award, its execution is accomplished through the implementation of the national court. In particular, the decision in the foreign arbitration procedure will be refused or rejected for the arbitration award in case the proceedings of the law and procedure on which the judgment is based are caused by inconsistency with the domestic law or procedural defect. However, all foreign arbitration awards generally do not have to go through the approval process, and it will come into force with the arbitration award. In the case of Germany in the revision of the German Civil Procedure Act of 1996, the main provisions of the New York Convention concerning the ratification and enforcement of arbitration proceedings are reflected. Germany provides for the arbitration procedures in the arbitration proceedings of Book 10 of the Civil Procedure Act. Particularly, with Article 1061 in Book 10 Section 8 below, the approval and enforcement of foreign arbitrators shall be governed. Article 1061 has been referred to as "The New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Jurisdictions," Article 5 (1). The main reasons for approval and enforcement rejection are: (1) Reason for the acceptance or refusal of enforcement by request of the parties: Reason for failure of subjective arbitration ability, invalidation of arbitration agreement, collapse of attack or defense method, dispute not included in arbitration agreement, (2) Reasons for the approval and enforcement of arbitration considered by the competent authority of the arbitrator: violation of objective arbitration ability, violation of public order, but not based on the default of German statute.

중재지인 외국에서 취소된 중재판정의 효력에 관한 고찰 (A Study on The effect of Set aside Arbitral award made abroad)

  • 김명엽
    • 한국중재학회지:중재연구
    • /
    • 제13권2호
    • /
    • pp.103-122
    • /
    • 2004
  • Recognition and enforcement of the arbitral award play an important role in the settlement of the international commercial disputes. The New York Convention makes it a duty for the courts of signatories to recognize and enforce the foreign arbitral awards not taking the nationality of the party concerned into consideration. Recognition and enforcement of the arbitral award may be refused if the award has not yet become binding on the parties, or has been set aside or suspended by a competent authority of the country in which, or under the law of which, that award was made. The arbitral award has the same force as an irrevocable judgement including effect of excluding further litigation, its execution and formation. But the effect of set aside arbitral award made abroad in arbitral place was denied by France court for the interest of his people. There is no arbitral act but arbitral procedure is regulated by New Code of Civil Procedure in case of France. An appeal against the decision which grants recognition or enforcement is open if the recognition or execution is contrary to international pubic policy in virtue of Art. 1502. Arbitrator may consider compulsory provisions in arbitral place to assure to recognition and enforcement of the arbitral award.

  • PDF

A Study on the Dispute Settlement Procedure for the Preferential Rules of Origin

  • Yi, Ji-Soo
    • 한국중재학회지:중재연구
    • /
    • 제26권3호
    • /
    • pp.3-26
    • /
    • 2016
  • The preferential Rules of Origin (RoO) govern tariff preferences that are given in accordance with the FTA. However, relatively few studies have been devoted to the procedures in settling disputes that are relevant to RoO under the FTA. This study is a first attempt at analyzing the applicability and the potential improvement in dispute settlement procedures in FTAs targeted at the preferential RoO. By exploring three dispute cases involving the preferential RoO, it is suggested that restrictiveness, complexity, and uncertainty that are inherent in the preferential RoO may trigger political tension and dispute. Forming a panel that is capable of mitigating political tension, facilitating participation and early cooperation of experts and stakeholders, and establishing a well-structured enforcement procedure are essential in dispute settlement procedures to resolve disputes involving cases on RoO. Furthermore, the current dispute settlement procedure that hinders the private sector's access should be changed to one that is more open to private sector entities, such as companies, to facilitate the enforcement of the decision. Given that more improved FTA dispute settlement procedure may guarantee the enforcement and application of the FTA preferential treatment in relation with more politically powerful states and foster genuine free trades, more in-depth studies must be conducted on this topic.

The Challenge of Arbitral Awards in Pakistan

  • Mukhtar, Sohaib;Mastoi, Shafqat Mahmood Khan
    • 한국중재학회지:중재연구
    • /
    • 제27권1호
    • /
    • pp.37-57
    • /
    • 2017
  • An arbitrator in Pakistan is required to file an arbitral award in a civil court of competent jurisdiction for its recognition and enforcement if an arbitral award is domestic or before the concerned High Court if the arbitral award is international. The court of law is required to issue a decree upon submitted arbitral award if an interested party do not apply for modification or remission of an arbitral award and do not challenge it for setting it aside or for revocation of its recognition and enforcement within a prescribed time limit. The challenging process of an arbitral award can be started by the aggrieved party of an arbitration agreement at the seat of arbitration or at the place where recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award is sought. The aggrieved party to an arbitration agreement is required to challenge an arbitral award within a prescribed time limit if contracting parties have not excluded the right to challenge an arbitral award. Limitation for challenging an arbitral award in Pakistan is 30 days under article 158 of the Limitation Act 1908, starting from the date of service of notice of filling of an arbitral award before the court of law. Generally, 90 days are given for an appeal against decision of the civil court of law under section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, it is therefore highly recommended that challenging time of an arbitral award should be increased from 30 to 90 days.

한국에서의 외국중재판정의 승인과 집행 (Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards in Korea)

  • 김상호
    • 한국중재학회지:중재연구
    • /
    • 제17권3호
    • /
    • pp.3-30
    • /
    • 2007
  • The New York Convention(formally called "United Nations Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards") done in New York on June 10, 1958 has been adhered to by more than 140 States at the time of this writing, including almost all important trading nations from the Capitalist and Socialist World as well as many developing countries. The Convention can be considered as the most important Convention in the field of arbitration and as the cornerstone of current international commercial arbitration. Korea has acceded to the New York Convention since 1973. When acceding to the Convention, Korea declared that it will apply the Convention to the recognition and enforcement of awards made only in the territory of another Contracting State on the basis of reciprocity. Also, Korea declared that it will apply the Convention only to differences arising out of legal relationships, whether contractual or not, which are considered as commercial under the national law of Korea. The provisions relating to the enforcement of arbitral awards falling under the New York Convention begin at Article III. The Article III contains the general obligation for the Contracting States to recognize Convention awards as binding and to enforce them in accordance with their rules of procedure. The Convention requires a minimum of conditions to be fulfilled by the party seeking enforcement. According to Article IV(1), that party has only to supply (1) the duly authenticated original award or a duly certified copy thereof, and (2) the original arbitration agreement or a duly certified copy thereof. In fulfilling these conditions, the party seeking enforcement produces prima facie evidence entitling it to obtain enforcement of the award. It is then up to the other party to prove that enforcement should not be granted on the basis of the grounds for refusal of enforcement enumerated in the subsequent Article V(1). Grounds for refusal of enforcement are stipulated in Article V is divided into two parts. Firstly, listed in the first Para. of Article V are the grounds for refusal of enforcement which are to be asserted and proven by the respondent. Secondly, listed in Para. 2 of Article V, are the grounds on which a court may refuse enforcement on its own motion. These grounds are non-arbitrability of the subject matter and violation of the public policy of the enforcement country. The three main features of the grounds for refusal of enforcement of an award under Article V, which are almost unanimously affirmed by the courts, are the following. Firstly, The grounds for refusal of enforcement mentioned in Article V are exhaustive. No other grounds can be invoked. Secondly, and this feature follows from the first one, the court before which enforcement of the award is sought may not review the merits of the award because a mistake in fact or law by the arbitrators is not included in the list of grounds for refusal of enforcement set forth in Article V. Thirdly, the party against whom enforcement is sought has the burden of proving the existence of one or more of the grounds for refusal of enforcement. The grounds for refusal of enforcement by a court on its own motion, listed in the second Para. of Article V, are non-arbitrability of the subject matter and public policy of the enforcement country. From the court decisions reported so far at home and abroad, it appears that courts accept a violation of public policy in extreme cases only, and frequently justify their decision by distinguishing between domestic and international public policy. The Dec. 31, 1999 amendment to the Arbitration Act of Korea admits the basis for enforcement of foreign arbitral awards rendered under the New York Convention. In Korea, a holder of a foreign arbitral award is obliged to request from the court a judgment ordering enforcement of the award.

  • PDF

부산항 물동량 처리를 위한 광역배후수송도로의 건설계획과 시행실태 분석 (Analysis of the Construction Plan and Enforcement Condition of the Port Circular Highway for Cargo Transportation of the Pusan Port)

    • 한국항만학회지
    • /
    • 제13권2호
    • /
    • pp.313-322
    • /
    • 1999
  • Pusan the principal port of South Korea, has opened its door since 1876. Currently, the four-stage port construction project is under way to handle ever-growing marine transportation volume. While the port unloading capabilities are increasing the infrastructure to deal with all the transportation volume failed to catch up with them. Accordingly the city had to suffer from worst traffic congestion on due to the increasing container traffic volume causing logistical costs to rise. This study was designed to inspect the enforcement of infrastructure construction plan and suggest systematical and effective ways to improve the plan. The study focused on :\circled1The decision-making procedure, \circled2Financial resource for the plan, \circled3Effectiveness of the project enforcement, and \circled4Who will be in charge of the project. As a result from the study, these followings were suggested to improve the plan. First, Pusan Port Infrastructure consisting of (Inter-city Free way, Belt Highway and Outer Highway) should be immediately legally-regulation project. Second, the method to finance the project should be deter-mined and investment consultation among the central government the city government and private sector should be also made. Measures to make the central government budget allocation for the project mandatory should be discussed. Third, Effectiveness of the project can be doubled by gradually or partialyl opening the routes based on long-term or short-term operating plans. Fourth, The organizer of the project should be appointed, or a special task-force team in charge of the plan can be formed.

  • PDF

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

서울시 환경영향평가 제도에 대한 연구 (A Study on Environmental Impact Assessment System of Seoul City)

  • 김임순;한상욱
    • 환경영향평가
    • /
    • 제16권6호
    • /
    • pp.467-483
    • /
    • 2007
  • Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is a kind of planning technique to seek ways to minimize environmental impact, a scheme to encourage sustainable development. With the launch of the Ministry of Environment in 1980, the EIA was introduced in Korea. Its full operation was initially driven by regulations on documenting EIA reports in 1981, which was piloted as a decision-making scheme where final decision were made at the development department after considering opinions suggested by the Ministry of Environment. At that time, dominance of the economic logic overwhelmed environ-friendly opinions, but thanks to the fourth revision of the Environmental Conservation Law in 1986, private projects came to be included on the EIA list. This was a turning point for the EIA to become a regulatory system. Local governments are also conducting the EIA regardless of the national-level EIA. In order to prevent and resolve increasingly severe environmental problems in Seoul in advance due to various construction projects, the Seoul Metropolitan Government, for the first time as a local government in Korea, legislated city decrees to introduce the EIA which has been underway from September 1, 2002. In particular, the Seoul government, unlike the Ministry of Environment, has included construction works on the list of evaluation projects, adopting the scoping and screen procedure scheme. In addition, complementing operational setbacks, the city government has revised and implemented decrees and enforcement laws on the Impact Assessment on Environment, Transportation and Disasters by shortening the consultation period, eliminating the submission of reports on construction, and expanding the waiver requirements in consultation over the reports. Therefore, development measures for the EIA scheme of the Seoul Metropolitan Government will be the target of the research. To that end, the up-to-date data of the Ministry of Environment, the Seoul government and local governments was collected, and latest materials from the EU, previous research and the Internet were gathered for analyses. By doing so, the flow of the EIA was reviewed, and the EIA schemes of local governments under the national EIA were analyzed. Furthermore, based on the Seoul government's recent data on the EIA based on the decrees, the background and legislation of the Seoul government's EIA were analyzed along with the developments for the environmental organizations. Setbacks were derived from the implementation period, evaluation procedures, consultation period and details of the EIA, and corresponding development measures were proposed.